Surely it wouldn't be impossible to design some software to do this? Then it would be much harder to filter these things out (you would probably need some authentication routines like in ssh).
Unfortunately, there'll *always* be someone thick enough to join a band of weirdo rebels. However, I agree that web restrictions won't have the proper effect. It'll only affect normal people; after all, terrorists can always find ways round it, and to encrypt their communications so as to make them unreadable. I suggest looking at the good of the net, rather than the bad: as a network advocating freedom.
It's almost as good as being a Microsoft beta tester - all that new technology, no down sides at all, except that your computer will die on you every five minutes:)
Call me crazy, but if a mobile (cell) phone were to be shielded in some way then the phone would simply increase the power in order to get to get the signal through, giving out the same amount of radiation but with reduced efficiency. The only thing that would be affected would be how long the batteries last.
You're right! Chiu had better get to work on designing a way to transport humans to other planets! "Alex Chiu's Intersteller Transport Device - Overpopulated town? Use Alex Chiu's patented Intersteller Transport device to move the populous to a habitable planet near you!!".
I'm sure, given his successes so far, this would be no trouble: simple reverse the magnetised tachyon energy between the corresponding life-force of other planets and then you will be changed into life-energy that can easily travel between the stars, transforming back into your good old body once you're there. Simple! And simple to make as well - you can make one at home.
Technically it should be impossible to live forever by it's nature, what with the 3rd law of thermodynamics and that, you couldn't really expect anyone to live over 100 billion years or so anyway, but I digress.
Why is it "hersay" to live longer? Your arguement seems along the lines of "If God had wanted us to fly he would have given us wings.", and the same answer applies; "If God had not wanted us to fly/live longer, surely he would not have given us a way and a desire to do so?" Of course, you also seem to protest against flying, which doesn't surprise me much somehow.
And forgive me if I'm wrong, but does the bible actually say "Thou shalt not live forever."
Also, since God is onmiscient and onmipotent, surely it would be impossible to go against God's will? Since he is all-knowing and all-seeing, he must have known how the Universe would all turn out. If the world today isn't exactly what God wanted then why did he make it this way.
I'll stop my ranting now:) and end with a question: where did you dredge up that story about Icarus? Icarus was a ancient greek fictional character that had nothing to do with God, and died only because he failed to heed his father's warning and flew too close to the sun.
I must admit I didn't like Battlebots when I first saw it, compared to the good ol' Robot Wars. Too much WWF style ranting for one, and not enough bare-bones, to the point tech. Nice to know Robot Wars seems to have received a warm welcome over in the US:)
Rather blank and white isn't it? Personally I prefer Turing's way of looking at life: if it acts intelligent, it probably is.
Besides, insects and the like are "programmed" to do specific tasks. A scarab beetle goes through a set routine when checking its nest hole; it has to go through the same routine every time, if it is disturbed while doing it, it does it all over again, regardless of how many times it does it before, and never varying its routine. A "self-aware" animal would probably stop checking after the 10th time of being interrupted.
A few mistakes in that...
on
Solar Sails
·
· Score: 1
Erm... just to point out a few mistakes.
1. Einstein did not prove his theory of relativity
2. In relativity it is only impossible to *accelerate* past the speed of light. Tachyons (particles that travel faster than light) are theoretically possible.
3. 20 years seems a bit low. A human brain would need about 4 million Terabytes of disk space at the absolute minimum. Plus Heisemburgs Uncertainty priciple starts to come into play at brain cell level.
4. The singularity is a nice idea, and may very well be true, but I would think is unlikely to happen in any less than 100-200 years.
5. The best way (IMHO) would be to find a more energy efficient way of bending space-time, rather than travelling really fast. Besides, even if we could travel at the speed of light, it would still takes years of earth time to travel to the stars.
Not really. As a programmer myself I'm less concerned with making something look cool (although that can be fun) as programming something because it's a challenge. That's why hackers hack, and why innovation is so rife in Open Source. What's the challenge programming something that has been done before on the platform? Granted there are different types of program like Vi and Emacs for instance, but they are completely different in form and execution.
Currently quite a lot of projects are for things like browsers, office tools, image manipulation and so forth, but only to fill the gaps currently wide open. Once Linux has the range of programs Windows has I'd be willing to bet a considerable amount that Linux would churn up a lot more unique software.
I wonder why the Americans call American Football "Football", since its not primarily played with the feet. Now American Rugby I could understand, or maybe "Sissy-rugby-with-pads-and-helmets-played-on-astro turf" if I wanted to be flamebait.
Linux backwards? In what way? True, it has a bit of historical baggage, but it seems more adaptable than Windows which has only just struggled out of dos. Most of what could be classed as backward on Unix/Linux is actually rather nice (like shell scripting, console etc.)
On the other hand X Window and the like certainly need to be redone!
True. Still, if EVAS makes enligntenment the fastest desktop around, then just think what it can do for the rest! KDE2, Gnome with Sawfish, et all would run at lightning speed. (Assuming the programmers of this system can be believed!)
Are there any other encyclopedias around for linux? Even so, there's room for open source one with user generated (and checked) articles. The problem with some of the major ones (like a certain one starting with En and ending with Carta) tend to get things wrong, especially regional, non-american stuff.
Galeon: Quick, nice, but crashes more than a blind pilot who's just completed a crash-course in crashing. To resort to (poor) Blackadder style analogies.
Good question. Since putting up chinese characters is, of course, technically feasible for any country's DNS servers etc., then I can't see how the Chinese government expect to do it. They would surely have to rely on the cooperation of every net-enabled country on the planet to outlaw it. And frankly, I can't see many countries wuld make anything but a token effort to prosecute anyone who tries. Still, 'communist' dictatorships have never been high on brains.
(Please excuse any the bad grammar or misspelings)
Slashdot Mirror
Surely it wouldn't be impossible to design some software to do this? Then it would be much harder to filter these things out (you would probably need some authentication routines like in ssh).
Of course! How could I have so blindly worshipped Vi, when Ed is clearly the best? All hail Ed!!
Yep, not too difficult for a terrorist to get hold of encryption from countries other than the US.
Unfortunately, there'll *always* be someone thick enough to join a band of weirdo rebels. However, I agree that web restrictions won't have the proper effect. It'll only affect normal people; after all, terrorists can always find ways round it, and to encrypt their communications so as to make them unreadable. I suggest looking at the good of the net, rather than the bad: as a network advocating freedom.
It's almost as good as being a Microsoft beta tester - all that new technology, no down sides at all, except that your computer will die on you every five minutes :)
Call me crazy, but if a mobile (cell) phone were to be shielded in some way then the phone would simply increase the power in order to get to get the signal through, giving out the same amount of radiation but with reduced efficiency. The only thing that would be affected would be how long the batteries last.
You're right! Chiu had better get to work on designing a way to transport humans to other planets! "Alex Chiu's Intersteller Transport Device - Overpopulated town? Use Alex Chiu's patented Intersteller Transport device to move the populous to a habitable planet near you!!".
I'm sure, given his successes so far, this would be no trouble: simple reverse the magnetised tachyon energy between the corresponding life-force of other planets and then you will be changed into life-energy that can easily travel between the stars, transforming back into your good old body once you're there. Simple! And simple to make as well - you can make one at home.
Technically it should be impossible to live forever by it's nature, what with the 3rd law of thermodynamics and that, you couldn't really expect anyone to live over 100 billion years or so anyway, but I digress.
:) and end with a question: where did you dredge up that story about Icarus? Icarus was a ancient greek fictional character that had nothing to do with God, and died only because he failed to heed his father's warning and flew too close to the sun.
Why is it "hersay" to live longer? Your arguement seems along the lines of "If God had wanted us to fly he would have given us wings.", and the same answer applies; "If God had not wanted us to fly/live longer, surely he would not have given us a way and a desire to do so?" Of course, you also seem to protest against flying, which doesn't surprise me much somehow.
And forgive me if I'm wrong, but does the bible actually say "Thou shalt not live forever."
Also, since God is onmiscient and onmipotent, surely it would be impossible to go against God's will? Since he is all-knowing and all-seeing, he must have known how the Universe would all turn out. If the world today isn't exactly what God wanted then why did he make it this way.
I'll stop my ranting now
- Shade
Ta for the info! I used this algorithm in a program years back, but I forgot the name and have never been able to find it since :)
I must admit I didn't like Battlebots when I first saw it, compared to the good ol' Robot Wars. Too much WWF style ranting for one, and not enough bare-bones, to the point tech. Nice to know Robot Wars seems to have received a warm welcome over in the US :)
I wonder what's if I can make a smaller lzip program. Well, here goes:
:)
#!/bin/sh
$1/dev/null
21 bytes - not including newlines
(note: This program has not been tested)
What?! Linuxy software being turned to the Dark Side? Nooooooooo!!!
:)
Cue Star Wars Scene:
Darth Gates: *wheezing noises* I am your father *more wheezing*
Tux Skyswimmer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
You get the idea
Rather blank and white isn't it? Personally I prefer Turing's way of looking at life: if it acts intelligent, it probably is. Besides, insects and the like are "programmed" to do specific tasks. A scarab beetle goes through a set routine when checking its nest hole; it has to go through the same routine every time, if it is disturbed while doing it, it does it all over again, regardless of how many times it does it before, and never varying its routine. A "self-aware" animal would probably stop checking after the 10th time of being interrupted.
Erm... just to point out a few mistakes.
1. Einstein did not prove his theory of relativity
2. In relativity it is only impossible to *accelerate* past the speed of light. Tachyons (particles that travel faster than light) are theoretically possible.
3. 20 years seems a bit low. A human brain would need about 4 million Terabytes of disk space at the absolute minimum. Plus Heisemburgs Uncertainty priciple starts to come into play at brain cell level.
4. The singularity is a nice idea, and may very well be true, but I would think is unlikely to happen in any less than 100-200 years.
5. The best way (IMHO) would be to find a more energy efficient way of bending space-time, rather than travelling really fast. Besides, even if we could travel at the speed of light, it would still takes years of earth time to travel to the stars.
Not really. As a programmer myself I'm less concerned with making something look cool (although that can be fun) as programming something because it's a challenge. That's why hackers hack, and why innovation is so rife in Open Source. What's the challenge programming something that has been done before on the platform? Granted there are different types of program like Vi and Emacs for instance, but they are completely different in form and execution.
Currently quite a lot of projects are for things like browsers, office tools, image manipulation and so forth, but only to fill the gaps currently wide open. Once Linux has the range of programs Windows has I'd be willing to bet a considerable amount that Linux would churn up a lot more unique software.
I wonder why the Americans call American Football "Football", since its not primarily played with the feet. Now American Rugby I could understand, or maybe "Sissy-rugby-with-pads-and-helmets-played-on-astro turf" if I wanted to be flamebait.
Linux backwards? In what way? True, it has a bit of historical baggage, but it seems more adaptable than Windows which has only just struggled out of dos. Most of what could be classed as backward on Unix/Linux is actually rather nice (like shell scripting, console etc.)
On the other hand X Window and the like certainly need to be redone!
True. Still, if EVAS makes enligntenment the fastest desktop around, then just think what it can do for the rest! KDE2, Gnome with Sawfish, et all would run at lightning speed. (Assuming the programmers of this system can be believed!)
Are there any other encyclopedias around for linux? Even so, there's room for open source one with user generated (and checked) articles. The problem with some of the major ones (like a certain one starting with En and ending with Carta) tend to get things wrong, especially regional, non-american stuff.
Galeon: Quick, nice, but crashes more than a blind pilot who's just completed a crash-course in crashing. To resort to (poor) Blackadder style analogies.
Good question. Since putting up chinese characters is, of course, technically feasible for any country's DNS servers etc., then I can't see how the Chinese government expect to do it. They would surely have to rely on the cooperation of every net-enabled country on the planet to outlaw it. And frankly, I can't see many countries wuld make anything but a token effort to prosecute anyone who tries. Still, 'communist' dictatorships have never been high on brains. (Please excuse any the bad grammar or misspelings)