That depends on what you think the states are. Most people seem to think that the states don't matter, that we're just a nation of homogeneous states. That's simply not the case.
The founders of the nation wanted the union to look and feel like a loose collection of sovereign states, with them competing with each other for your citizenship. The makup of the two houses of Congress reflects that goal. So does the makeup of the electoral college.
With a population-based count (the number of electors that match the number of representative) and a state-based count (the number of electors that match the number of senators), we have a wonderful compromise that gives us the best of both worlds: It allows the more populous states to have more say in an election, and it gives the small, yet still sovereign, states a foothold where they wouldn't otherwise.
Everything affects us. Everything that we see, everything that we do, everything that we hear.
We react to things. Maybe we agree, maybe we disagree. Maybe we decide to learn more. Maybe we decide to shut it out. But all of these things have an effect on us. Whether they change our resultant behavior is the important question.
I personally disagree with the law that was passed. The responsiblity to teach children to react appropriately and responsiblity belongs with the parents, not with the government. Unfortunately, over the last 30 years, U.S. society has adopted the idea that the government is reponsibility for "protecting" our children.
I download a song that I think is a normal song. I find out it's a bunch of noise. I take a look at who the user is and never download anything by that user again.
Even if he registers a bunch of names, there's no way he can keep up.
What? When did we kill forty million people? Did I miss this? Are we talking about the Indians here? Does this mean that we should never have invented syphilis and the compass?
This will get moderated down because it's not popular, but...
I'm talking about all of the abortions since Roe vs. Wade. 35 million people have died as a result of these procedures.
Don't dismiss this as just another wacko pro-life argument. It's specifically life issues that the completion of the Human Genome brings up.
Questions like:
Should a baby be allowed to be brought into the world if it has a known genetic defect as identified through the genome map?
Should someone be denied life-sustaining care if they are genetically predisposed to terminal illnesses?
The U.S. has been very bad in its treatment of life, in general. Our emphasis on rights, personal convenience, and inviduality has been at the expense of a devaluation of life in general.
....
Don't get me wrong - I think that the completion of the Human Genome Project is a really wonderful accomplishment! It's going to create a lot more good than otherwise. But we're gonna have to be really careful about how it's applied and used.
The two biggest things that Berlin seems to add are alpha transparency and 3d rotation of windows. Alpha transparency could be added to X (I'm not sure how easily), but transparent windows are harder to read than non-transparent, because the background is just visual noise. So its no big deal either. And the rotating windows look to be good only for cool demos. Can anyone think of real uses for this stuff?
The first thing that comes to mind for me when I see window managers/graphical systems that have 3D rotated windows is arranging my workspace.
What I mean by that is this: I would place all the windows related to a particular task in one area of space. Others would be placed in another area. When I want to move to a different task, I would just look left or right, maybe move up a bit.
It's similar to the multiple desktops concept that various window managers support (Enlightenment, fvwm and co., etc.) but with even more flexibility. You have all of space to arrange your work. It's similar to the 2D space of your physical desk, but extends in 3D now. It's like having the world's largest desk, with the ability to hang things in the air as well.
Don't have enough room to edit code and also view the web page with the API information? Just put the web page above you. When you need it, just look up.
With a 3D mouse hooked up, this could become very useful!
I have heard about this mouse for a little while now from reading the Apple rumor sites. The sites mention that, in user tests, the mouse has proven very easy to use, with different forces on the mouse being interpreted by software as different inputs.
However, my worry is what a new user will see when they approach the mouse. "Click? Click on what?" or "Press on what? Where?" How is a new user going to know how to make the mouse do what they want without a button visible?
I can also see there being confusion unless there is some kind of tactile feedback that the mouse provides when you "click". Once you start providing some physical feedback, isn't that what a mouse button is right now?
Don't get me wrong - as a fairly competent computer user, I'm looking forward to this mouse. But I'm not sure how novices will approach it.
I have heard about this mouse for a little while now from reading the Apple rumor sites. The sites mention that, in user tests, the mouse has proven very easy to use, with different forces on the mouse being interpreted by software as different inputs.
However, my worry is what a new user will see when they approach the mouse. "Click? Click on what?" or "Press on what? Where?" How is a new user going to know how to make the mouse do what they want without a button visible?
I can also see there being confusion unless there is some kind of tactile feedback that the mouse provides when you "click". Once you start providing some physical feedback, isn't that what a mouse button is right now?
Don't get me wrong - as a fairly competent computer user, I'm looking forward to this mouse. But I'm not sure how novices will approach it.
Heck, X10 (the version before X11, not the home automation system) had transparent windows....you couldn't draw anything on a transparent window, it was just useful for intercepting events.
X11 still has this. They're called InputOnly windows. You cannot draw anything to them. They are only rectangular areas that are useful for capturing events.
Actually X11 has even more than that. With the Shape extension (common pretty much everywhere), individual pixels of windows can be transparent. Note that this isn't "semi-transparent". It's the same as the transparency in GIF images - all on or all off.
There are two issues to debate here. It's important to separate them. Many of the conversation threads seem to be mixing the two issues and confusing the whole debate.
1) Is Napster itself illegal software?
The issue here is whether the company who makes the Napster software is engaging in illegal activities since the software they make aids people who pirate MPEGs.
Personally, my feeling is no, since the same argument that is being used against Napster could be used against any web/ftp client like Netscape or MS/IE.
2) Is downloading MPEGs of copyrighted music illegal?
The issue here is whether the concept of music copyright applies to the online world. Should the copyright of music be applied by the courts to MPEG music.
My personal take on this is, yes, it's illegal to download and use MPEGs of copyrighted music. Even if you are going to be buying the CD later, it's still illegal. You can see this by applying the arguments to more "traditional" media like books or magazines.
Now, all of this is the current state of the law. Whether the status quo is "right" is another issue. Should the definition of what is "legal" be changed? That's a different question.
They would lock you away for operating the computer in such a way that when they went to get evidence, you destroy it. It would be equivalent to shredding documents that were specifically requested by a court subpoena. General-purpose obstruction of justice.
As for hard drive survival, it would depend on how you booby-trapped it. Drives have so many layers of protective metal around them nowadays that the actual platters might survive. The layers of metal might reflect and deflect enough energy to have the platters survive.
genetic algorithms and genetic programming have produced results that are unpredictable, surprising, and we would call them "creative" if a human had come up with them.
The results may be surprising and "creative", but because the results are produced by a computer, the results are by definition predictible. The program that generates them describes exactly what's needed to "predict" the answer.
What Singer is basically advocating is the sentencing of the death penalty to infants. When it's all boiled down, that's what's happening. You choose some criterion: genetic defect, disability, etc. You identify those children that meet that criterion. You then kill those children. What happened to the concept that people have an intrinsic worth unto themselves, and that they must be proven guilty before punishment may be sentenced?
The even scary part is...when do you draw the line? Why not kill off children who would require surgery in the first 3 months of life? They are probably costing the American taxpayers millions of dollars in healthcare for infant health care. Why not just save them from the suffering of surgery, saving dollars while you're at it, and just "euthanize" them?
And where does it end? Should children be "euthanized" if they are born with downs syndrome? What about diabetes? What about children who are born to parents who are on welfare who have more than their "allotted" number of children? What about homosexual children, (assuming that it's a genetic thing)?
The problem with Singer's philosophy is that there is no end. You cannot just limit it to a specific criterion. Once the precident is set for killing off children for a particular reason, the dam is broken, and children will eventually be able to be killed for any reason at all. In essense, "no-fault killing".
"one thing I really *would* like is a completely split keyboard, *completely* so I can put one hand somewhere, and the other completely somewhere else..."
I recently had symptoms of some kind of RSI: numbness and tingling in my forearm and upper arm, shooting pain along nerves, etc. I had an industrial safety technician take a look at my workspace. He suggested all sorts of changes (including getting the cool black chair:-)
One of the changes that he said would be good to do is get a new keyboard. I splurged and got myself an Interfaces Keyboard by Cramer. This thing is wonderful! It's one of those completely split keyboards, where each half sits at the end of your chair arms. It's completely adjustable in terms of placement, tilt, etc. There's a glidepoint built into one of the sides, so my mouse comes with me, too. I currently have the keyboard hooked up to my SGI O2, and I'm never going back.
The story has a happy ending, too. With all of the changes I've made, my symptoms have gone away. It took several weeks, but rather than getting progressively worse, they got progressively better. Until now, I'm typing without pain or numbness at all, at the speeds that I'm used to typing at.
Slashdot Mirror
Little states are, by definition, insignificant.
That depends on what you think the states are. Most people seem to think that the states don't matter, that we're just a nation of homogeneous states. That's simply not the case.
The founders of the nation wanted the union to look and feel like a loose collection of sovereign states, with them competing with each other for your citizenship. The makup of the two houses of Congress reflects that goal. So does the makeup of the electoral college.
With a population-based count (the number of electors that match the number of representative) and a state-based count (the number of electors that match the number of senators), we have a wonderful compromise that gives us the best of both worlds: It allows the more populous states to have more say in an election, and it gives the small, yet still sovereign, states a foothold where they wouldn't otherwise.
C'mon, people.
Everything affects us. Everything that we see, everything that we do, everything that we hear.
We react to things. Maybe we agree, maybe we disagree. Maybe we decide to learn more. Maybe we decide to shut it out. But all of these things have an effect on us. Whether they change our resultant behavior is the important question.
I personally disagree with the law that was passed. The responsiblity to teach children to react appropriately and responsiblity belongs with the parents, not with the government. Unfortunately, over the last 30 years, U.S. society has adopted the idea that the government is reponsibility for "protecting" our children.
Why wouldn't this happen:
I download a song that I think is a normal song. I find out it's a bunch of noise. I take a look at who the user is and never download anything by that user again.
Even if he registers a bunch of names, there's no way he can keep up.
Yes, Nightwatch was exactly what I meant.
It's been too long since the show ended...
Is it my imagination, or does the FIN sound a lot like the Blackwatch organization from Babylon 5?
I wonder if David Boies' new-found fame is allowing him to start taking higher-profile cases? It certainly stands to reason.
It reminds me of Jonnie Cochran (of O.J. fame), though this time the guy is on the side of "good".
What? When did we kill forty million people? Did I miss this? Are we talking about the Indians here? Does this mean that we should never have invented syphilis and the compass?
This will get moderated down because it's not popular, but...
I'm talking about all of the abortions since Roe vs. Wade. 35 million people have died as a result of these procedures.
Don't dismiss this as just another wacko pro-life argument. It's specifically life issues that the completion of the Human Genome brings up.
Questions like:
The U.S. has been very bad in its treatment of life, in general. Our emphasis on rights, personal convenience, and inviduality has been at the expense of a devaluation of life in general.
....
Don't get me wrong - I think that the completion of the Human Genome Project is a really wonderful accomplishment! It's going to create a lot more good than otherwise. But we're gonna have to be really careful about how it's applied and used.
The first thing that comes to mind for me when I see window managers/graphical systems that have 3D rotated windows is arranging my workspace.
What I mean by that is this: I would place all the windows related to a particular task in one area of space. Others would be placed in another area. When I want to move to a different task, I would just look left or right, maybe move up a bit.
It's similar to the multiple desktops concept that various window managers support (Enlightenment, fvwm and co., etc.) but with even more flexibility. You have all of space to arrange your work. It's similar to the 2D space of your physical desk, but extends in 3D now. It's like having the world's largest desk, with the ability to hang things in the air as well.
Don't have enough room to edit code and also view the web page with the API information? Just put the web page above you. When you need it, just look up.
With a 3D mouse hooked up, this could become very useful!
I have heard about this mouse for a little while now from reading the Apple rumor sites. The sites mention that, in user tests, the mouse has proven very easy to use, with different forces on the mouse being interpreted by software as different inputs.
However, my worry is what a new user will see when they approach the mouse. "Click? Click on what?" or "Press on what? Where?" How is a new user going to know how to make the mouse do what they want without a button visible?
I can also see there being confusion unless there is some kind of tactile feedback that the mouse provides when you "click". Once you start providing some physical feedback, isn't that what a mouse button is right now?
Don't get me wrong - as a fairly competent computer user, I'm looking forward to this mouse. But I'm not sure how novices will approach it.
I have heard about this mouse for a little while now from reading the Apple rumor sites. The sites mention that, in user tests, the mouse has proven very easy to use, with different forces on the mouse being interpreted by software as different inputs.
However, my worry is what a new user will see when they approach the mouse. "Click? Click on what?" or "Press on what? Where?" How is a new user going to know how to make the mouse do what they want without a button visible?
I can also see there being confusion unless there is some kind of tactile feedback that the mouse provides when you "click". Once you start providing some physical feedback, isn't that what a mouse button is right now?
Don't get me wrong - as a fairly competent computer user, I'm looking forward to this mouse. But I'm not sure how novices will approach it.
X11 still has this. They're called InputOnly windows. You cannot draw anything to them. They are only rectangular areas that are useful for capturing events.
Actually X11 has even more than that. With the Shape extension (common pretty much everywhere), individual pixels of windows can be transparent. Note that this isn't "semi-transparent". It's the same as the transparency in GIF images - all on or all off.
There are two issues to debate here. It's important to separate them. Many of the conversation threads seem to be mixing the two issues and confusing the whole debate.
1) Is Napster itself illegal software?
The issue here is whether the company who makes the Napster software is engaging in illegal activities since the software they make aids people who pirate MPEGs.
Personally, my feeling is no, since the same argument that is being used against Napster could be used against any web/ftp client like Netscape or MS/IE.
2) Is downloading MPEGs of copyrighted music illegal?
The issue here is whether the concept of music copyright applies to the online world. Should the copyright of music be applied by the courts to MPEG music.
My personal take on this is, yes, it's illegal to download and use MPEGs of copyrighted music. Even if you are going to be buying the CD later, it's still illegal. You can see this by applying the arguments to more "traditional" media like books or magazines.
Now, all of this is the current state of the law. Whether the status quo is "right" is another issue. Should the definition of what is "legal" be changed? That's a different question.
Let's make sure we're debating clearly.
-Sean
They would lock you away for operating the computer in such a way that when they went to get evidence, you destroy it. It would be equivalent to shredding documents that were specifically requested by a court subpoena. General-purpose obstruction of justice.
As for hard drive survival, it would depend on how you booby-trapped it. Drives have so many layers of protective metal around them nowadays that the actual platters might survive. The layers of metal might reflect and deflect enough energy to have the platters survive.
(Not like any of this makes a difference...)
-Sean
I'm also not sure that the platters wouldn't survive, giving services like DriveSavers something to work with.
-Sean
Heck, they even mistyped "phenomena" as "phenomenons".
-Sean
genetic algorithms and genetic programming have produced results that are unpredictable, surprising, and we would call them "creative" if a human had come up with them.
The results may be surprising and "creative", but because the results are produced by a computer, the results are by definition predictible. The program that generates them describes exactly what's needed to "predict" the answer.
What Singer is basically advocating is the sentencing of the death penalty to infants. When it's all boiled down, that's what's happening. You choose some criterion: genetic defect, disability, etc. You identify those children that meet that criterion. You then kill those children. What happened to the concept that people have an intrinsic worth unto themselves, and that they must be proven guilty before punishment may be sentenced?
The even scary part is...when do you draw the line? Why not kill off children who would require surgery in the first 3 months of life? They are probably costing the American taxpayers millions of dollars in healthcare for infant health care. Why not just save them from the suffering of surgery, saving dollars while you're at it, and just "euthanize" them?
And where does it end? Should children be "euthanized" if they are born with downs syndrome? What about diabetes? What about children who are born to parents who are on welfare who have more than their "allotted" number of children? What about homosexual children, (assuming that it's a genetic thing)?
The problem with Singer's philosophy is that there is no end. You cannot just limit it to a specific criterion. Once the precident is set for killing off children for a particular reason, the dam is broken, and children will eventually be able to be killed for any reason at all. In essense, "no-fault killing".
"one thing I really *would* like is a completely split keyboard, *completely* so I can put one hand somewhere, and the other completely somewhere else..."
:-)
I recently had symptoms of some kind of RSI: numbness and tingling in my forearm and upper arm, shooting pain along nerves, etc. I had an industrial safety technician take a look at my workspace. He suggested all sorts of changes (including getting the cool black chair
One of the changes that he said would be good to do is get a new keyboard. I splurged and got myself an Interfaces Keyboard by Cramer. This thing is wonderful! It's one of those completely split keyboards, where each half sits at the end of your chair arms. It's completely adjustable in terms of placement, tilt, etc. There's a glidepoint built into one of the sides, so my mouse comes with me, too. I currently have the keyboard hooked up to my SGI O2, and I'm never going back.
The story has a happy ending, too. With all of the changes I've made, my symptoms have gone away. It took several weeks, but rather than getting progressively worse, they got progressively better. Until now, I'm typing without pain or numbness at all, at the speeds that I'm used to typing at.