There's no such thing in nature. Proteins don't "decide" to evolve, and DNA doesn't "decide" to mutate. All evolution happens because of random mutations in DNA.
I don't quite believe you. Start from this:
In the case of influenza, mutations happen at an extremely rapid rate: the influenza genome is made of single-stranded RNA (no backup copy) and is copied by a viral transcriptase without the aid of any proofreading enzymes
The "decision" is in the algorithm - in how mutation can happen. I don't think we really know it works entirely. We know that because of a lack of certain enzymes, mutation is more likely, but are certain sections of the DNA more susceptable to mutation than others? Further, are there less redundancies in one area than in another that wuold therefore mean that some mutations are more likely than others?
Given what has been said about M2, I'd guess that the answer to one of those last two questions must be yes. The mutation algorithm (i.e. natural selection, redundancy, and all that) "decides" that certain bits of the cell really need to be left alone, while other bits can be tweaked because its possible that a lot of values may produce good results.
It's got a cell processor, and it's a video game system. Do you think that there are a lot of other video game systems with a processor that complicated? For that matter, there aren't a lot of general purpose computers with that kind of power.
While I really hope that it isn't successful (mostly because I want the video game designers driving the video game industry, not the hardware designers), I can't argue that it's a new kind of thing.
They want you loosed! Free from the confinement imposed by non-mobile phones. And being loosed is no reason to find a new cell phone service. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can stazt dealing with problems caused by cell-phones.
Charging you for ads that they make money on is a problem to switch companies, of course, but that's something that you should worry about after you realize that you've been loosed from the confinement imposed by traditional phones. I don't really think you're ready for that yet.
You've got to crawl before you can walk. Deal with being loosed first.
Once I get my media server back I'll be installing the web based control software and then figuring out how to get the old XP MCE based software to install on Vista.
I'm doing it myself because I'm a geek (saying that while posting on/. is redundant, right?) and actually I'd like to start doing it professionally.
So you're going to buy essentially premade stuff and install it using the constraints given to you by the makers of the software. Can't think of a more un-geeklike way of going about it. Using Vista isn't a point to your credit, either.
A geekier thing would be to use Mister House at the very least...making the control system an old PC would make this even better.
You also lose a few geek points for using hardware you didn't design yourself, and for using newer, more expensive equipment (geeks design on a budget, which in this case would be buying the much cheaper X10 hardware).
All in all, I'd say you're operating a lot closer to a geek-squad member than an actual geek. But they stay in business.
If it's new enough, even low-skill work can be high paying.
Next up, a new-fangled serial interface that can do over 10MB/sec, a new optical technology that can read and burn data using a laser (to store around 9GB of data/disc), and a new kind of wireless communication to use your phone over the internet!
you have an OS where native applications have to be written in C (with a plathora of inconsistent although good C++ frameworks), with a somewhat quirky event handling model
I think the reason it all still works is because it's mostly a batch-based operating system. That level of simplicity makes it easy to not have, for example, deadlocking problems. In other words, I don't really think it's a good thing. It still runs old stuff because things can't change very well.
The upgrade away from palm by palm itself is because the OS can't do things that it should be able to precisely because of its architecture, and probably why they're willing to sell it like that.
The real flaw of SOAP comes out when you are using a language that has SOAP support built-in. It makes you think that you can write cross-platform web services with it, when in reality, you can only write them for your language/platform of choice.
Your example shows exactly how this is true.
While SOAP has types built-in, the only collections supported by all platforms are arrays of primitives, which means that you have to write serializers for any collection types (such as, for example, HashMaps/Associative Arrays, Lists, and Sets) that you want to use in *all* the languages you want to make it available to.
Further, not all the implementations support envelopes quite the same, so can't depend on using that technique to send binary data.
These things are, in general, *necessary* to serialize a given object. I'd prefer that you could assign types to these, but you can live without that.
For my money, therefore, XML-RPC is far superior. You get collections (even if they don't have everything you want), and it *works everywhere* (though you do have to Base64 encode your binary data).
It's not perfect, though. For me, the perfect RPC protocol would allow for OOP, and have built in support for these primitives: date, time, int, long, double, float, byte, byteArray (binary data), type (i.e. an enumerator that indicates one of the existing types), pointer (reference to other parts of the data) and these collections: ordered list, unordered list, ordered set, unordered set, and associative arrays (ordered and not)
Of course, just supporting the ordered variety would do the trick. It's easy to ignore an order, after all. You *could* do everything using just the primitives with pointers, but that's *WAY* too difficult for humans to read.
In addition, it would have to have a binary, non XML-mode and an XML mode.
Support for generics and class declarations should also be built in to the interface definition language for this.
That'd be just about exactly what I'd need to use any remote object or function in any language that I use. It seems pretty simple to me, and easy to map into pretty much any programming language.
Anybody know of anything close yet? Despite SOAP's extreme complexity, I don't think that it supports that stuff even now. It just doesn't seem like it should be that hard.
A good deed is its own reward - even for companies.
If you don't believe that, believe this - respect has monetary value. It affects who will buy, the price of stocks, the confidence of shareholders, and lots of other unmentioned things. By doing this, Opera buys themselves some respect for fairly cheap which they can cash in later at a premium.
That's pretty subjective. I'd put Battlestar Gallactica on the opposite end of the spectrum from Farscape because of the camera work.
I'd just be starting to get into it and then, bam! shakey-camera-vision reminds me that I'm watching a TV show with intentionally bad camera work. And since that happens every three minutes or so, I have to give up every ten or so. I am aware that there are those who don't mind this. I am not one of them.
You must have the same problem with puppet vision. Barring the puppets, I liked Farscape a lot. It was a bit droll at times, and something closer to fantasy than Sci-Fi, but I thought it was good.
So...I guess I'd put it somewhere in the "3" ranking (i.e., not quite as good as Farscape, but much better than Battlestar Gallactica).
VLC is a very significant piece of software, not just for Linux users (for whom its especially significant)
Actually, I'd say that it isn't particularly significant for Linux users. In terms of featues and maturity, VLC is a step backwards compared to mplayer. However, mplayer has a lot of posix/linux kernel/gcc optimization tricks. It is designed and tested on Linux.
VLC, on the other hand, works fine with pretty much all of its features even on Windows and Mac, and it's portable - i.e. you can put it on a CD-Rom drive and use it to show whatever videos you've got there.
Ultimately, I think that the important issue is that it brings to all non-Linux users the codec support that mplayer has enjoyed for several years, and spurs further codec development, and starts people thinking abuot the important fact that a modern media player should be able to handle all possible media.
There are several storytelling conventions in cinema, namely, computers make beeping noises when their graphics change. Though most computers don't now, they used to, and the convention was started around the time
At the time of that movie, most computers didn't have the ability to make sounds at all, and even fewer had graphics. It was all text and more text. I'm sure that there was a traceable moment when someone thought of doing that, but don't think that it's a reflection of reality.
These little "helpers" have been around for a lot longer than computers. There was a time that most plays ended with the gods coming out and making everything better. Like Deus Ex Machina, It's a crutch to support a bad design - like the non-instantaneous phone-tracing, and having the characters think aloud as a form of exposition. Realism is part of good story-telling, and all these things take away more than they add. There are other ways of doing it.
Along these lines, I could show you footage of a computer screen and give you nothing but a fan whirr, and you'd be bored and immediately looking around the room,
Okay, so you need sound. You've got a few real ones to work with - keyboards make sound. Mice make sound. And then there's that whole "soundtrack" thing you can work with - you can time the things that are happening in the music to accentuate what's happening on the screen. I've seen quite a few movies that let the soundtrack swell as the detective surfs.
Unlike the other unreal things I mentioned, most people have a computer, and most people know how they work. You're going to hit a lot more disbelief if you fake a computer than you are if you fake a phone trace, so it's worthwhile to get rid of that cinematic crutch.
The Newton method is something generally taught in trigonometry in high school. At least, it was taught to me, and I was going to school in Florida, which is a low man on the totem pole.
If you went to high school, took trig, and don't remember, then I'd say you probably don't remember much of it.
You've joined the ranks of Mozilla Firebird, and Jetty, the Tads Virtual Machine by trying to make a new project with exactly the same name as an already existing, extremely popular project.
How about you rename it to something that isn't taken?
No? The professional version is to be exactly as secure and not less exploitable than the home version?
That doesn't make sense. I would think that there'd be a lot stricter separation between users/user programs in the business editions than there would be in the home editions - therefore making exploits of the OS more difficult.
Because you're more likely to have multiple VMs on the same machine once you can.
All of a sudden, a security hole in Vista and in VMWare is an exploit in a Linux VM.
All OSes running on the same box are equally secure if there's an exploit in the VM management software.
That's only one issue. The other is in the idea that a VM is a sandbox - which it should be. If it is, then you can go ahead and give an untrusted user such a box, and if they screw it up, then they're the only ones who suffer. Obviously this is not the case in this new instance. This is probably the only situation you're thinking about. All the other possibilities for exploits are based around the fact that the user/administrator of the machine is trusted - so that an exploit of the guest OS is required before an exploit of the host OS.
The third possibility, and the one that deals with the wierd situation you seem to be thinking of setting up in your first question (there's only one VM for your VM server), presents the risk of privilege escalation without going through a Windows vulnerability at all. If, for example, there's an exploitable bug in the design of one of the externally viewable virtual devices you might get something like that.
One actual, real, bonafide concern that comes to mind is the possibility of an exploit in the guest OS allowing it to escalate privileges.
Of course, you only have to worry about this if the main OS is captured, which is a lot more likely with something that's tied down badly. People in this thread are treating VMware like a possible security solution...what if it isn't ready for that yet?
Of course, I can't help but think that "Virtual Machines aren't ready" is MS's way of saying, "Our virtual machine product isn't ready and if we let everybody use someone else's we won't get dominance of this emerging market."
Do you think that's enough? I think this is at least a triple duh. I might even go so far as to skip right over quadruple duh and put it into the pentupal duh category.
I wouldn't call it a sextuple duh, though. That's just being silly.
Based on that obvious eventuality, I've been hard at work attempting to create Tom-Toms. I've developed a two-step plan towards this end:
1) Breed goats to produce giant goats; breed chickens to produce giant chickens. As a test, also procede to step #2 with regular chickens and goats. 2) Crossbreed chickens and goats.
I know it seems simple, since there's only two steps...unfortunately, I keep running into technical problems - especially with step #2. Fortunately, though, I've got some goat costumes for chickens on order from ebay, and a lot of alcohol, so this will hopefully help.
So far the best I've been able to do is glue tiny horns onto one of the chickens. I'm sure that's not right, though, because it smells better on the inside than it does on the outside.
After all, what is the opposite of "Liberal"? Not "Conservative", but presumably "Illiberal", i.e. somebody who wants to prevent people from doing what they want.
I'm afraid not. Liberal and conservative are both terms used to describe distribution of something. Haven't you ever heard something like "apply liberally to affected region" or "caution: may burn; apply conservatively?" From the very meaning of the words you can hopefully see that these are both about economics in relation to government. Both asking, "how do we spend?" It has long been thought that you can derive all of a political view from this, but I think it's time to use more to talk about it. Mostly because you can spend in a way that supports either of the other two terms you were actually comparing.
The terms you're thinking of are "libertarian," (allowing people to do whatever they want/against government regulation) and it's counterpoint "authoritarian" (preventing people from doing what they want/for government regulation).
Initially, these had to be linked because everyone who wanted more regulation also wanted some way to pay for it. So liberal implied more taxes. Today we spend money we don't have, so you can be against taxes and still be for spending.
I don't think these terms actually apply very well anymore. Both of the main parties seem very authoritarian and very liberal (remember, this means "they spend a lot").
And this is just the tip of the iceberg! Have you seen what you can do with latest Mindstorms? The technology behind Lego is as far beyond the original Technic as Legos are beyond lincoln logs.
1. Marijuana -- The State says what you can put into your body (doing no crime to no one else), probably funded by the big medical business
You know, you're generally not allowed to operate heavy machinery and drink. You must be sober. The problem with every single one of the druges listed is that, unlike alcohol some of the effects stick around. Taking your argument then - that the goal is to hurt only yourself, and not other people, we have to account for situations where someone who is lacking in mental facilities might have trouble:
-You never work in an environment that affects others -You are never responsible for anyone else's welfare -You never drive, or operate any other equipment -You are not allowed into the majority of museums/parks/etc (places that have nice things for everyone to look at that you might break). -You are not allowed within touching distance of fragile people - i.e. the very young and the very old. -Anyone who you hang around has been given special training and is able to handle you without getting hurt.
It could work out, but it couldn't work the way you may be thinking. You can't have your cake and eat it to; if you're taking drugs, then people can't trust you. Realistically, this is too much to take. Virtually no one is willing to trade the life of a normal human being for the opportunity to take as many drugs as they want - and the ones that do aren't thinking clearly about it. So rather than legalizing and religating drug users to a sub-human status, we make it illegal. To me it seems like a kinder, more merciful solution than the alternative.
The bad guys have orders of magnitude more money behind them then the good guys, it's obvious who will win.
I'm confused. Microsoft has more money than the hackers...Microsoft is the bad guy? But aren't hackers bad?
So...who are the good people? Victims of botnet attacks? They may have less money of their own, but they do have Microsoft and the federal government of many countries on their side.
So the good people might not be able to win, but they've got bad people of their own.:)
I don't think it matters, though. Having money is not enough when one vulnerability is enough to make the internet equivalent of a WMD. Finding 1 bug that breaks the app is cheap; finding all of them is horrendously expensive.
The grass in my yard is named after the location it comes from, and it comes from South Florida. Some people have irrigation systems for the dry season, but the grass will recover from any loss during the dry season even if you leave it alone. It has to get so scorching as to be dangerous for people before it'll really hurt the grass. It grows here naturally.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no such thing in nature. Proteins don't "decide" to evolve, and DNA doesn't "decide" to mutate. All evolution happens because of random mutations in DNA.
I don't quite believe you. Start from this:
In the case of influenza, mutations happen at an extremely rapid rate: the influenza genome is made of single-stranded RNA (no backup copy) and is copied by a viral transcriptase without the aid of any proofreading enzymes
The "decision" is in the algorithm - in how mutation can happen. I don't think we really know it works entirely. We know that because of a lack of certain enzymes, mutation is more likely, but are certain sections of the DNA more susceptable to mutation than others? Further, are there less redundancies in one area than in another that wuold therefore mean that some mutations are more likely than others?
Given what has been said about M2, I'd guess that the answer to one of those last two questions must be yes. The mutation algorithm (i.e. natural selection, redundancy, and all that) "decides" that certain bits of the cell really need to be left alone, while other bits can be tweaked because its possible that a lot of values may produce good results.
It's got a cell processor, and it's a video game system. Do you think that there are a lot of other video game systems with a processor that complicated? For that matter, there aren't a lot of general purpose computers with that kind of power.
While I really hope that it isn't successful (mostly because I want the video game designers driving the video game industry, not the hardware designers), I can't argue that it's a new kind of thing.
Unlike nearly everything else on that list.
They want you loosed! Free from the confinement imposed by non-mobile phones. And being loosed is no reason to find a new cell phone service. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can stazt dealing with problems caused by cell-phones.
Charging you for ads that they make money on is a problem to switch companies, of course, but that's something that you should worry about after you realize that you've been loosed from the confinement imposed by traditional phones. I don't really think you're ready for that yet.
You've got to crawl before you can walk. Deal with being loosed first.
Once I get my media server back I'll be installing the web based control software and then figuring out how to get the old XP MCE based software to install on Vista.
/. is redundant, right?) and actually I'd like to start doing it professionally.
I'm doing it myself because I'm a geek (saying that while posting on
So you're going to buy essentially premade stuff and install it using the constraints given to you by the makers of the software. Can't think of a more un-geeklike way of going about it. Using Vista isn't a point to your credit, either.
A geekier thing would be to use Mister House at the very least...making the control system an old PC would make this even better.
You also lose a few geek points for using hardware you didn't design yourself, and for using newer, more expensive equipment (geeks design on a budget, which in this case would be buying the much cheaper X10 hardware).
All in all, I'd say you're operating a lot closer to a geek-squad member than an actual geek. But they stay in business.
If it's new enough, even low-skill work can be high paying.
Like this.
Next up, a new-fangled serial interface that can do over 10MB/sec, a new optical technology that can read and burn data using a laser (to store around 9GB of data/disc), and a new kind of wireless communication to use your phone over the internet!
Astounding and amazing new things!
you have an OS where native applications have to be written in C (with a plathora of inconsistent although good C++ frameworks), with a somewhat quirky event handling model
I think the reason it all still works is because it's mostly a batch-based operating system. That level of simplicity makes it easy to not have, for example, deadlocking problems. In other words, I don't really think it's a good thing. It still runs old stuff because things can't change very well.
The upgrade away from palm by palm itself is because the OS can't do things that it should be able to precisely because of its architecture, and probably why they're willing to sell it like that.
The real flaw of SOAP comes out when you are using a language that has SOAP support built-in. It makes you think that you can write cross-platform web services with it, when in reality, you can only write them for your language/platform of choice.
Your example shows exactly how this is true.
While SOAP has types built-in, the only collections supported by all platforms are arrays of primitives, which means that you have to write serializers for any collection types (such as, for example, HashMaps/Associative Arrays, Lists, and Sets) that you want to use in *all* the languages you want to make it available to.
Further, not all the implementations support envelopes quite the same, so can't depend on using that technique to send binary data.
These things are, in general, *necessary* to serialize a given object. I'd prefer that you could assign types to these, but you can live without that.
For my money, therefore, XML-RPC is far superior. You get collections (even if they don't have everything you want), and it *works everywhere* (though you do have to Base64 encode your binary data).
It's not perfect, though. For me, the perfect RPC protocol would allow for OOP, and have built in support for these primitives:
date, time, int, long, double, float, byte, byteArray (binary data), type (i.e. an enumerator that indicates one of the existing types), pointer (reference to other parts of the data)
and these collections:
ordered list, unordered list, ordered set, unordered set, and associative arrays (ordered and not)
Of course, just supporting the ordered variety would do the trick. It's easy to ignore an order, after all. You *could* do everything using just the primitives with pointers, but that's *WAY* too difficult for humans to read.
In addition, it would have to have a binary, non XML-mode and an XML mode.
Support for generics and class declarations should also be built in to the interface definition language for this.
That'd be just about exactly what I'd need to use any remote object or function in any language that I use. It seems pretty simple to me, and easy to map into pretty much any programming language.
Anybody know of anything close yet? Despite SOAP's extreme complexity, I don't think that it supports that stuff even now. It just doesn't seem like it should be that hard.
A good deed is its own reward - even for companies.
If you don't believe that, believe this - respect has monetary value. It affects who will buy, the price of stocks, the confidence of shareholders, and lots of other unmentioned things. By doing this, Opera buys themselves some respect for fairly cheap which they can cash in later at a premium.
That's pretty subjective. I'd put Battlestar Gallactica on the opposite end of the spectrum from Farscape because of the camera work.
I'd just be starting to get into it and then, bam! shakey-camera-vision reminds me that I'm watching a TV show with intentionally bad camera work. And since that happens every three minutes or so, I have to give up every ten or so. I am aware that there are those who don't mind this. I am not one of them.
You must have the same problem with puppet vision. Barring the puppets, I liked Farscape a lot. It was a bit droll at times, and something closer to fantasy than Sci-Fi, but I thought it was good.
So...I guess I'd put it somewhere in the "3" ranking (i.e., not quite as good as Farscape, but much better than Battlestar Gallactica).
VLC is a very significant piece of software, not just for Linux users (for whom its especially significant)
Actually, I'd say that it isn't particularly significant for Linux users. In terms of featues and maturity, VLC is a step backwards compared to mplayer. However, mplayer has a lot of posix/linux kernel/gcc optimization tricks. It is designed and tested on Linux.
VLC, on the other hand, works fine with pretty much all of its features even on Windows and Mac, and it's portable - i.e. you can put it on a CD-Rom drive and use it to show whatever videos you've got there.
Ultimately, I think that the important issue is that it brings to all non-Linux users the codec support that mplayer has enjoyed for several years, and spurs further codec development, and starts people thinking abuot the important fact that a modern media player should be able to handle all possible media.
There are several storytelling conventions in cinema, namely, computers make beeping noises when their graphics change. Though most computers don't now, they used to, and the convention was started around the time
At the time of that movie, most computers didn't have the ability to make sounds at all, and even fewer had graphics. It was all text and more text. I'm sure that there was a traceable moment when someone thought of doing that, but don't think that it's a reflection of reality.
These little "helpers" have been around for a lot longer than computers. There was a time that most plays ended with the gods coming out and making everything better. Like Deus Ex Machina, It's a crutch to support a bad design - like the non-instantaneous phone-tracing, and having the characters think aloud as a form of exposition. Realism is part of good story-telling, and all these things take away more than they add. There are other ways of doing it.
Along these lines, I could show you footage of a computer screen and give you nothing but a fan whirr, and you'd be bored and immediately looking around the room,
Okay, so you need sound. You've got a few real ones to work with - keyboards make sound. Mice make sound. And then there's that whole "soundtrack" thing you can work with - you can time the things that are happening in the music to accentuate what's happening on the screen. I've seen quite a few movies that let the soundtrack swell as the detective surfs.
Unlike the other unreal things I mentioned, most people have a computer, and most people know how they work. You're going to hit a lot more disbelief if you fake a computer than you are if you fake a phone trace, so it's worthwhile to get rid of that cinematic crutch.
The Newton method is something generally taught in trigonometry in high school. At least, it was taught to me, and I was going to school in Florida, which is a low man on the totem pole.
If you went to high school, took trig, and don't remember, then I'd say you probably don't remember much of it.
Okay! Here's some help.
You've joined the ranks of Mozilla Firebird, and Jetty, the Tads Virtual Machine by trying to make a new project with exactly the same name as an already existing, extremely popular project.
How about you rename it to something that isn't taken?
GINAC=>GINAC is not a computer algebra system
Step #1 of picking a name for any OSS is looking for it on Google.
Then again, the main reason sited for not liking it in the US is that the silver dollar looks too much like a quarter.
People are used to having distinct sizes and shapes on their change even if they're not on their money, and it's not happening there.
No? The professional version is to be exactly as secure and not less exploitable than the home version?
That doesn't make sense. I would think that there'd be a lot stricter separation between users/user programs in the business editions than there would be in the home editions - therefore making exploits of the OS more difficult.
Why is this not so?
Because you're more likely to have multiple VMs on the same machine once you can.
All of a sudden, a security hole in Vista and in VMWare is an exploit in a Linux VM.
All OSes running on the same box are equally secure if there's an exploit in the VM management software.
That's only one issue. The other is in the idea that a VM is a sandbox - which it should be. If it is, then you can go ahead and give an untrusted user such a box, and if they screw it up, then they're the only ones who suffer. Obviously this is not the case in this new instance. This is probably the only situation you're thinking about. All the other possibilities for exploits are based around the fact that the user/administrator of the machine is trusted - so that an exploit of the guest OS is required before an exploit of the host OS.
The third possibility, and the one that deals with the wierd situation you seem to be thinking of setting up in your first question (there's only one VM for your VM server), presents the risk of privilege escalation without going through a Windows vulnerability at all. If, for example, there's an exploitable bug in the design of one of the externally viewable virtual devices you might get something like that.
You see the problems now?
One actual, real, bonafide concern that comes to mind is the possibility of an exploit in the guest OS allowing it to escalate privileges.
Of course, you only have to worry about this if the main OS is captured, which is a lot more likely with something that's tied down badly. People in this thread are treating VMware like a possible security solution...what if it isn't ready for that yet?
Of course, I can't help but think that "Virtual Machines aren't ready" is MS's way of saying, "Our virtual machine product isn't ready and if we let everybody use someone else's we won't get dominance of this emerging market."
duh. in fact, double duh.
Do you think that's enough? I think this is at least a triple duh. I might even go so far as to skip right over quadruple duh and put it into the pentupal duh category.
I wouldn't call it a sextuple duh, though. That's just being silly.
Based on that obvious eventuality, I've been hard at work attempting to create Tom-Toms.
I've developed a two-step plan towards this end:
1) Breed goats to produce giant goats; breed chickens to produce giant chickens. As a test, also procede to step #2 with regular chickens and goats.
2) Crossbreed chickens and goats.
I know it seems simple, since there's only two steps...unfortunately, I keep running into technical problems - especially with step #2. Fortunately, though, I've got some goat costumes for chickens on order from ebay, and a lot of alcohol, so this will hopefully help.
So far the best I've been able to do is glue tiny horns onto one of the chickens. I'm sure that's not right, though, because it smells better on the inside than it does on the outside.
That's popular opinion. It simplifies things. Broaden yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
After all, what is the opposite of "Liberal"? Not "Conservative", but presumably "Illiberal", i.e. somebody who wants to prevent people from doing what they want.
I'm afraid not. Liberal and conservative are both terms used to describe distribution of something. Haven't you ever heard something like "apply liberally to affected region" or "caution: may burn; apply conservatively?" From the very meaning of the words you can hopefully see that these are both about economics in relation to government. Both asking, "how do we spend?" It has long been thought that you can derive all of a political view from this, but I think it's time to use more to talk about it. Mostly because you can spend in a way that supports either of the other two terms you were actually comparing.
The terms you're thinking of are "libertarian," (allowing people to do whatever they want/against government regulation) and it's counterpoint "authoritarian" (preventing people from doing what they want/for government regulation).
Initially, these had to be linked because everyone who wanted more regulation also wanted some way to pay for it. So liberal implied more taxes. Today we spend money we don't have, so you can be against taxes and still be for spending.
I don't think these terms actually apply very well anymore. Both of the main parties seem very authoritarian and very liberal (remember, this means "they spend a lot").
Just when it got good, they had to stop making that sweet Technic car with four wheel steering and a working gearbox.
This is about like being disappointed that no one now makes your favorite sliderule with the fancy new base 2 logarithms built-in. Why would anyone settle for a model of an RC car with a working gearbox?
And this is just the tip of the iceberg! Have you seen what you can do with latest Mindstorms? The technology behind Lego is as far beyond the original Technic as Legos are beyond lincoln logs.
1. Marijuana -- The State says what you can put into your body (doing no crime to no one else), probably funded by the big medical business
You know, you're generally not allowed to operate heavy machinery and drink. You must be sober. The problem with every single one of the druges listed is that, unlike alcohol some of the effects stick around. Taking your argument then - that the goal is to hurt only yourself, and not other people, we have to account for situations where someone who is lacking in mental facilities might have trouble:
-You never work in an environment that affects others
-You are never responsible for anyone else's welfare
-You never drive, or operate any other equipment
-You are not allowed into the majority of museums/parks/etc (places that have nice things for everyone to look at that you might break).
-You are not allowed within touching distance of fragile people - i.e. the very young and the very old.
-Anyone who you hang around has been given special training and is able to handle you without getting hurt.
It could work out, but it couldn't work the way you may be thinking. You can't have your cake and eat it to; if you're taking drugs, then people can't trust you. Realistically, this is too much to take. Virtually no one is willing to trade the life of a normal human being for the opportunity to take as many drugs as they want - and the ones that do aren't thinking clearly about it. So rather than legalizing and religating drug users to a sub-human status, we make it illegal. To me it seems like a kinder, more merciful solution than the alternative.
The bad guys have orders of magnitude more money behind them then the good guys, it's obvious who will win.
:)
I'm confused. Microsoft has more money than the hackers...Microsoft is the bad guy?
But aren't hackers bad?
So...who are the good people? Victims of botnet attacks?
They may have less money of their own, but they do have Microsoft and the federal government of many countries on their side.
So the good people might not be able to win, but they've got bad people of their own.
I don't think it matters, though. Having money is not enough when one vulnerability is enough to make the internet equivalent of a WMD. Finding 1 bug that breaks the app is cheap; finding all of them is horrendously expensive.
it isn't native
Yes it is.
The grass in my yard is named after the location it comes from, and it comes from South Florida. Some people have irrigation systems for the dry season, but the grass will recover from any loss during the dry season even if you leave it alone. It has to get so scorching as to be dangerous for people before it'll really hurt the grass.
It grows here naturally.