What a wonderful way to customize the office. You can have a jungle theme, or an ocean theme. That would be just amazing -- and not to mention quite in tune with our evolution. In a server room for example, it could sound like a bunch of birds in a jungle (for web pages serving up) and for "bizarre" operations like connections to arbitrary ports (ie. portscan) have a tiger roar. It's amazing how well the human ear can pinpoint the location of our natural (ancient) predators. (I can speak for this through experience!)
Red Hat is a publicly traded corporation. Chances are Microsoft and its consituents have significant investment in them already, either directly or through pension plans, or mutual funds, or another form of third party investment. Microsoft isn't stupid - if there was money to be made on Red Hat then there is a good chance that Microsoft would have profited from it indirectly - up to trade laws or injunctions that prohibit such actions for Microsoft (which are weak, and difficult to enforce, respectively).
The problem with this, as was noted on BugTraq, was that MS has a tendancy to remove or move web pages without updating links. The larger problems is that MS is no longer distributing their actual bulletins, rather they are distributing links to their bulletins on their web page. This permits them several acts of deviance, such as changing the bug information or pulling it altogether without notice. Or moving it and having to go through the frustration of finding it again (we've all been there, I think...)
Of late they've improved on the problem of broken links and changing things without notice, but one has to wonder why they are forbidding the distibution of their bulletins. What possible incentive is there other than the fact that they would be able to change their bulletins without notice? This just seems wrong...
The idea of a uniform storage device is interesting in the theory of computing. Buffers and all are great, but could we even think about the way we work with computers the same if they had a uniform storage system. The idea of allocating memory would change from being a buffer to that of temporary calculations, but moreover we would see a dramatic change in the way that the computer would operate - it would be simpler, certainly, but how would you divvy up the storage - all storage would be presumably permanent, so if the power went out, the state would be completely preserved, but if the machine crashed you'd have to reinvent the idea of a reboot to some sort of "intelligent" wiping mechanism, but a lock up would be permanent. (not really, but you understand what I'm getting at)
I agree that it is a scenario unlikely to ever happen, but it has many problems like the one I've mentioned, should the appropriate "perfect" storage technology ever arise. These problems offer us insight into how other things work, and their solutions would perhaps help us predict and design things better in the long term.
The idea of a uniform storage device has been around for a long time. It means quite a number of things, particularly getting rid of buffers as they would no longer be necessary, which also means simpler software and hardware. This assumes one "best" storage device.
Interestingly, the idea of uniform storage isn't used in humans. We have a short term and long term memory - which duals, at least in pedantic respects, that of RAM and magnetic media right now. It will be interesting to see how computers would evolve if all memory was addressable in the exact same direct (in terms of no buffer) mechanism.
One of the things you are getting at is the "lifeboat principle" - that attempting to save everyone sinks the boat and everyone drowns. I agree with this, as immoral as some may consider it. Helping 3rd world countries survive prior to responsible breeding is paramount to cultural and economic suicide, I believe.
As for giving fertility pills for the sake of having children, I think there is a certain amount of satisfaction in ones life, particularly women, in being the bearer of life. It's probably an instinctive (or cultural) desire, so very hard to curb.
Interestingly, I believe that the abolition of contraceptives of the Roman Catholic church is precisely the type of thing that would irk you.:) And I totally agree with that - we don't need more Roman Catholics who believe that contraceptives are wrong having children who are Roman Catholic and believing contraceptives are wrong in any practical scheme of overpopulation control. It's a great economic argument, however, for producing more Roman Catholics...
Of all the fundamental rights we have outlined, I think we really lack the one true freedom: the freedom to die. It's a very controversial topic, but I believe that dying with dignity is better than growing old, weary, and a burden to your loved ones - it is better to be remembered for your strength and gifts to those around you, not your needs to take for mere survival. I completely agree with you - there is a point where burden and suffering outweigh the value of life itself.
Canadians, I'm told, are required to carry a bible into warfare. Just like Canadian hotels are required to have a bible in every room. I don't understand, don't say it's right or wrong, it just seems to be. (Though I am inclined to think it's a tad narrow minded by catering only to the beliefs of Canadian Christians)
We do have gregarious references to "Our Lord" in our legislation, the removal of which was brought up on numerous occasions but has never followed through.
Overpopulation and killing each other. Now, overpopulation is a problem, according to WHO, in 3rd world countries. 1st world countries actually tend to have *decreasing* populations. Our mortality+emmigration rates are higher than birth+immigration rates. So overpopulation is no excuse to curb the examination of the problem of diseases. Also a problem is the forthcoming pandemic that spreads like wild fire over the airlines to every nook and cranny on earth that will likely kill everyone - if unprepared we will likely degenerate to tribal survivors.
Second, us killing each other is a result of religious conflicts 99% of the time, according to UNESCO. Not resource conflicts. Not overpopulation. (Although they would make excellent instigators) I won't even go here: it is almost academic to accept Christianity as the exclusive source of the acceptance and condonement of the rape of nature (God will forgive, we commit no sins that go unforgiven, we are not responsible for our actions, etc., etc., etc.) That's a common argument, not necessarily my own, but it's also quite true, sadly.
The fact that we can *consider* eating our own young to be wrong shows that we have a sense of morality
No, it shows that we can be trained to believe that infanticide is wrong. Anthropological history shows that this was not always the case. In point, many tribes sacrificed children when they were born out of wedlock, of the wrong sex, born into bondage, etc., etc. There is no absolute morality. We don't do things "wrong" because we've been brainwashed to think that these things are wrong and we've closed our minds to the real truth that there is no right and wrong, only perceived right and wrong.
This is somewhat of an interesting topic. Foremost, there is nihilism - the idea that everything is meaningless, and that any fiction "virtue in faith":Christianity or "virtue in reason":Socrates overlaying that meaninglessness is an abstraction that takes us away from reality.
Note: Descarte believed in the other extreme - absolute reason, "I think, therefore I am", and thus eveything is at my beck and call for exploitation. Environmentalists love Descarte.
And although it is true that this nihilism - belief in underlying meaningless - is often associated with Nietzsche (and in particular his sister) and the rise of the Nazi's - the Germans carried Nietzsche's text like Canadians do the Bible - it is a far cry from the only use of the idea of nihilism. In fact, the most popular religion in the world - Buddhism - necessitates the acceptance of nihilism prior to nirvana. So the Nazi argument is quite moot, and there is at least one valid, popular, and "cheerful" interpretation to this nihilism without resorting to Nazi arguments.
Not only that, but perhaps the only undeniable interpretations of existence account for nihilism. Unfortunately there is a fairly open interpretation to what I've written, but there are quite a few books on this (particularly regarding Nietzsche, Buddhism, and combinations of those two). Just thought this might interest you.
My question is, what would happen if we reduced the kinetic energy of the moon so much that the tides became weaker -- what effect would this have on the moon. From what I gather the moon's already on its way into distant space -- would the mass of the planetary oceans being stagnant, rather than chasing the moon around, affect this plight?
In retrospect, we have to wonder what sort of patents this is going to lead to. Not to say that this is a good or bad thing, but I'd like to think that I've already thought of everything to do with oceanographic kinetic-electrical energy transformations already...
:)
Actually, the idea of using air turbines sounds incredibly inefficient. Aren't there better ways of using tidal and wave forces against the force of gravity to produce significantly more resistant (and hence stronger) turbine forces?
Oh, puhlease. MS is offering the same software in either case, merely with two different payment options. One, the traditional "costs too much" payment option, and two, the "ransom" option. The whole idea of software as a service is sort of ludicrous.
I can see it having benefits to consumers as a service if they offer something currently not available to consumers already. For example, of MS backed up office documents online, so you could access them anywhere, that would be a service that could potentially merit subscription.
As for the software itself, I agree that there is no reason to pay for it. In fact, I advocate the right to sue for damages when software doesn't work and it wastes my time. If paying for software gave me this option (which, like anything I purchase, it should), I would gladly pay for it, since it would either work, or I would sue.
Not to sound like the litagation bastard from hell, but I think that the inability or lack of precedence in suing software makers certainly relieves them from the need to produce quality software. (without risk, that is).
Equivalently, I am unable to fix their software. The ability to fix the software myself, as a user, may lend substantial benefit to "open" software solutions, in a defense against non working software that no one profits from. (Good samaritan defense)
It would certainly be beneficial if they had created a.tm domain for trademarks. That would certainly clarify the way trademarks relate to web pages, and could provide a nice niche that prevented corporate trademark overprotection from spreading into comic and unrelated domain names.
A corporation's job is not to win litigation, it is to make money, and making money involves risk assessment. The purpose of litigation by a corporation is to further their economic progress, nothing else. If it is probable that they will fail in their litigation, then it is unlikely that they will commit to it since it is cost.
A corporation cannot claim 5th amendment - AFAIK constitutional rights in the US extend only to humans - corporations can have arbitrary laws forced on them.:)
I bet you vote NDP... (if you don't get that, don't worry...:} ) That aside, the "AFS doesn't do anything" was a without-loss-of-generality conjecture insinuating the uselessness of software without adequate documentation.
Superb documentation. Even if AFS doesn't DO anything, I'm really impressed with the quality and detail of the documentation included with it (well, online, after you "agree" --click-- to a license agreement...)
One of the things nice about what happened here is that a slew of documentation was released with the software - in general, I have noticed relatively sparse documentation around new open software. Not a complaint, just something I noticed.
Actually, this conjecture was proven this summer past. How do I know this? Because we studied it for some time in September. It is an interesting breakthrough, but I seem to recall the conjecture being taken for granted, and thus although more faith can be put into the applications that fall from Carpenter's Rule, nothing new has really been generated, other than proof. Am I being cynical? Yes. We have no proof of gravity's existence in 2 hours, but we take it for granted. Such as it was with Carpenter's Rule (well, maybe hindsight is 20:20, but this is the impression I had of it...)
Speaking as a Newfie, I've never heard aboot. Probably because it's never been said in any natural Newfie context. It's not "What about such-and-such", it's "Wha? Bye, dere's sumthin' up with that thar chummy'".
In fact, during the 17 years I grew up in Newfoundland I cannot ever recall hearing the word about or aboot. Perhaps I lived a sheltered life. But my own Newfie accent (apparent available only when fueled with alcohol) it's closer to abut than aboot or about. (::sigh:: I'm sitting here saying "about" in a rich Newfie accent, and getting wierd looks... go figure )
Actually, one of the more ingenious ideas I've read was to sprinkle black particulate matter on the icecaps, thereby increasing their heat absorption. Since one of the caps is supposedly predominantly carbon dioxide one can presume that melting it would chain-reaction (once a "critical mass" is met, if we cannot find a catalyst) of greenhouse effect
Slashdot Mirror
What a wonderful way to customize the office. You can have a jungle theme, or an ocean theme. That would be just amazing -- and not to mention quite in tune with our evolution. In a server room for example, it could sound like a bunch of birds in a jungle (for web pages serving up) and for "bizarre" operations like connections to arbitrary ports (ie. portscan) have a tiger roar. It's amazing how well the human ear can pinpoint the location of our natural (ancient) predators. (I can speak for this through experience!)
Red Hat is a publicly traded corporation. Chances are Microsoft and its consituents have significant investment in them already, either directly or through pension plans, or mutual funds, or another form of third party investment. Microsoft isn't stupid - if there was money to be made on Red Hat then there is a good chance that Microsoft would have profited from it indirectly - up to trade laws or injunctions that prohibit such actions for Microsoft (which are weak, and difficult to enforce, respectively).
Of late they've improved on the problem of broken links and changing things without notice, but one has to wonder why they are forbidding the distibution of their bulletins. What possible incentive is there other than the fact that they would be able to change their bulletins without notice? This just seems wrong ...
I agree that it is a scenario unlikely to ever happen, but it has many problems like the one I've mentioned, should the appropriate "perfect" storage technology ever arise. These problems offer us insight into how other things work, and their solutions would perhaps help us predict and design things better in the long term.
Interestingly, the idea of uniform storage isn't used in humans. We have a short term and long term memory - which duals, at least in pedantic respects, that of RAM and magnetic media right now. It will be interesting to see how computers would evolve if all memory was addressable in the exact same direct (in terms of no buffer) mechanism.
As for giving fertility pills for the sake of having children, I think there is a certain amount of satisfaction in ones life, particularly women, in being the bearer of life. It's probably an instinctive (or cultural) desire, so very hard to curb.
Interestingly, I believe that the abolition of contraceptives of the Roman Catholic church is precisely the type of thing that would irk you. :) And I totally agree with that - we don't need more Roman Catholics who believe that contraceptives are wrong having children who are Roman Catholic and believing contraceptives are wrong in any practical scheme of overpopulation control. It's a great economic argument, however, for producing more Roman Catholics ...
Of all the fundamental rights we have outlined, I think we really lack the one true freedom: the freedom to die. It's a very controversial topic, but I believe that dying with dignity is better than growing old, weary, and a burden to your loved ones - it is better to be remembered for your strength and gifts to those around you, not your needs to take for mere survival. I completely agree with you - there is a point where burden and suffering outweigh the value of life itself.
I'm Canadian and asking the question any Canadian could answer? Riddle me not that one!
We do have gregarious references to "Our Lord" in our legislation, the removal of which was brought up on numerous occasions but has never followed through.
Overpopulation and killing each other. Now, overpopulation is a problem, according to WHO, in 3rd world countries. 1st world countries actually tend to have *decreasing* populations. Our mortality+emmigration rates are higher than birth+immigration rates. So overpopulation is no excuse to curb the examination of the problem of diseases. Also a problem is the forthcoming pandemic that spreads like wild fire over the airlines to every nook and cranny on earth that will likely kill everyone - if unprepared we will likely degenerate to tribal survivors.
Second, us killing each other is a result of religious conflicts 99% of the time, according to UNESCO. Not resource conflicts. Not overpopulation. (Although they would make excellent instigators) I won't even go here: it is almost academic to accept Christianity as the exclusive source of the acceptance and condonement of the rape of nature (God will forgive, we commit no sins that go unforgiven, we are not responsible for our actions, etc., etc., etc.) That's a common argument, not necessarily my own, but it's also quite true, sadly.
No, it shows that we can be trained to believe that infanticide is wrong. Anthropological history shows that this was not always the case. In point, many tribes sacrificed children when they were born out of wedlock, of the wrong sex, born into bondage, etc., etc. There is no absolute morality. We don't do things "wrong" because we've been brainwashed to think that these things are wrong and we've closed our minds to the real truth that there is no right and wrong, only perceived right and wrong.
Note: Descarte believed in the other extreme - absolute reason, "I think, therefore I am", and thus eveything is at my beck and call for exploitation. Environmentalists love Descarte.
And although it is true that this nihilism - belief in underlying meaningless - is often associated with Nietzsche (and in particular his sister) and the rise of the Nazi's - the Germans carried Nietzsche's text like Canadians do the Bible - it is a far cry from the only use of the idea of nihilism. In fact, the most popular religion in the world - Buddhism - necessitates the acceptance of nihilism prior to nirvana. So the Nazi argument is quite moot, and there is at least one valid, popular, and "cheerful" interpretation to this nihilism without resorting to Nazi arguments.
Not only that, but perhaps the only undeniable interpretations of existence account for nihilism. Unfortunately there is a fairly open interpretation to what I've written, but there are quite a few books on this (particularly regarding Nietzsche, Buddhism, and combinations of those two). Just thought this might interest you.
B
Canada has great rich neighbours to mooch off of. :)
Soooo ... where's the best place to ski/snowboard??
:)
Leave it to a Linux guy to make SPAM more intelligent.
My question is, what would happen if we reduced the kinetic energy of the moon so much that the tides became weaker -- what effect would this have on the moon. From what I gather the moon's already on its way into distant space -- would the mass of the planetary oceans being stagnant, rather than chasing the moon around, affect this plight?
Actually, the idea of using air turbines sounds incredibly inefficient. Aren't there better ways of using tidal and wave forces against the force of gravity to produce significantly more resistant (and hence stronger) turbine forces?
As for the software itself, I agree that there is no reason to pay for it. In fact, I advocate the right to sue for damages when software doesn't work and it wastes my time. If paying for software gave me this option (which, like anything I purchase, it should), I would gladly pay for it, since it would either work, or I would sue.
Not to sound like the litagation bastard from hell, but I think that the inability or lack of precedence in suing software makers certainly relieves them from the need to produce quality software. (without risk, that is).
Equivalently, I am unable to fix their software. The ability to fix the software myself, as a user, may lend substantial benefit to "open" software solutions, in a defense against non working software that no one profits from. (Good samaritan defense)
It would certainly be beneficial if they had created a .tm domain for trademarks. That would certainly clarify the way trademarks relate to web pages, and could provide a nice niche that prevented corporate trademark overprotection from spreading into comic and unrelated domain names.
A corporation cannot claim 5th amendment - AFAIK constitutional rights in the US extend only to humans - corporations can have arbitrary laws forced on them. :)
I bet you vote NDP ... (if you don't get that, don't worry... :} ) That aside, the "AFS doesn't do anything" was a without-loss-of-generality conjecture insinuating the uselessness of software without adequate documentation.
One of the things nice about what happened here is that a slew of documentation was released with the software - in general, I have noticed relatively sparse documentation around new open software. Not a complaint, just something I noticed.
So you're saying Mars is a big ball of rust?
Actually, this conjecture was proven this summer past. How do I know this? Because we studied it for some time in September. It is an interesting breakthrough, but I seem to recall the conjecture being taken for granted, and thus although more faith can be put into the applications that fall from Carpenter's Rule, nothing new has really been generated, other than proof. Am I being cynical? Yes. We have no proof of gravity's existence in 2 hours, but we take it for granted. Such as it was with Carpenter's Rule (well, maybe hindsight is 20:20, but this is the impression I had of it ...)
In fact, during the 17 years I grew up in Newfoundland I cannot ever recall hearing the word about or aboot. Perhaps I lived a sheltered life. But my own Newfie accent (apparent available only when fueled with alcohol) it's closer to abut than aboot or about. (::sigh:: I'm sitting here saying "about" in a rich Newfie accent, and getting wierd looks ... go figure )
Actually, one of the more ingenious ideas I've read was to sprinkle black particulate matter on the icecaps, thereby increasing their heat absorption. Since one of the caps is supposedly predominantly carbon dioxide one can presume that melting it would chain-reaction (once a "critical mass" is met, if we cannot find a catalyst) of greenhouse effect