I'm just glad we have another century of using '00' through '99' for the year. I mean, that was such a good idea back in the 60's, why don't we just carry it over into the 2000's. All we have to do is change "19" to "20" and *poof*, instant fix.
Are there any security issues concerning use of GNOME or KDE due to their network centric nature ?
Yes.
If you are really concerned about this, and in a military environment, particularly a potentially highly assaulted environment, I would get in touch with developers from both GNOME and KDE and question them about what network traffic their respective software responds to.
You can also contact the more "compact" window manager (well, GNOME really isn't a window manager, but it somewhat corresponds to KDE in this context in the same manner. Enlightenment or WindowMaker are Window Managers, and you can use both without GNOME, possibly aleviating any potential issues with networking) writers. AFAIK, BlackBox only has one developer, and a small code base, so it would be relatively easy to not only test it, but fix it.
Seems as though you've hit it pretty close to the mark here. Very much keep these ideas clear in your mind, you who wrote this, and you who read this, for they foreshadow the end game of capitalism, which we enter at the end of the 20th century.
Here, in these words, we see the fabric of democracy ripped by capitalism. The prudence of justice for the many undermined to protect individuals. The chief human invigilator: imagination, stifled by the self-indulgence of few.
Lots of big words, to paint a clear picture. I wish you well in spreading of this knowledge. It would do us all well to know what you have said.
It's difficult to say what needs to be changed when I'm not entirely sure what the specific application setting is for this piece of equipment.
If it is specialized, I would recommend a simple window manager such as BlackBox or IceWM. There is no need to burden your system with unnecessary tools and applications. If, on the other hand, it is going to be a user friendly system, I'd have to recommend using KDE or GNOME, giving preference to your personal aesthetics. The added complexity of GNOME or KDE should be justified.
In terms of hardware, I must point out that USB support will not be available until kernel 2.4, IIRC, but that will be arriving soon. Also included will be firewire support, again IIRC, which should encourage you to investigate using that as a possible alternative to SCSI. Again, it is application dependent, and also subject to some personal preference.
In terms of video, the Diamond Viper is a bit of overkill if you'll be using BlackBox or IceWM, and you could save yourself a bit of money by getting something a bit less hefty, and possibly including TV support, such as the ATI Rage128. Since the TNT2 chipset is being backed by NVidia under Linux, it is a decent choice, IMHO.
With respect to the processor of choice, I see no real reason not to get an AMD instead of an Intel if the price is right and the speed is sensible. Alternatively, with Linux, you can go completely Alpha, or Sparc (although I would avoid Sparc, but that's a personal aesthetic thing), and not have to really worry about interoperability with other platforms given the nature of Linux.
If someone would care to point out the legal qualm of post-dating a legal document, as in point this one being dated "December 28, 1999" as in tomorrow as of writing this.
Is it just me, or does this entire thing strike you as silly, childish antics to control something because they are ignorant? Like a little brat unwilling to give up his place on top of the hill.
IIRC, XML was designed to help alleviate this sort of thing. Unfortunately, XML has not been exploited enough to have any significant ramification on the way the internet is sorted.
I believe that the remarks by those we discuss brings Slashdot into perspective. We are not discussing ghosts, or phantoms of a politic, or figurative figures of money. I think that the personalization of Slashdot is what encourages many to return.
I'm glad the majority of moderators understand the importance of satisfying interpersonal communications, and that these interpersonal connections are what many seek whilst reading this material.
Others are here to prove their worth, judge truth and distinctiveness, merit similarity with the blade of a zealot, and portray lies where there are none. Just like any physical community, there are those that seek similarities to bind and strengthen, and those that seek to improve themselves at the expense of others.
(Not to divide society into two factions. Everyone knows there are two types of people: those that divide people into two types of people and those that do not. Unless everyone divides everyone into two types of people or vise versa.)
I'm really glad that they are consulting religous leaders. I'm sure that they will be told not to proceed, but I'm also sure that they will anyway. As much as I want technology to push ahead, I really hope that they fail. I believe in God, and I don't really think that we should create life. Increasing the standards of living is one thing, but I have to disagree with this.
I'm not sure what we should call life. We create life when we procreate, when we allow animals (pets) to breed, when we drop crap on the ground that spawns mold, when we go into a crowd, knowingly sick, and spread disease (or have sex without protection).
The boundary between this and creating life from dust is a bit different. But is it really that different -- we simply do not know whether the life we create will be good or bad. We knowingly spawn all sorts of life we deem "bad". What we do not know is whether creating life will be good or bad life until after the fact. But we do know that we will learn from it, good or bad. That might be a bad thing, as all kinds of "evils" may spawn from synthetic life.
But my guess is that the good intentions of the many will overcome the many possible bad outcomes. Who are we to say what is good and bad? We appear to have been rewarded for the search of truth and knowledge, the exploration and exploitation of lands and resources. Or so we think. Some lessons are only possible by nature's trials.
I think, and I might be very wrong about this, but I think that this sort of life will be created, approval of common ethics or not.
The way I see it, money and religion have been the biggest causes of war and violence in the world!
Correction. Money has started about the same amount of wars as political idealism. Both have been pretty small, IIRC, relative to the thousands of wars founded on the ideals of religion.
Well, I've seen several solutions to the counterfeit problem. They are as follows:
Holographic images to which there is no consumer equipment to duplicate
Coins. I hate them, but the printer likes them about as much as the VCR does.
Digital money. A whole other arena of counterfeiting arises with digital money (Visa, Interac, etc.), but they obviate the necessity of preventing hard-copy counterfeiting.
Fingerprint/unique identification procedures with point-to-point transactions from a secure database. This has serious implications, which I won't go into, but it does obviate the whole counterfeiting thing (within reason -- fingerprints are pretty easy to replicate, but Iris/Genetic scanning is better.)
Not that we'd ever use $50 coins (it'd suck to lose one, presumably, depending on inflation), and holographic equipment can probably be rented or stolen or bought for a *reasonable* price but I do not know if counterfeiting money would justify a hefty-costing hologram printer (I have *no* idea how much they cost), and electronic money has it's own problems. (such as a controlled economy by an invisible hand.)
Some day, we may have to resort to using genetic code to identify ourselves, and our purchasing power will probably depend on what some database tells us.:) I jest, but it's not too far a cry off from reality.
As with all digital media, a watermark of any nature, unless generated with the most crytpic of methods, can be removed. Applying watermarks to scanned images would be very difficult to keep there, for those that (a) know about the watermark and (b) care about the watermark. Take DVD's and Audio CD's. Making them digital opens them up to mountains of transformations, not the least of which is the removal of copyright encryption (more of a copyright notice, now).
Paper and print is a whole different story. I would be wary of buying anything that watermarked everything I printed. I use a (granddaddy) AppleWriter II laser printer, and am reluctant to upgrade to a new printer if I am aware of this sort of thing. My big concern is who can read these watermarks, and why would they ever want to. (Other than for legal reasons, but I can't see myself printing threats off my printer.)
I can see newer laser printers being able to do this sort of thing, but I cannot see why a printer company would risk the public relations disaster that would ensue after someone found it producing a watermark, and any possible corporate backlash from including such a "feature".
I really don't think that much about my privacy, I'd like to think I'm pretty good to get along with in that way, but I (personally -- someone will hopefully point out valid reasons, but I guess valid reasons depend on who can read the watermark...) can't see any justifiable reason for said watermarks except for perhaps malicious purposes.
IIRC, intelligence is subdivided into 5-7 categories, by several prominent theories. (Doesn't mean they're right, though, it just means they are popular.)
I cannot recall them, but I think there is logic, music, linguistics, emotions, reactions, and others I just cannot remember.
They are fundamentally measured, in theory, by the following: * The capacity to acquire knowledge * The capacity to apply knowledge * The ability to combine knowledge to further understanding * Facilitation of thought and reason. (pretty vague, tho.)
With regard to the number of synapses, you are completely correct. Einstein had a bigger brain by a little bit, but the left and right hemispheres of his cortex (IIRC) was connected, where in normal people it generally isn't. It isn't how many connections you have, it is how they are connected, and how they are used.
There have been recorded cases of people being of genius IQ, yet only having less than a third of their brain.
I think you have it precisely correct there. (And the post before this as well.) "Intelligent" people tend to be able to gather and disseminate "intelligent" things faster.
The analogy to open heart surgery relies on motor neuron responses and other physical aspects. Not a good test of you are Stephen Hawking, of the level of intelligence we possess.
Someone once said, IIRC, intelligence is the ability to think about contradictory things to some useful end. We have no adequate gauge for intelligence, as I am quite confident that some of the smartest people alive consistently, and even on purpose, "fail" tests that they could excel at if they wished so.
Now, I've known many doctors, lawyers, etc., in my lifetime, and they have all been able to, even in old age or complete ignorance of the field, pick up on new concepts and ideas almost instantly. Such as Linux -- I know doctors who have no (as in zero) working knowledge of Linux, but nonetheless have an avid curiosity in it, how it would benefit them, how the development model is significantly different, why it's cheaper, etc.
Maybe intelligence is directly related to our curiosity. Those with more curiosity tend to stay mentally fit, I would imagine. But that's really just speculation on my part...
Try Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars, trilogy. It won many awards for Science fiction, and I would consider it to be not less than superb. Very informative on the technical level, but it makes a valiant attempt to provide a surreal atmosphere to which we apply human politics. This set of books gives me the chills, it inspired me so.
Ok -- I clicked on the ASIO web page and it came up:
ASIO test page
And I come to the realization that I connected to the web page of a national intelligence agency and it was pleasantly informed that they were testing something. Why does this worry me? In the back of my mind, I can't help but think that when I get up tomorrow my computer will have "missing time"... and it'll be runnig asio.d
True with things we know. We know nothing about Martian life. It is possible that extraterrestial life would tend to be harmless to us. I would think that extraterrestrial life would be as dangerous as is necessary for it to continue its own life. This often means acting in aggressive ways that would detriment it's surrounds to it's own end. (Nature, as we know it, provide nice equilibriums, except in our case, as humans, and in the case of viri.)
Any material retrieved from Mars instantly obtains the highest degree of biological isolation. Pathogens from Mars would likely be, initially, incompatible with Earth biologics, but any Mars pathogens might be highly adaptive and/or highly aggressive, with our own bodies equally unadapted to them as they are to us.
The question is which would adapt faster. My guess would be the Mars pathogens.
It's quite interesting how this thing works. (Not that I need to say that...) The primary method of connection between the mars lander and earth is a direct connection. It is, however, possible that this will fail. After 6 days, it tries backup transmitters, and rearranges as best possible.
There is a secondary method of communication through Mars Orbiter, that can be made with relatively insignificant effort, after Mars Orbiter finishes communication with two other probes over there right now. This secondary method of communication will relay various signals through the orbiter back to earth, and should such a signal make it, we will likely discover the problem with the primary direct-link comminication method.
Statistically, Americans have been successiful in probing Mars, losing about 1/3rd of their probes into deep space. Of all the (albeit relatively few) Russian attempts, not a single probe made it to Mars and completed it's mission.
Through trial and error, we will eventually come to minimize failures. Automation and higher-level logic/understanding on the parts of the probes is necessary, but perhaps more important than that is the intercommunication between probes, that allows dependence on prior successes to help reduce failures in the future.
The "cleanest" solution I've seen to this was a ~3 second delay before it goes out hashing for the method names and bringing them up. It is annoying to have to wait for those names you know (because the machine locked and you can't type them in), and annoying to have to look up the names you can't. The delay is a nice tradeoff.
You use "dd", base 10 numbers. Ie. Number 44 is written 44, 5 can be written 05 (or just 5) for clarity. Because base 100 is far too difficult to manage in terms of individual symbols, it's interpreted by using 2 base 10 digits, one to the power of ten, the other of no power. (ie. 65 = 6*10^1 + 6, as in digit1*10^1 +digit2).
Just ignorant. (And damn thankful for it given the lack of humour present! What IS it with people with no sense of humour -- it's one thing to have a bad day or a bad post -- it's another to have a bad lifetime!)
This sort of thing is really creepy... someone out there behind a computer with that type of attitude is unnerving...
It takes all kinds... like even further offtopic posts such as this one . . .
Kind of a catch-22 situation, isn't it. The more common primes divisible by the base, the less repeating digits through divisions by common primes. 5 and 2 are good for 10, whereas 2 and 3 are good for 6. But the bigger the base, the harder it is to keep track of. Ie. base 2310 is great, except it's huge. (I know a fellow who went to Waterloo who worked in base 100 on a regular basis. He had issues.:) )
There IS a reason that the SI units have been adopted by all but two nations of the world (I think it's the same two nations that haven't adopted the Rights of a Child, just out of irony.) However, what you have said is good insight into the problem with the base for our number system. The SI philosophy is more intuitive for superscalar things, but as you say, imperial is great for everyday things.
Although, I must say, feet, yards, and inches may be a bit misleading at times. (Some feet are bigger than others...)
Slashdot Mirror
(lol: sarcasm; satire)
Built in TrueType font support. Direct rendering for 3D.
If you are really concerned about this, and in a military environment, particularly a potentially highly assaulted environment, I would get in touch with developers from both GNOME and KDE and question them about what network traffic their respective software responds to.
You can also contact the more "compact" window manager (well, GNOME really isn't a window manager, but it somewhat corresponds to KDE in this context in the same manner. Enlightenment or WindowMaker are Window Managers, and you can use both without GNOME, possibly aleviating any potential issues with networking) writers. AFAIK, BlackBox only has one developer, and a small code base, so it would be relatively easy to not only test it, but fix it.
(feel free to email if you have more questions)
Here, in these words, we see the fabric of democracy ripped by capitalism. The prudence of justice for the many undermined to protect individuals. The chief human invigilator: imagination, stifled by the self-indulgence of few.
Lots of big words, to paint a clear picture. I wish you well in spreading of this knowledge. It would do us all well to know what you have said.
If it is specialized, I would recommend a simple window manager such as BlackBox or IceWM. There is no need to burden your system with unnecessary tools and applications. If, on the other hand, it is going to be a user friendly system, I'd have to recommend using KDE or GNOME, giving preference to your personal aesthetics. The added complexity of GNOME or KDE should be justified.
In terms of hardware, I must point out that USB support will not be available until kernel 2.4, IIRC, but that will be arriving soon. Also included will be firewire support, again IIRC, which should encourage you to investigate using that as a possible alternative to SCSI. Again, it is application dependent, and also subject to some personal preference.
In terms of video, the Diamond Viper is a bit of overkill if you'll be using BlackBox or IceWM, and you could save yourself a bit of money by getting something a bit less hefty, and possibly including TV support, such as the ATI Rage128. Since the TNT2 chipset is being backed by NVidia under Linux, it is a decent choice, IMHO.
With respect to the processor of choice, I see no real reason not to get an AMD instead of an Intel if the price is right and the speed is sensible. Alternatively, with Linux, you can go completely Alpha, or Sparc (although I would avoid Sparc, but that's a personal aesthetic thing), and not have to really worry about interoperability with other platforms given the nature of Linux.
Well, I hope that helps.
Is it just me, or does this entire thing strike you as silly, childish antics to control something because they are ignorant? Like a little brat unwilling to give up his place on top of the hill.
IIRC, XML was designed to help alleviate this sort of thing. Unfortunately, XML has not been exploited enough to have any significant ramification on the way the internet is sorted.
I'm glad the majority of moderators understand the importance of satisfying interpersonal communications, and that these interpersonal connections are what many seek whilst reading this material.
Others are here to prove their worth, judge truth and distinctiveness, merit similarity with the blade of a zealot, and portray lies where there are none. Just like any physical community, there are those that seek similarities to bind and strengthen, and those that seek to improve themselves at the expense of others.
(Not to divide society into two factions. Everyone knows there are two types of people: those that divide people into two types of people and those that do not. Unless everyone divides everyone into two types of people or vise versa.)
Ok, that's offtopic enough for me. ;)
The boundary between this and creating life from dust is a bit different. But is it really that different -- we simply do not know whether the life we create will be good or bad. We knowingly spawn all sorts of life we deem "bad". What we do not know is whether creating life will be good or bad life until after the fact. But we do know that we will learn from it, good or bad. That might be a bad thing, as all kinds of "evils" may spawn from synthetic life.
But my guess is that the good intentions of the many will overcome the many possible bad outcomes. Who are we to say what is good and bad? We appear to have been rewarded for the search of truth and knowledge, the exploration and exploitation of lands and resources. Or so we think. Some lessons are only possible by nature's trials.
I think, and I might be very wrong about this, but I think that this sort of life will be created, approval of common ethics or not.
On the other hand, for those who don't know how to use CVS yet, it's a mystery how people are saying the drivers are working great ...
Now that there are daily snapshots of the code, it's great. In all honesty, I still don't understand why they didn't release the code earlier ... ;)
Not that we'd ever use $50 coins (it'd suck to lose one, presumably, depending on inflation), and holographic equipment can probably be rented or stolen or bought for a *reasonable* price but I do not know if counterfeiting money would justify a hefty-costing hologram printer (I have *no* idea how much they cost), and electronic money has it's own problems. (such as a controlled economy by an invisible hand.)
Some day, we may have to resort to using genetic code to identify ourselves, and our purchasing power will probably depend on what some database tells us. :) I jest, but it's not too far a cry off from reality.
Paper and print is a whole different story. I would be wary of buying anything that watermarked everything I printed. I use a (granddaddy) AppleWriter II laser printer, and am reluctant to upgrade to a new printer if I am aware of this sort of thing. My big concern is who can read these watermarks, and why would they ever want to. (Other than for legal reasons, but I can't see myself printing threats off my printer.)
I can see newer laser printers being able to do this sort of thing, but I cannot see why a printer company would risk the public relations disaster that would ensue after someone found it producing a watermark, and any possible corporate backlash from including such a "feature".
I really don't think that much about my privacy, I'd like to think I'm pretty good to get along with in that way, but I (personally -- someone will hopefully point out valid reasons, but I guess valid reasons depend on who can read the watermark ...) can't see any justifiable reason for said watermarks except for perhaps malicious purposes.
I cannot recall them, but I think there is logic, music, linguistics, emotions, reactions, and others I just cannot remember.
They are fundamentally measured, in theory, by the following:
* The capacity to acquire knowledge
* The capacity to apply knowledge
* The ability to combine knowledge to further understanding
* Facilitation of thought and reason. (pretty vague, tho.)
With regard to the number of synapses, you are completely correct. Einstein had a bigger brain by a little bit, but the left and right hemispheres of his cortex (IIRC) was connected, where in normal people it generally isn't. It isn't how many connections you have, it is how they are connected, and how they are used.
There have been recorded cases of people being of genius IQ, yet only having less than a third of their brain.
The analogy to open heart surgery relies on motor neuron responses and other physical aspects. Not a good test of you are Stephen Hawking, of the level of intelligence we possess.
Someone once said, IIRC, intelligence is the ability to think about contradictory things to some useful end. We have no adequate gauge for intelligence, as I am quite confident that some of the smartest people alive consistently, and even on purpose, "fail" tests that they could excel at if they wished so.
Now, I've known many doctors, lawyers, etc., in my lifetime, and they have all been able to, even in old age or complete ignorance of the field, pick up on new concepts and ideas almost instantly. Such as Linux -- I know doctors who have no (as in zero) working knowledge of Linux, but nonetheless have an avid curiosity in it, how it would benefit them, how the development model is significantly different, why it's cheaper, etc.
Maybe intelligence is directly related to our curiosity. Those with more curiosity tend to stay mentally fit, I would imagine. But that's really just speculation on my part ...
Try Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars, trilogy. It won many awards for Science fiction, and I would consider it to be not less than superb. Very informative on the technical level, but it makes a valiant attempt to provide a surreal atmosphere to which we apply human politics. This set of books gives me the chills, it inspired me so.
Cheers!
The question is which would adapt faster. My guess would be the Mars pathogens.
There is a secondary method of communication through Mars Orbiter, that can be made with relatively insignificant effort, after Mars Orbiter finishes communication with two other probes over there right now. This secondary method of communication will relay various signals through the orbiter back to earth, and should such a signal make it, we will likely discover the problem with the primary direct-link comminication method.
Statistically, Americans have been successiful in probing Mars, losing about 1/3rd of their probes into deep space. Of all the (albeit relatively few) Russian attempts, not a single probe made it to Mars and completed it's mission.
Through trial and error, we will eventually come to minimize failures. Automation and higher-level logic/understanding on the parts of the probes is necessary, but perhaps more important than that is the intercommunication between probes, that allows dependence on prior successes to help reduce failures in the future.
The "cleanest" solution I've seen to this was a ~3 second delay before it goes out hashing for the method names and bringing them up. It is annoying to have to wait for those names you know (because the machine locked and you can't type them in), and annoying to have to look up the names you can't. The delay is a nice tradeoff.
You use "dd", base 10 numbers. Ie. Number 44 is written 44, 5 can be written 05 (or just 5) for clarity. Because base 100 is far too difficult to manage in terms of individual symbols, it's interpreted by using 2 base 10 digits, one to the power of ten, the other of no power. (ie. 65 = 6*10^1 + 6, as in digit1*10^1 +digit2).
Ps. happy birthday ...
This sort of thing is really creepy ... someone out there behind a computer with that type of attitude is unnerving ...
It takes all kinds ... like even further offtopic posts such as this one . . .
There IS a reason that the SI units have been adopted by all but two nations of the world (I think it's the same two nations that haven't adopted the Rights of a Child, just out of irony.) However, what you have said is good insight into the problem with the base for our number system. The SI philosophy is more intuitive for superscalar things, but as you say, imperial is great for everyday things.
Although, I must say, feet, yards, and inches may be a bit misleading at times. (Some feet are bigger than others ...)