Cory Doctorow is the biggest, most shameless self-promoter on the internet. He's also kind of a tool. He's already hijacked one website to promote his writing. Its called 'boingboing', perhaps you've heard of it?
Wait! I thought Nicholas Negroponte was the most shameless self-promoter on the internet! I demand a face-off!
It's a private business. They need viewers. It's perfectly within their rights to censor and it makes good business sense (although I'm not sure how many ads are for Pakistani eyeballs). It just furthers their status as giant douche bags willing to sell out their user base at the drop of a hat...
I could inject a usb drive infected with a virus under my skin and plug a computer into it and it would just about be the the same. It'd be interesting if a biological virus translated itself into a computer virus and it passed the bio barrier into hardware.
You could similarly say that self organizing molecules have no motive, and you would be just as wrong.
You could similarly say that self organizing molecules have a motive, and you would be just as wrong.
The telos which you are attributing to evolution is external to evolution. The telos of self organizing molecules is internal to their development. Your carelessness leads to nonsensical concepts like progress or at worst intelligent design.
Tagging onto my own reply... sixty five million years ago I am T Rex and I feel that I am pretty much the best nature has to offer or ever will have to offer, so I unilaterally declare an end to evolution. Sadly, nature fails to agree with me. Or, evolution recognizes me as an obstacle and routes around me.
The current state of the game is, evolution has found a faster way to evolve by leveraging human ingenuity. Evolution has never been random since the most primitive self organizing molecules, rather evolution proceeds in a methodical way by mechanisms which themselves evolve. Evolution always accelerates. So, having evolved the human brain, evolution will just naturally use it to achieve its next phase of acceleration.
Of course I would never dream of suggesting a connection between vi and dinosaurs.
Uh, no. Evolution has no motive. The term evolution is purely descriptive.
Various proofs show that if the quantum bit error rate is less than 20 percent, then the message is secure. However, these proofs assume that the errors are the result of noise from the environment.
Then they do not "prove" anything.
When you start from a false premise, you produce "garbage", not "proofs" (Actually, you can produce some really useful counterfactuals that way, but you wouldn't present it in the context of a proof of the original concept). Particularly when talking about security, what moron would assume any sources of error come from the environment rather than the attacker???
Wow, it's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. The premise may have been non-physical but that doesn't affect the proof. The proof is fine. It just happens not to be true. There's only a problem here, if you assume proof means true or more specifically physically true.
Errors are inevitable. It's a little something called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Have you heard of it? No?
A Christian foundation is laughable? How so? One of the prime leaders of the revolution was Samuel Adams, a christian preacher. The writings of George Washington contain frequent references to "God" and "our Creator". Thomas Jefferson, as president, signed his documents: "on this date 180x, in the year of our lord, Jesus Christ". He even created his own bible called the Jesus Bible which focused on quoting Jesus of Nazareth.
That doesn't mean everyone should be forced to be a Christian. Be whatever you want (I am atheist). BUT at the same time to deny the reality that the founders of this country were Christians who devoutly beloved in God and a Christ/Messiah is ALSO a bias, and that bias has perverted our textbooks for decades.
Why is THAT bias any better? The answer: It isn't.
History is about facts, and getting as close to the truth as possible. To pretend the Founders were not Christians is anti-truth and makes you no better than the Texan book-writers.
Uh, it's clear that many were at least monotheists but it's not clear what percentage of those were Christians. There is little doubt Samuel Adams was a Christian. Even so he was a Puritan and their acceptance of Jesus' divinity is somewhat suspect. George Washington was a deist and Freemason. Thomas Jefferson signed his documents according to the traditional way of doing so. He wrote his "bible" in order to eliminate those aspects of Jesus which he found questionable (including his divinity). I can guarantee you that none of them were fundamentalist, evangelical Christians as the Texans are trying to portray them. That's a pure anachronism and fabrication.
Even so they were a diverse lot. And most of them wanted to preserve that diversity. That's why the first amendment clause about religion cuts both ways: it protects government from religion *and* religion from government.
Well, I agree with the sentiment but really the politicians are representing their constituents who are employed by the corporations. Either way, it's just pure waste.
Crap like this smear campaign have been going on forever but now the people they are trying to con are a bit smarter than the average bear. I guess this will be an opportunity to see how co-opted our government really is.
If an ISP does this, are they violating net neutrality? Does the government get to tell me which networks I peer with? Is peering now a *bad* thing if the government has too much control over the "neutrality"?
No. No. No. You are not deliberately interfering with a particular protocol or a particular host. You are just bandwidth constrained on your transit link. Peering will help alleviate the congestion, assuming you can get those companies to peer with you, but you are not deliberately making the situation worse. If you wanted to push the situation to extremes you could only have paid peering but then you wouldn't be in business too long.
I presume that there's laws which can be used against schools which try to prevent their enrolled pupils from actually attending lessons.
And it's not about the kid not showing for detention - it's about the parents telling the school that they may not keep the kid in detention. Once that happens, it's a dispute between the parents and the school and the kid isn't involved any longer.
A right to education is a civil right however there is a fair bit of room for maneuver when it comes to discipline up to and including expelling the child from school (unless the child has special needs) (i.e. the child is guaranteed an education but not necessarily an education at a specific school).
Ok, so it's a dispute between the parents and the school but the child will suffer the consequences whether it's a between the child and the school or the parents and the school. Although making it between the school and the parents will make it easier on the child there is no reason to believe the outcome would be any different.
In any case, I doubt a school would go to such extremes over such a trivial incident but they could if they wanted to.
Her parents think the detention is stupid, tell the school that she won't be staying for it, and there's nothing the school can do about it. Right? In loco parentis doesn't trump erm, er, whatever the Latin for 'actual parents' is, does it? Here in the UK when my teacher tried to include me in a class detention because most of the class were misbehaving, my parents told the school that they wouldn't be allowing me to be kept in, and that was the end of it.
Not necessarily. If the kid doesn't show for the detention, the school can escalate the punishment. If the child doesn't take the punishment, the child can be prevented from returning to class. If the child misses enough classes, the child will have to repeat the grade. Is it worth it?
Problem is most software developers and OS makers also race to consume that memory. Honestly all the software today is a bloated blob that is horribly unoptimized for speed and efficiency.
It's disgusting how bloated most stuff is because we have 4gig of ram and 2 2.5ghz processors... why make it leand and mean? it compiles, ship it.
Sounds like a reasonable outcome of a cost/benefit analysis. Since when is efficiency an end in itself?
he deserved to be fired, not go to jail. His refusal to hand-over passwords was certainly grounds for firing but it's not clear he broke the law. To a certain extent he is a victim of his own arrogance but also of the ignorance of everyone surrounding him. Maybe he was right? Maybe they all are idiots and he was better off not trusting them? In any case his obligation ended when he was fired.
However, ARIN won't have the address space. So we'll have to say no for the very first time.
Hmmm, maybe that's part of the problem? They never say no to anyone. Do all those companies really need all those IP blocks? Maybe if they had said "no" once in a while we'd have another year or so to work out how we'll get everyone over to IPv6.
Too late. Hindsight is 20/20, etc. Does MIT really need a/8? No. Does HP need two? No. But as with any scarce resource when no more IPv4 addresses are available they will rise in value and people will auction off their space. The price will have an upper bound at the cost of deploying IPv6. That'll buy us another few years. And then people will NAT even more. That'll buy us a few more. And by that time most people will be ready to move to v6. There really is no need to panic here. I'm not sure where all of the anxiety stems from. The people that understand the issue and care about it are aware of it and on top of it. I suspect an ulterior motive.
Muhammad might be sacred to Muslims, and they may be offended by this. But this is exactly why Muhammad needs to be ridiculed even more. Nothing should be above criticism and ridicule, and if some think that they or their symbols are, they should be the target of even more ridicule, until they understand that they will not be able to do anything they please without criticism for their wrongdoings.
In general I agree with what you are saying and why but this particular statement seems odd. It seems that you are saying nothing is worthy of respect. If you are, then you are straying into nihilism which is just as much an illusion as hero worship. I wouldn't go that far.
Slashdot Mirror
Cory Doctorow is the biggest, most shameless self-promoter on the internet. He's also kind of a tool. He's already hijacked one website to promote his writing. Its called 'boingboing', perhaps you've heard of it?
Wait! I thought Nicholas Negroponte was the most shameless self-promoter on the internet! I demand a face-off!
that we (the good ole USA) need to rely on other countries' governments to protect us from our government and its corporate puppet masters.
It's a private business. They need viewers. It's perfectly within their rights to censor and it makes good business sense (although I'm not sure how many ads are for Pakistani eyeballs). It just furthers their status as giant douche bags willing to sell out their user base at the drop of a hat...
about a project of this scale was Iridium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellation.
I could inject a usb drive infected with a virus under my skin and plug a computer into it and it would just about be the the same. It'd be interesting if a biological virus translated itself into a computer virus and it passed the bio barrier into hardware.
Uh, no. Evolution has no motive
You could similarly say that self organizing molecules have no motive, and you would be just as wrong.
You could similarly say that self organizing molecules have a motive, and you would be just as wrong.
The telos which you are attributing to evolution is external to evolution. The telos of self organizing molecules is internal to their development. Your carelessness leads to nonsensical concepts like progress or at worst intelligent design.
Tagging onto my own reply... sixty five million years ago I am T Rex and I feel that I am pretty much the best nature has to offer or ever will have to offer, so I unilaterally declare an end to evolution. Sadly, nature fails to agree with me. Or, evolution recognizes me as an obstacle and routes around me.
The current state of the game is, evolution has found a faster way to evolve by leveraging human ingenuity. Evolution has never been random since the most primitive self organizing molecules, rather evolution proceeds in a methodical way by mechanisms which themselves evolve. Evolution always accelerates. So, having evolved the human brain, evolution will just naturally use it to achieve its next phase of acceleration.
Of course I would never dream of suggesting a connection between vi and dinosaurs.
Uh, no. Evolution has no motive. The term evolution is purely descriptive.
LOL.
Oh, right, the guy who predicted we'd be all grey goo right now. Hrm, yeah, I can see why anyone cares about his opinion. Or not.
Errors are inevitable. It's a little something called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Have you heard of it? No?
I guess the correct answer is maybe. But only possibly so.
:-)
Various proofs show that if the quantum bit error rate is less than 20 percent, then the message is secure. However, these proofs assume that the errors are the result of noise from the environment.
Then they do not "prove" anything.
When you start from a false premise, you produce "garbage", not "proofs" (Actually,
you can produce some really useful counterfactuals that way, but you wouldn't present it in the context of a proof of the
original concept). Particularly when talking about security, what moron would assume any sources of error come from
the environment rather than the attacker???
Wow, it's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. The premise may have been non-physical but that doesn't affect the proof. The proof is fine. It just happens not to be true. There's only a problem here, if you assume proof means true or more specifically physically true.
Errors are inevitable. It's a little something called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Have you heard of it? No?
A Christian foundation is laughable? How so? One of the prime leaders of the revolution was Samuel Adams, a christian preacher. The writings of George Washington contain frequent references to "God" and "our Creator". Thomas Jefferson, as president, signed his documents: "on this date 180x, in the year of our lord, Jesus Christ". He even created his own bible called the Jesus Bible which focused on quoting Jesus of Nazareth.
That doesn't mean everyone should be forced to be a Christian. Be whatever you want (I am atheist). BUT at the same time to deny the reality that the founders of this country were Christians who devoutly beloved in God and a Christ/Messiah is ALSO a bias, and that bias has perverted our textbooks for decades.
Why is THAT bias any better? The answer: It isn't.
History is about facts, and getting as close to the truth as possible. To pretend the Founders were not Christians is anti-truth and makes you no better than the Texan book-writers.
Uh, it's clear that many were at least monotheists but it's not clear what percentage of those were Christians. There is little doubt Samuel Adams was a Christian. Even so he was a Puritan and their acceptance of Jesus' divinity is somewhat suspect. George Washington was a deist and Freemason. Thomas Jefferson signed his documents according to the traditional way of doing so. He wrote his "bible" in order to eliminate those aspects of Jesus which he found questionable (including his divinity). I can guarantee you that none of them were fundamentalist, evangelical Christians as the Texans are trying to portray them. That's a pure anachronism and fabrication.
Even so they were a diverse lot. And most of them wanted to preserve that diversity. That's why the first amendment clause about religion cuts both ways: it protects government from religion *and* religion from government.
If $199 is to expensive for the hardware and software onyour Budget what do you expect to be able to fix on the car for cheaper?
Something that would be $199 cheaper having not had to pay for software and hardware.
Well, I agree with the sentiment but really the politicians are representing their constituents who are employed by the corporations. Either way, it's just pure waste.
As I said yesterday the content was laughably stupid. I actually was thinking that Think Progress had created it.
Crap like this smear campaign have been going on forever but now the people they are trying to con are a bit smarter than the average bear. I guess this will be an opportunity to see how co-opted our government really is.
If an ISP does this, are they violating net neutrality? Does the government get to tell me which networks I peer with? Is peering now a *bad* thing if the government has too much control over the "neutrality"?
No. No. No. You are not deliberately interfering with a particular protocol or a particular host. You are just bandwidth constrained on your transit link. Peering will help alleviate the congestion, assuming you can get those companies to peer with you, but you are not deliberately making the situation worse. If you wanted to push the situation to extremes you could only have paid peering but then you wouldn't be in business too long.
I presume that there's laws which can be used against schools which try to prevent their enrolled pupils from actually attending lessons.
And it's not about the kid not showing for detention - it's about the parents telling the school that they may not keep the kid in detention. Once that happens, it's a dispute between the parents and the school and the kid isn't involved any longer.
A right to education is a civil right however there is a fair bit of room for maneuver when it comes to discipline up to and including expelling the child from school (unless the child has special needs) (i.e. the child is guaranteed an education but not necessarily an education at a specific school).
Ok, so it's a dispute between the parents and the school but the child will suffer the consequences whether it's a between the child and the school or the parents and the school. Although making it between the school and the parents will make it easier on the child there is no reason to believe the outcome would be any different.
In any case, I doubt a school would go to such extremes over such a trivial incident but they could if they wanted to.
Her parents think the detention is stupid, tell the school that she won't be staying for it, and there's nothing the school can do about it. Right?
In loco parentis doesn't trump erm, er, whatever the Latin for 'actual parents' is, does it?
Here in the UK when my teacher tried to include me in a class detention because most of the class were misbehaving, my parents told the school that they wouldn't be allowing me to be kept in, and that was the end of it.
Not necessarily. If the kid doesn't show for the detention, the school can escalate the punishment. If the child doesn't take the punishment, the child can be prevented from returning to class. If the child misses enough classes, the child will have to repeat the grade. Is it worth it?
This third grader, her parents and those who read the story are learning a valuable lesson about the nature of the state.
Right, because everything the state does is this stupid. If they learn that lesson, they will be well on their way to being a /. troll.
Problem is most software developers and OS makers also race to consume that memory. Honestly all the software today is a bloated blob that is horribly unoptimized for speed and efficiency.
It's disgusting how bloated most stuff is because we have 4gig of ram and 2 2.5ghz processors... why make it leand and mean? it compiles, ship it.
Sounds like a reasonable outcome of a cost/benefit analysis. Since when is efficiency an end in itself?
he deserved to be fired, not go to jail. His refusal to hand-over passwords was certainly grounds for firing but it's not clear he broke the law. To a certain extent he is a victim of his own arrogance but also of the ignorance of everyone surrounding him. Maybe he was right? Maybe they all are idiots and he was better off not trusting them? In any case his obligation ended when he was fired.
However, ARIN won't have the address space. So we'll have to say no for the very first time.
Hmmm, maybe that's part of the problem? They never say no to anyone. Do all those companies really need all those IP blocks? Maybe if they had said "no" once in a while we'd have another year or so to work out how we'll get everyone over to IPv6.
Too late. Hindsight is 20/20, etc. Does MIT really need a /8? No. Does HP need two? No. But as with any scarce resource when no more IPv4 addresses are available they will rise in value and people will auction off their space. The price will have an upper bound at the cost of deploying IPv6. That'll buy us another few years. And then people will NAT even more. That'll buy us a few more. And by that time most people will be ready to move to v6. There really is no need to panic here. I'm not sure where all of the anxiety stems from. The people that understand the issue and care about it are aware of it and on top of it. I suspect an ulterior motive.
Now instead of offending a few million whacko muslim fanatics you've offended tens of millions of Americans! Brilliant!
Muhammad might be sacred to Muslims, and they may be offended by this. But this is exactly why Muhammad needs to be ridiculed even more. Nothing should be above criticism and ridicule, and if some think that they or their symbols are, they should be the target of even more ridicule, until they understand that they will not be able to do anything they please without criticism for their wrongdoings.
In general I agree with what you are saying and why but this particular statement seems odd. It seems that you are saying nothing is worthy of respect. If you are, then you are straying into nihilism which is just as much an illusion as hero worship. I wouldn't go that far.