Damn! I was going to do that. I'm just not quick enough this early in the morning.
It serves the bastard right. He obviously thought he was more important than everyone else and deserved something no one else could have. Well, he did get what he deserved AFAIC.
The bottom line is, if libraries go, book piracy will emerge.
You hit the nail on the head. Someone mod him up.
The situation is not quite the same as prohibition, but the result will be the same. Take away something that people really want and they *will* find a way to get it. And no government or business can stop them.
I know there's a Fahrenheit 451 parallel here, but I'd have to reread it to make it coherent. Anyone?
Yes, but this is going to set a precedent. How long before books don't come out on "wood and hide". When, ala Star Trek, books are stored electronically and read from a Padd(TM). Sure, right now it's not easy to read an entire book on a computer screen. How long will that last? What happens now affects our future. Saying it doesn't matter because it doesn't really affect us is the wrong attitude. Publishers have to know this. That's why they want to get everything in place now to make sure they get their pound of electronic flesh.
I like your attitude, but exactly what law did they break. Is their a San Fran statute that states that no vehicle will be suspended from bridges? My favorite charge (from the article) is the trespassing. How do you trespass on a public bridge?
"That really is Job 1 for us, because that's the threat to the Windows business. That's the threat through that to the Office business. So I'd put the Linux phenomenon really as threat No. 1."
This really gets me. A threat comes from an enemy that wants to defeat/destroy you. Linux is a competitor, which is a completely different animal. A competitor is willing to play fairly on the same field. There are many examples of product competitors that simply try to provide a better product to attact the larger share of customers (McD vs BK, Pepsi vs Coke). They don't plot to drive the competition out of business. I think that at the heart of the Open Source community, people just want MS to play fair, and MS just doesn't get it.
Personally, I believe that the universe was created by God complete with a set of rules (that we haven't figured out yet) and set in motion to run without interference. Maybe its goofy but the rules we have figured out (physics and math, everything else is just butterfly collecting:), are pretty damn elegant. Let's face it, God was a geek!
It's neither a coincidence nor unlikely. Intelligence and the form for using it (e.g. opposable thumbs) evolved together. One did not precede the other, they were dependant on each other. And the fact that they *can* evolve, arguably says that eventually they *must* evolve. Evolution is a giant crap shoot. The losers die, the winners survive to shoot again, and again, and again. Millions of possibilities are tested over millions of years. The combinations that work eventually *will* happen. And not just on Earth. The same thing is happening on millions of other planets everywhere. And everywhere is a big place. It's not luck or chance that creates intelligent life, it's brute force.
To put it in slash-ese, the universe is a beowolf cluster of evolution experiments.
"The fascinating thing to me is to consider that these cartoons are made and air in a country with one of the lowest rates of violence in the world," said Mike Lazzo, senior vice president for programming and production at the Cartoon Network.
It's not fascinating to someone who realizes that it's not television that causes violence, it's parents who refuse to take responsibility to raise there children properly. Obviously the Japanese have no problem with this, and America does. It annoys the hell out of me to see parents who can't control their children in public, while my own children (7 & 10) see this then ask me why the other kids are brats.
No, I don't spank them. I'm not against it, but I don't have to. No, I don't have strict religious beliefs. And no, I don't restrict then from watching "violent" cartoons. I simply am a father who refuses to take crap from his kids. It's a parent's job to raise their kids so they aren't needed anymore. You can't do that if you push the job onto someone else.
Ok I'll get off my soapbox now. Geez, I was never like this before/.
It'll never happen. Unless it becomes available as a pay-and-pay-and-pay-per-view. This is the NFL and CBS we're talking about. These aren't exactly the most philanthropic organizations in the world. They're not doing it because it can provide the fan with excellent coverage of a beloved past-time. They're doing it to attract more customers so they can squeeze as much dough out of them as possible. If they can get even more suckers to pay for this extra frill, do you think they'll really provide it for free? The almighty is what is at work here.
I think this is a very cool use of a new technology and I'd love to see it provided just they way you suggest. I'm just too much of a realist(cynic?) to expect it.
I can live with paying for my content as I view it. Particularly if it contains no advertising.
I could live with that too, for the shows that I know I like. I'm not willing to pay for shows that I don't like or don't know if I like. I'm not going to pay to see the new fall line-up when 80% of it is going to be crap. I'm not going to pay to see the TV premeire of last summer's box office bombs when I wasn't willing to pay for when they were in theaters. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
Now the tech details may be off, but isn't searching for laser (visible) light just moving down (up?) the spectrum from radio waves? It's all EMF. I thought the reason we (SETI) were concentrating in the radio portion of the spectrum was because the frequencies were meaningful. That they were related to the natual frequencies of hydrogen and helium. Moving to visible light is just moving to another street in the same neighborhood. Sure its "lasers" we're looking for, but that only means we're concentrating on coherent light. Can't radio waves be sent as coherent beams as well? Visible light can be sent omnidirectional the same as radio.
I guess my point is, that this isn't as big a deal or as big a leap of thought as it is being made out to be. There is a lot of real estate out there to look in. Ok, its cool, but we had to do this eventually.
My freinds and I did this in High School, only we called it "Indoor Spelunking". We'd climb around the innards on the school, finding crawlspaces above the auditorium, cafeteria and classrooms. Never got caught, but then no one knew we were there!:)
But they don't do they? Because if black holes existed then we'd end up with singularities at their centre which would violate physical laws by producing infinite discontinuities. Any theory which breaks itself cannot be a valid theory outside of esoteric mathematical journals.
But yes, they do. Our failure to understand the nature of those laws does not mean they don't exist. They violate *our* laws, the ones based on observation, experimentation and speculation, but that is not the same thing. You have to be smarter than the phenomenon you're trying to explain. We aren't yet.
You want weird? A freind of mine in Southern CA was charged with a hit and run in NYC. He'd been supposedly identified by his plates and the description of his car (both accurate). The fact that he'd was 3000 miles away at the time didn't convince anyone that he didn't do it. He had to take time off from work to go to NY and go to court to defend himself. (Yes, he got off. The judge threw it out.)
My first thought (after giving up and checking the solution to that final number) was "WTF?". Granted, any self-respecting alien would eventually figure out what the undefined symbol was and what the super-scripted number meant, BUT what does it say about us that we would send such a message? Sure, its decipherable, but why did they put the cart before the horse?
Set the Wayback Machine, Sherman! Boy, you brought back memories with that comment. A friend and I had gotten hooked on that particular game. We would chant, "Another visitor. Stay awhile. Stay forever!", whenever we walked into Wal-Mart. Of course, we got some odd looks, but that was kinda the point.:)
I'd almost agree, except that I know enough idiots to know that someone is going to make the voyage so they can spray paint the thing with "HAL wuz here". Most people will be satisfied to stand on the shore and admire it, but not all.
Well obviously the aliens were tired of waiting for us and sent a follow-up. When you send an email and expect a response, I bet you don't wait 5000+ years for an answer. Cut them a break.
I was thinking the same thing. The point of placing it in the middle of a park was to let people walk up to it and check it out. Now it's unavailable to everyone except those willing to trespass into a bird sanctuary. Which you *know* they will. How long before the park has to move it again because too many people are crossing to the island and screwing with the sanctuary? And when they do, will they set it up again or will they just trash it? Maybe we should keep an eye on E-bay for "1x4x9 monolith. Like new."
F) My favorite, Yes, I will emphatically, and catagorically make the blanket statement that the human mind can't be emulated by a deterministic machine. The only device created thus far to emulate a human mind is the universe, and as you've already said that's a chaotic environment. It can be shown that as the limit of the accuracy of the emulation approaches == the mind it is emulating, the complexity of the system == universe. This does take an exhaustive proof. Proof that an single, isolated bit can not encode more information than a bit. Proof that an un-isolated system can not be emulated, you just have to keep moving out the boundaries till you get an isolated system. Proof that you would need all the information in the universe to run the system.
My.02
I gotta disagree here. The way i see it, the human mind, as complex and chaotic as it is, is still the result of a network of a finite number of interconnected neurons. The system as a whole accepts input, processes, and generates output. This system is based initially on the genetic code created upon conception. But it is also designed to alter itself based upon input from the external environment. This happens as soon as the embryo has advanced far enough to accept input(i.e. sensory cells have developed). The resulting personality is a result of both the initial programming and the subsequent environmental input.
All a computer needs to emulate a human mind is to simulate this finite system of neurons. Not a simple task, but I don't believe its impossible. I don't buy your statement that it requires the universe to do this because its already being done in the space of a large cantelope.
Also..
D) As for "a very large deterministic system in a chaotic environment" It falls when you point out two things. The deterministic system must itself be a "chaotic environment" as the individual is always a piece of its environment. "To obsever is to influence, and to be influenced" Professor Klemke. Second, I admit I didn't read all the book and BSed on the test.
Why must the deterministic system be chaotic. Wouldn't that mean different outcome for the same input? This isn't true. I don't like green olives. I never liked green olives. I can safely say I will never like green olives. My mind won't randomly decided to like green olives. That's what I see you suggesting and I don't buy that either.
Slashdot Mirror
It serves the bastard right. He obviously thought he was more important than everyone else and deserved something no one else could have. Well, he did get what he deserved AFAIC.
But I'm not.
So I won't.
You hit the nail on the head. Someone mod him up.
The situation is not quite the same as prohibition, but the result will be the same. Take away something that people really want and they *will* find a way to get it. And no government or business can stop them.
I know there's a Fahrenheit 451 parallel here, but I'd have to reread it to make it coherent. Anyone?
Yes, but this is going to set a precedent. How long before books don't come out on "wood and hide". When, ala Star Trek, books are stored electronically and read from a Padd(TM). Sure, right now it's not easy to read an entire book on a computer screen. How long will that last? What happens now affects our future. Saying it doesn't matter because it doesn't really affect us is the wrong attitude. Publishers have to know this. That's why they want to get everything in place now to make sure they get their pound of electronic flesh.
I like your attitude, but exactly what law did they break. Is their a San Fran statute that states that no vehicle will be suspended from bridges? My favorite charge (from the article) is the trespassing. How do you trespass on a public bridge?
This really gets me. A threat comes from an enemy that wants to defeat/destroy you. Linux is a competitor, which is a completely different animal. A competitor is willing to play fairly on the same field. There are many examples of product competitors that simply try to provide a better product to attact the larger share of customers (McD vs BK, Pepsi vs Coke). They don't plot to drive the competition out of business. I think that at the heart of the Open Source community, people just want MS to play fair, and MS just doesn't get it.
Naeser's Law:
Naeser's Law:
Naeser's Law:
To put it in slash-ese, the universe is a beowolf cluster of evolution experiments.
Naeser's Law:
Well, gee, isn't that generous? Why would you want to pay the artist directly when the RIAA will do it for you? Some people are never happy.
The previous troll was brought to you by www.sarcasm.com. Send replies to flamethis@biteme.com
Naeser's Law:
It's not fascinating to someone who realizes that it's not television that causes violence, it's parents who refuse to take responsibility to raise there children properly. Obviously the Japanese have no problem with this, and America does. It annoys the hell out of me to see parents who can't control their children in public, while my own children (7 & 10) see this then ask me why the other kids are brats.
No, I don't spank them. I'm not against it, but I don't have to. No, I don't have strict religious beliefs. And no, I don't restrict then from watching "violent" cartoons. I simply am a father who refuses to take crap from his kids. It's a parent's job to raise their kids so they aren't needed anymore. You can't do that if you push the job onto someone else.
Ok I'll get off my soapbox now. Geez, I was never like this before /.
Naeser's Law:
I think this is a very cool use of a new technology and I'd love to see it provided just they way you suggest. I'm just too much of a realist(cynic?) to expect it.
Naeser's Law:
I could live with that too, for the shows that I know I like. I'm not willing to pay for shows that I don't like or don't know if I like. I'm not going to pay to see the new fall line-up when 80% of it is going to be crap. I'm not going to pay to see the TV premeire of last summer's box office bombs when I wasn't willing to pay for when they were in theaters. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
Naeser's Law:
I guess my point is, that this isn't as big a deal or as big a leap of thought as it is being made out to be. There is a lot of real estate out there to look in. Ok, its cool, but we had to do this eventually.
Naeser's Law:
Naeser's Law:
But yes, they do. Our failure to understand the nature of those laws does not mean they don't exist. They violate *our* laws, the ones based on observation, experimentation and speculation, but that is not the same thing. You have to be smarter than the phenomenon you're trying to explain. We aren't yet.
Naeser's Law:
Naeser's Law:
Naeser's Law:
Naeser's Law:
Naeser's Law:
Naeser's Law:
Naeser's Law:
Naeser's Law:
Naeser's Law:
My .02
I gotta disagree here. The way i see it, the human mind, as complex and chaotic as it is, is still the result of a network of a finite number of interconnected neurons. The system as a whole accepts input, processes, and generates output. This system is based initially on the genetic code created upon conception. But it is also designed to alter itself based upon input from the external environment. This happens as soon as the embryo has advanced far enough to accept input(i.e. sensory cells have developed). The resulting personality is a result of both the initial programming and the subsequent environmental input.
All a computer needs to emulate a human mind is to simulate this finite system of neurons. Not a simple task, but I don't believe its impossible. I don't buy your statement that it requires the universe to do this because its already being done in the space of a large cantelope.
Also..
D) As for "a very large deterministic system in a chaotic environment" It falls when you point out two things. The deterministic system must itself be a "chaotic environment" as the individual is always a piece of its environment. "To obsever is to influence, and to be influenced" Professor Klemke. Second, I admit I didn't read all the book and BSed on the test.
Why must the deterministic system be chaotic. Wouldn't that mean different outcome for the same input? This isn't true. I don't like green olives. I never liked green olives. I can safely say I will never like green olives. My mind won't randomly decided to like green olives. That's what I see you suggesting and I don't buy that either.
Enough prattle. Time to move on. :)
Naeser's Law: