having used ms early systems for mail, i guess you are talking about their happy talk about "eating their own dogfood" because they were using ms windows / mail?
Ha.
Did you know they were backending to completely different systems, for years? that the dogfood they were eating on the backend was not their own?
Took me a while to weasel that out of them, but they admitted it after a particularly long and fustrating night when I asked them "I'm running all your stuff and it crashes regularly, how do you stand it???" So, they sheepishly fessed up. Unix backends.
I can tell you we gave up ( we were early NT adopters and had been running DOS ) on ms bakends.
How did we get stability? MTAs = OS/2 platform ( yeah, we still had to reboot the MTA sessions, but at least the platform didn't drop out ) against Novell Servers. that's how we got msmail to vaguely function. vaguely.
Fermi's little question rests on a series of potentially bad assumptions:
A.) Intellegent Life, when it arises, sends out radio waves and/or pokes about the planets while it exists, since such life tends to be curious and won't all be lay-abouts, it will come to visit.
B.) We are smart enough, as we are, to detect life out there, if it exists, by eavesdropping and such life will make itself obvious, as we have, for a long stretch of time.
C.) They have enough free time to deal with us, rather than each other, or would logically be inclined to deal with us, absent some strict moral code the whole galaxy embraces.
The first assumption is incorrect on it's face, looking at our own history.
We've only been sending out radio transmissions for a tiny fraction of our own recorded history... and it may be tommorrow we stop. Nor have we had much success ( for all our talk ) of colonizing other planets. We touched the moon for a few hours. I'm sure it's possible, but it may be not something that takes off in a big way, even here.
I know, I see all the hands raised to volunteer... but wait till the first three missions to nearby stars fail.
Or, what if we find we do have neighbors, and they want us to stay off their porch? If the galaxy is aa crowded as is implied, maybe all the fish staking claim and enforcing territorial boundaries makes colonization much more difficult and slow ( picture a whole bunch of contenders, all of them too busy fighting/standing each other off to bother with the earth... )
All these civs use radio? Why? We may have some very different technology than radio in the future. Or we may use radio in ways we don't know right now. Who can say?
Beyond this, when winnowing out stuff, the article is also correct in stating that the lifetime of planets is involved. There is no compeling evidence in our own history that life sustaining environments will produce 'intellegent' life... 5 billion years to get Howard Stern... wow. Pretty short window on actually getting the message out.
So, all those planets with civs on them may have a 200 year window where they use Radio, and then dump it for something better...
How about this, too, the article assumes an advanced civ _must_ have a star to orbit...
Why? If we have fusion power, do you need a star anymore? A planet? Why not build a ship and dump the planet? It might be, eventually, that's more efficient and portable of a system.
Besides, if suddenly you were getting radio transmissions from some little planet off in the distance, wouldn't it be easier to listen and see how much you could learn about them while they broadcast credit card numbers and the human genome over the radio waves?
Why stop that? Whether your intentions are benign or malignant, surely it's better to just snoop the lines?
This sets the constitution, laws enacted by congress "in Pursuance" and Treaties above laws and constitutions of the states.
The constitution makes specific prohibitions about when and how treaties can be enacted. It does not give them equal status with itself, or the laws of the united states even per se. In fact, it's harder to enact a treaty than a law.
Read it more carefully... except to acknowledge they exist, this doesn't really give the treaty powers over federal law or the constitution. It only tramples over states rights.
Which of course, you might see as being similiar to federal laws... but that is another matter.;)
I'm sorry, but if you look at the top page (/) for this site, the blurb all but says they have proven there is a causal link between video games and long term violence.
The rest of the paper dances around the subject, but they imply that "pac man" might be a violent game. I mean, let's get real...
Sometimes it's easy to forget scientists are humans, but what they have here is a blatant attempt to grab attention with a half baked study. It's research at it's worst, trying to grab headlines and have lots of blurbs that will play in the media so they can get funding.
Sorry, but that's how I see it. There is no good here, they've trivialized their own research, I now doubt their intentions in publishing this. Not to mention, their methods are clearly flawed in the second study mentioned. Gee, people who are violent tend to gravitate to violent games and people who play lots of video games tend to have lower GPAs than people that don't.
Duh. I could say the same for football. Lower GPAs than average and a higher tendency to violence. What does that prove? I mean, maybe it's a start, but in a real paper, it would be a footnote. I don't believe taking away people's footballs would reduce violence in the world. That's how some people are.
Well, partly, of course if you ask me, almost all of this goes back to the parents. I mean, how are these kids getting and keeping aresenals that some revolutionary splinter groups can only dream of in their bedrooms? What we have is too many cheap guns, and as a society we fail to take this stuff seriously and actually act on it.
You know why Columbine happened? Because the first time those kids acted out in a violent fashion, they were given a stern talking to instead of being expelled. That's what's changed between 1950 and 2000, not the kids, not human nature: access to assault weapons, and a system that no longer is willing to deal with violence swiftly, and if I may say, aggressively.
Sorry, the fact that the APA published this as a major breakthrough on their site just proves they have low standards, and are publicity hounds. What garbage.
Is exactly what the article is talking about. The point was not so much that some of the preported "leaders" (if anarchists can have such things) have had to change the way they think about the way in which the world may or may not work, but that the same leaders have now retruned to the point from which they first departed.
What anarchists are you talking about?
Tim Berners Lee? Neal Stephenson? Oh, please.
IMHO, these people haven't changed their fundamental opinions, that power belongs in the hands of individuals and not sacred cow institutions. I have never heard any of these folks advocate any form of anarchy. If you have stuff to back this up, post away
Questioning the role of governments and institutions is not anarchism, unless you are in stalinist russia...
I feel pretty confident that these people never felt that technology was going to solve all the worlds problems, but rather they felt strongly that individuals should not be denied any of the potential strengths that technology ( read ideas ) could provide them...if even that, I can't speak for them, although I have never read a word that would lead me to call them 'anarchists'.
Advocating a position of not using a DENY_ALL model for new technology, like the FBI and now the RIAA are doing is not anarchy. Saying that power over individual expression is not anyone's unless you can prove it is hurting a third party somehow ( trampling on their rights, not just annoying them ), is not the same as believing all governments are evil.
Believing that the government(s) have a specific role in regulating "the world" and that they must step up to that role is not in contradiction with the belief that government(s) have a specific role in regulating "the world" and should not step out of that, either.
I guess to me your post sounded like it was almost fustrated with the whole idea privacy through technology, and I frankly don't understand that. I mean, at some level if you don't have some limited understanding of technology, there will never be any privacy, no matter what the government says. So too, if the government isn't there, almost no matter how much you know, your privacy will vanish.
There's no contradiction, these are two modes of defense. Technology is the locked door of your home, good legislation is the policeman walking the beat. By extension, technology only in the hands of the state is a skeleton key to everyone's door, or no door, and bad legislation is the police storming your house and busting down your door because of something your neighbor thought you once said about the ( insert_your_leader's_name_here ).
We have to have both.
How is this related to what Pinkerton is doing???
on
Manic Depressive Geeks
·
· Score: 2
Pinkerton is doing a nazi-esque attempt to get people to report "odd behaviour".
What the hell does that have to do with manic depressives? How the hell did programmers become mentally ill?
I'm not denying the capacity for people with mental illness to create great works of art, solve complex problems or whatever...but just because I don't discount it, doesn't mean I believe there are more mentally ill coders than there are mentally ill small engine repair guys.
And, again, what the hell does that have to do with the Pinkerton group? I'll admit, the mentally ill may be reported more often than other groups, just like ugly, oddball or outspoken students will probably be, but this seems to link manic-depressive disorder with 'nerds', that is people with technical proclivities.
I'm sorry, it's different. The two sets overlap, but they are different sets.
I feel strongly that the Pinkerton's ( most famous for 'busting strikes' by 'busting heads' and worse in the past two centuries ) can go shove their police-state stuff up their asses, but frankly the urge to link coders and the mentally ill is just as offensive to me.
Geeks take flak in school. So do all the above other categories. Do I think it all comes from the same place in people, fear of the different? Yes. The urge to lump "strange" all into one bucket by high-schoolers even after they leave high school is a problem.
Just have to say that the certs aren't actually expiring in any of the browsers. Verisign was thinking of changing them 5 years ago, but then because it would break SSL sites for them ( in the sense that users would have to go get new certs), they CHANGED THE DATES ON THE OLD CERTS.
Same milk, new bottles. Actually, same bottles with new date labels. MMMMMM. Anyway, the certs are the same in older versions of IE too...except... and here's the brilliant part... IE doesn't tell you when a cert expires.
Awesome, huh??? That way users can go on browsing with a compromised cert ( if such a thing ever happened ) and WOULD NEVER KNOW the authority expired them. Of course, in this case it worked out for them because A) Versign was lazy B) They don't believe the certs have been cracked, stolen, or whatever from the magic safe they keep them in.
I just had to say that because it bugs me that so many messages "alerting the customer" don't include that little tidbit.
Of course, the certs haven't changed, too, so in Netscape if you click "ok" to continue you will be just as secure in 4.0 as you are with 4.5 or any version of IE you can name. You only have to click the button once ( at the start of the key exchange ), and you can go on with your life happy in the comfort of the SSL tunnel, without tearing your browser down and installing the AOL "shop" button.
Thank you for your time. This particular issue bugs the hell out of me...particularly because the only reason you can't solve it by updating the certs is because the government's little "server gated crypto" plan relies on...you guessed it...verisign cert #3, and if you update that with a 'new' public key, the only really new thing, which is the date, causes step-up certs to die.
Thank god they are there to protect us from all that crypto being exported.
Now I will submerge again. I have nothing more to say....
Slashdot Mirror
having used ms early systems for mail, i guess you are talking about their happy talk about "eating their own dogfood" because they were using ms windows / mail?
Ha.
Did you know they were backending to completely different systems, for years? that the dogfood they were eating on the backend was not their own?
Took me a while to weasel that out of them, but they admitted it after a particularly long and fustrating night when I asked them "I'm running all your stuff and it crashes regularly, how do you stand it???" So, they sheepishly fessed up. Unix backends.
I can tell you we gave up ( we were early NT adopters and had been running DOS ) on ms bakends.
How did we get stability? MTAs = OS/2 platform ( yeah, we still had to reboot the MTA sessions, but at least the platform didn't drop out ) against Novell Servers. that's how we got msmail to vaguely function. vaguely.
dogfood my shaggy bottom. dogfood. ha.
don't get me started. dogfood.
The first poster was dead on.
Fermi's little question rests on a series of potentially bad assumptions:
A.) Intellegent Life, when it arises, sends out radio waves and/or pokes about the planets while it exists, since such life tends to be curious and won't all be lay-abouts, it will come to visit.
B.) We are smart enough, as we are, to detect life out there, if it exists, by eavesdropping and such life will make itself obvious, as we have, for a long stretch of time.
C.) They have enough free time to deal with us, rather than each other, or would logically be inclined to deal with us, absent some strict moral code the whole galaxy embraces.
The first assumption is incorrect on it's face, looking at our own history.
We've only been sending out radio transmissions for a tiny fraction of our own recorded history... and it may be tommorrow we stop. Nor have we had much success ( for all our talk ) of colonizing other planets. We touched the moon for a few hours. I'm sure it's possible, but it may be not something that takes off in a big way, even here.
I know, I see all the hands raised to volunteer... but wait till the first three missions to nearby stars fail.
Or, what if we find we do have neighbors, and they want us to stay off their porch? If the galaxy is aa crowded as is implied, maybe all the fish staking claim and enforcing territorial boundaries makes colonization much more difficult and slow ( picture a whole bunch of contenders, all of them too busy fighting/standing each other off to bother with the earth... )
All these civs use radio? Why? We may have some very different technology than radio in the future. Or we may use radio in ways we don't know right now. Who can say?
Beyond this, when winnowing out stuff, the article is also correct in stating that the lifetime of planets is involved. There is no compeling evidence in our own history that life sustaining environments will produce 'intellegent' life...
5 billion years to get Howard Stern... wow. Pretty short window on actually getting the message out.
So, all those planets with civs on them may have a 200 year window where they use Radio, and then dump it for something better...
How about this, too, the article assumes an advanced civ _must_ have a star to orbit...
Why? If we have fusion power, do you need a star
anymore? A planet? Why not build a ship and dump the planet? It might be, eventually, that's more efficient and portable of a system.
Besides, if suddenly you were getting radio transmissions from some little planet off in the distance, wouldn't it be easier to listen and see how much you could learn about them while they broadcast credit card numbers and the human genome over the radio waves?
Why stop that? Whether your intentions are benign or malignant, surely it's better to just snoop the lines?
This sets the constitution, laws enacted by congress "in Pursuance" and Treaties above laws and constitutions of the states.
;)
The constitution makes specific prohibitions about when and how treaties can be enacted. It does not give them equal status with itself, or the laws of the united states even per se. In fact, it's harder to enact a treaty than a law.
Read it more carefully... except to acknowledge they exist, this doesn't really give the treaty powers over federal law or the constitution. It only tramples over states rights.
Which of course, you might see as being similiar to federal laws... but that is another matter.
I'm sorry, but if you look at the top page (/) for this site, the blurb all but says they have proven there is a causal link between video games and long term violence.
The rest of the paper dances around the subject, but they imply that "pac man" might be a violent game. I mean, let's get real...
Sometimes it's easy to forget scientists are humans, but what they have here is a blatant attempt to grab attention with a half baked study. It's research at it's worst, trying to grab headlines and have lots of blurbs that will play in the media so they can get funding.
Sorry, but that's how I see it. There is no good here, they've trivialized their own research, I now doubt their intentions in publishing this. Not to mention, their methods are clearly flawed in the second study mentioned. Gee, people who are violent tend to gravitate to violent games and people who play lots of video games tend to have lower GPAs than people that don't.
Duh. I could say the same for football. Lower GPAs than average and a higher tendency to violence. What does that prove? I mean, maybe it's a start, but in a real paper, it would be a footnote. I don't believe taking away people's footballs would reduce violence in the world. That's how some people are.
Well, partly, of course if you ask me, almost all of this goes back to the parents. I mean, how are these kids getting and keeping aresenals that some revolutionary splinter groups can only dream of in their bedrooms? What we have is too many cheap guns, and as a society we fail to take this stuff seriously and actually act on it.
You know why Columbine happened? Because the first time those kids acted out in a violent fashion, they were given a stern talking to instead of being expelled. That's what's changed between 1950 and 2000, not the kids, not human nature: access to assault weapons, and a system that no longer is willing to deal with violence swiftly, and if I may say, aggressively.
Sorry, the fact that the APA published this as a major breakthrough on their site just proves they have low standards, and are publicity hounds. What garbage.
Don't worry. If it doesn't run Linux yet, it will...
Oh, yes, it will....
;)
What anarchists are you talking about?
Tim Berners Lee? Neal Stephenson? Oh, please.
IMHO, these people haven't changed their fundamental opinions, that power belongs in the hands of individuals and not sacred cow institutions. I have never heard any of these folks advocate any form of anarchy. If you have stuff to back this up, post away
Questioning the role of governments and institutions is not anarchism, unless you are in stalinist russia...
I feel pretty confident that these people never felt that technology was going to solve all the worlds problems, but rather they felt strongly that individuals should not be denied any of the potential strengths that technology ( read ideas ) could provide them...if even that, I can't speak for them, although I have never read a word that would lead me to call them 'anarchists'.
Advocating a position of not using a DENY_ALL model for new technology, like the FBI and now the RIAA are doing is not anarchy. Saying that power over individual expression is not anyone's unless you can prove it is hurting a third party somehow ( trampling on their rights, not just annoying them ), is not the same as believing all governments are evil.
Believing that the government(s) have a specific role in regulating "the world" and that they must step up to that role is not in contradiction with the belief that government(s) have a specific role in regulating "the world" and should not step out of that, either.
I guess to me your post sounded like it was almost fustrated with the whole idea privacy through technology, and I frankly don't understand that. I mean, at some level if you don't have some limited understanding of technology, there will never be any privacy, no matter what the government says. So too, if the government isn't there, almost no matter how much you know, your privacy will vanish.
There's no contradiction, these are two modes of defense. Technology is the locked door of your home, good legislation is the policeman walking the beat. By extension, technology only in the hands of the state is a skeleton key to everyone's door, or no door, and bad legislation is the police storming your house and busting down your door because of something your neighbor thought you once said about the ( insert_your_leader's_name_here ).
We have to have both.
Pinkerton is doing a nazi-esque attempt to get
people to report "odd behaviour".
What the hell does that have to do with manic
depressives? How the hell did programmers become mentally ill?
I'm not denying the capacity for people with mental illness to create great works of art, solve complex problems or whatever...but just because I don't discount it, doesn't mean I believe there are more mentally ill coders than there are mentally ill small engine repair guys.
And, again, what the hell does that have to do with the Pinkerton group? I'll admit, the mentally ill may be reported more often than other groups, just like ugly, oddball or outspoken students will probably be, but this seems to link manic-depressive disorder with 'nerds', that is people with technical proclivities.
I'm sorry, it's different. The two sets overlap, but they are different sets.
I feel strongly that the Pinkerton's ( most famous for 'busting strikes' by 'busting heads' and worse in the past two centuries ) can go shove their police-state stuff up their asses, but frankly the urge to link coders and the mentally ill is just as offensive to me.
Geeks take flak in school. So do all the above other categories. Do I think it all comes from the same place in people, fear of the different? Yes. The urge to lump "strange" all into one bucket by high-schoolers even after they leave high school is a problem.
But we shouldn't do the same thing.
Coding != Crazy
Hi, Lurker surfacing.
...except... and here's the brilliant part ... IE doesn't tell you when a cert expires.
Just have to say that the certs aren't actually
expiring in any of the browsers. Verisign was
thinking of changing them 5 years ago, but then because it would break SSL sites for them ( in the sense that users would have to go get new certs), they CHANGED THE DATES ON THE OLD CERTS.
Same milk, new bottles. Actually, same bottles with new date labels. MMMMMM. Anyway, the certs are the same in older versions of IE too
Awesome, huh??? That way users can go on browsing
with a compromised cert ( if such a thing ever happened ) and WOULD NEVER KNOW the authority expired them. Of course, in this case it worked out for them because A) Versign was lazy B) They don't believe the certs have been cracked, stolen, or whatever from the magic safe they keep them in.
I just had to say that because it bugs me that so many messages "alerting the customer" don't include that little tidbit.
Of course, the certs haven't changed, too, so in Netscape if you click "ok" to continue you will be just as secure in 4.0 as you are with 4.5 or any version of IE you can name. You only have to click the button once ( at the start of the key exchange ), and you can go on with your life happy in the comfort of the SSL tunnel, without tearing your browser down and installing the AOL "shop" button.
Thank you for your time. This particular issue bugs the hell out of me...particularly because the only reason you can't solve it by updating the certs is because the government's little "server gated crypto" plan relies on...you guessed it...verisign cert #3, and if you update that with a 'new' public key, the only really new thing, which is the date, causes step-up certs to die.
Thank god they are there to protect us from all that crypto being exported.
Now I will submerge again. I have nothing more to say....