No, it's not total bullshit. Fischer violated economic sanctions that were leveled against a country for being complicit in the mass murder of thousands of people. His participation in the match gave credibility and economic advantage (probably) to a government that slaughtered its citizens.
I'm missing that "man, that's way freaking cool" coming out of my mouth when seeing new demos. That demo, while sort of nifty, didn't look appreciably better than the one the Future Crew (or whatever) did back in the day...I think I had a 486/66 to run it, with a VL Local Bus video card.
How's the saying go? The 30 year old who has never programmed in Assembler has no heart...the 30 year old who still programs in Assembler has no brain...
No, you don't have the right to do all that nonsense in someone else's house. The only reason you have the right to do it at home is because a lot of fair use is just a reasonable expectation of privacy. We make fair use because we don't want companies coming into our homes and determining our activities. A movie theatre is a public place and there is no such expectation.
Also, when you pay your $10 at the theatre...that $10 is for the right to sit in the theatre and watch whatever the theatre decides to display and at their convenience, not yours. Your $10 is not to purchase a copy of a film, it is for a one time viewing of said film.
There is no possible way you can justify making videotaping first run movies in the theatre legal. Way too over the top utopian socialist viewpoint. If you don't allow companies to at least establish cursory protection of their property...they won't produce it for you to steal. I'm not suggesting we allow them into our homes, but likewise, you shouldn't be able to go into their house and steal their product.
If the EFF were to "fight" this law, they'd be fighting for it. For the right for an individual or a corporation to prevent others from videotaping on private property. Otherwise, when you become Maddonna/Esther, the paparazzi could legally come onto your property to videotape you eating dinner.
You make way too many assumptions. Again, Mickey Mouse, Star Trek and Frodo are brands that are incorporated into works created to derive income from. "Googol" is a word a guy came up with a long time ago to describe a natural phenomena, or "math" if you will. Your example is terrible and they aren't even close to the same thing.
There are some subjects that aren't worth debate. Your use of a poor comparison is worth debate. That the folks trying to extort payment from Google (I have no particular affinity for Google...this could be McDonalds or General Motors or even Microsoft and I'd still be pissed that shit like this flies) are nothing more than common theives, is not worth debate. I call a spade a "spade" and these folks are theives. Or perhaps you prefer words with more syllables. How about extortionists? Blackmailers? Criminals?
Mickey Mouse is a brand name and Disney goes to great links to protect that. Same with Star Trek and Frodo. Googol, on the other hand, is a word. It has never been associated with any brand or trademark this family owns or derives income from.
This is nothing more than a bullshit land grab by theives. Period. They are trying to steal from Google and I wonder what snake put them up to it if they hadn't come up with it themselves...absolute crap.
Only if the projectile is the same mass as the cannon. If the cannon were to be, say, 100 times the mass of the projectile, and granted, IANAP(hysicist), I'd think that F=MA would only transfer 1/100th of the F into the cannon as it would the projectile, or something to that effect.
Ergo, small motors adjusting the position of the weapon should suffice...or, if you are shooting down, this would be an excellent way to maintain the altitude of the weapon without resorting to having large quantities of propellant on the weapon. Gravity will just pull it back down into position eventually...
This is the type of argument you get from a lawyer, a technophobe or someone with a vested interest in being anti-open source. Arguments generally center around "security" "support" and "accountability".
One, Microsoft software, the most popular "closed source" software in the world, is rife with security holes. While the most popular (arguably) open-source software in the world, Apache, doesn't strike me as being terribly buggy *or* full of security holes. For instance, I don't have to update my apache software once a week.
Two, often for popular open-source products there is plenty of free and timely support. Advantage is also to the qualified technophile, who can support his or her own software, and not rely on the timetables of vendors.
Three, accoutability. What has Microsoft *ever* been accountable for? Viruses? Bugs? Data loss?
Well, you certainly are the brilliant wonder and master of the English language. Let us speak of, "as most of our daily life has been easily described by science.".
I'm pretty sure science can explain how your cellphone works.
I'm pretty sure science can explain how your car works.
I'm pretty sure science can explain how the sun appears to come up in the east and go down in the west.
Now, unless your daily life is full of interstellar travel, or you don't happen to believe that knowing "fire is the result of a combustible material reaching its flash point" as opposed to "fire is caused by the fire god" is a very big leap, then I'd say that science has done A PRETTY GOOD GODDAMNED JOB OF EXPLAINING DAILY LIFE!
That's what the fuck I was thinking when I wrote that. I was also thinking that a good portion of the Slashdot audience has little ability for critical thinking, as evidenced by your outburst.
Well, quite a diatribe.:-) But, my words were not so much meant to be philosophical as they were meant to be a direct response to original complainer about "anti-religion". This bit in particular:
Why isn't it? Anti-religionists seem to think everything, including anything within religion, should be "provable", no matter what.
This is one example of the extreme viewpoint. On one side of the spectrum. I just re-read the article, and perhaps i'm missing something, but I found no reference to religion or God. The second poster immediately launched into some rant about "oh you ninnys and your science, why do you always have to have an answer to everything".
Now, granted, I am making a generalization, but that is an comment you might hear from your typical fundamentalist Christian type (and I don't mean to pick on them other than it is what I am most familiar with) that likes to ignore what science has to tell us in favor of "faith" or "the Bible".
Though my words may have seemed to portray my opinion as such, I did not mean to suggest that all who accept God or higher power or spiritual being as creator of the universe or what have you...I do not mean to suggest that all those people use God as an excuse to remain ignorant. Some do though, and some do zealously.
Now, before I get too far off the mark, I mean to explain, as you took great time and care to respond to my comment, that I have long since learned to not delve too deeply into philosophical subjects here on/., as often times you do end up running into brick walls with the unformed minds of fifteen year old arm-chair philosophers, who just as often, deal in absolutes...and absolutes are, one would think obviously, something to avoid when discussing philosopy (or religion, or Linux...which is like the former....).
Anyhow, I think you'd find we probably agree on the subject more than we disagree. While what I said may mistate what you describe as "Christian thought", I seriously doubt the original anti-religion complainer is one of what might call a philosopher-Christian and more of the flavor of fundamentalist/absolutist Christian. i.e. One that has little room in his or her mind for the opinions of others, or new ideas, etc.
And rant, rant, rant. Sorry.:-) Cheers....oh, even better, I'm just now understanding that the stupid/. modding system often buries poignent comment under threads...and all that I have written is quite moot.:-(
Listen, people, I don't necessarily believe anything any more heartily than any of you seem to, but to blanketly blame religion for the woes of the world is not the answer.
Religions consist of groups of people. People are generally not immune to corruption. Did the religion cause the corruption? No. Are people sometimes assholes? Yes.
Saying Catholicism has no redeeming value whatsoever is extremely short sighted and indicative of flawed and predjudiced thinking. Taking any human organization of that size as a whole is not going to be accurate.
The Catholic Church in Europe *was* good for literacy. Often if you were a scholar, you were in the clergy, or closely related lay person.
Perfect example? Gregor Mendel. He was a priest, monk and abbot of his monestary. He also published, in the mid nineteenth century, the definitive description of genetic heredity for nearly a century.
Now, please, stop blaming everybody involved in religion for the actions of a few assholes that probably had political and monetary motivations anyway.
Though it depends perhaps upon which practitioners of religion you investigate. Literacy was kept alive by the Catholic church in Europe. Islam was the religion of science and scholarship during a good portion of the time leading up to the Renaissance. Buddism/Taoism/Confuscianism, to my knowledge, have not been a hinderance to science.
I think AC, your post comes from one who does not get it, and by rushing to the defense of religion where no assault is being perpetrated, you miss the mark completely.
It is human nature to "know" how or why things are the way they are. You choose your explanation to be God. It is a nice and easy way to go about life, believing that everything has a purpose, but you do not need know what that is because you have God.
Scientists, on the other hand, have a driving desire to learn. This has nothing to do with "anti-religion" or a desire to prove there is no God. In fact, you may find that quite a few scientists do believe in God or a "creator" or what have you. They just don't try to use this "God" concept to explain away the unexplainable. They have been issued a challenge by the universe and they have chosen to rise to the occasion. My guess is because there is precious little left to explain, as most of our daily life has been easily described by science.
Besides, who is to say that what God is not the final answer to the Theory of Everything? Something tells me we are little closer to explaining how God works than we were a thousand years ago. What if science is merely an attempt to acheive a greater understanding of God?
It's my understanding that the best kind of security is physical security. i.e. Don't put your credit card out over the air...even if it is only six inches.
Though you may have a point there. I guess I don't see RFID being any less secure, than, say, the internet. And I'm sure as hell not going to stop using Amazon.
How hard would it be for some unscrupulous person to just hood up a speedpass reader in a high traffic area and try to read, and charge, every speedpass that happened to pass within a foot or so?
Wireless internet connection + speedpass reader + batterys or whatever power source...
I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have my pocket picked electronically...
Obviously you haven't been in a Best Buy or Circuit City (or whatever you have where you live) in quite some time. Stroll in to Best Buy now and you'll see more big-screen TV's than regular TV's. All of them will be hooked to an HD feed, generally DirecTV's HD feed, because it is the easiest to get.
So, apparently do you not know about DirecTV's HD quality, you don't seem to understand the quality of HD in the first place. There is absolutely no way on Earth that your regular PAL/NTSC television has a picture quality anywhere near that of HD.
Also, DirecTV HD takes signal from three separate satellites. Not only is the capability of the newer satellites better, but now there are more of them and you can get channels from all three.
On top of that, there have been multiple two-tuner options available for quite some time. UltimateTV (lord rest its soul) was two tuner from the get-go, and I've now been enjoying it for over two years. DirecTivo has been available with two-tuners for at least a year now.
The only reason I haven't switched is that I'm waiting for HD Tivo...HD is nice, but I'll never live without a PVR again...
Reasonable predictions? Like the rise of an American dictator in 2000? What the fuck planet are you on?!?! How the hell is that reasonable?
What about people who actually DO live under a dictatorship...fearing from death squads, not being able to speak their own mind, not being able to see their children grow up in a safe environment?
I know you lefties like to poke at Bush every chance you get, but this is bullshit. An American dictator is NOT a reasonable prediction.
Don't sweat the benefits and crap. If you're a student, you've prolly already got health insurance...especially if your folks are still listing you as a dependent.
Companies are much more willing to pay big $$$ to someone they don't have to give benefits too...so $50 - $100 per hour may not be out of the question.
Also, if you're only talking a relatively few hours, ask for more. i.e. if it's only 10 hours a week, $100/hour get's you a grand, while 20 hours a week at $50 gets you that same grand...it all looks the same on the company's monthly budget.
Yeah, but I doubt you'll find an investment bank (or investors for that matter) that can take your $350 billion per year and make it grow in an IRA fund at 7% a year.
Military spending IS an investment. All those nuclear missiles and such that we *invested* in back in the day kept the Soviets from frying your parents to a crisp, so they invested in your ability to be born.
Not everthing is tangible, and military spending certainly isn't, but you still aren't going to cut the budget to zero.
By the way, DoD employs well over a million people. Is that money wasted too?
No, you're missing it. Research isn't done by thinking up some crazy ass problem in order to justify finding a solution to it. Problems are encountered in day to day life, and research is done to work around such problems. This is why no one has given $5 billion in order to develop the transporter technology from Star Trek.
You don't usually spend a bunch of $$$ to build a material you have NO USE FOR. A lot of carbon fiber research was done to solve the problem of aircraft wing weight and strength. Thank you DoD for my carbon fibre mountain bike frame.
Slashdot Mirror
And I thought my 4 year old 32 meg GeForce in my Athlon 1600+ was bad...
No, it's not total bullshit. Fischer violated economic sanctions that were leveled against a country for being complicit in the mass murder of thousands of people. His participation in the match gave credibility and economic advantage (probably) to a government that slaughtered its citizens.
Now tell me it's total bullshit.
Know what I'm missing?
I'm missing that "man, that's way freaking cool" coming out of my mouth when seeing new demos. That demo, while sort of nifty, didn't look appreciably better than the one the Future Crew (or whatever) did back in the day...I think I had a 486/66 to run it, with a VL Local Bus video card.
How's the saying go? The 30 year old who has never programmed in Assembler has no heart...the 30 year old who still programs in Assembler has no brain...
...but 3D Studio Max killed this little revolution, imho. I'm sure the programming and the effort involved in producing that invitation was immense.
That being said, it's like watching Picasso draw with crayons.
Dude/dudette...please...
No, you don't have the right to do all that nonsense in someone else's house. The only reason you have the right to do it at home is because a lot of fair use is just a reasonable expectation of privacy. We make fair use because we don't want companies coming into our homes and determining our activities. A movie theatre is a public place and there is no such expectation.
Also, when you pay your $10 at the theatre...that $10 is for the right to sit in the theatre and watch whatever the theatre decides to display and at their convenience, not yours. Your $10 is not to purchase a copy of a film, it is for a one time viewing of said film.
There is no possible way you can justify making videotaping first run movies in the theatre legal. Way too over the top utopian socialist viewpoint. If you don't allow companies to at least establish cursory protection of their property...they won't produce it for you to steal. I'm not suggesting we allow them into our homes, but likewise, you shouldn't be able to go into their house and steal their product.
If the EFF were to "fight" this law, they'd be fighting for it. For the right for an individual or a corporation to prevent others from videotaping on private property. Otherwise, when you become Maddonna/Esther, the paparazzi could legally come onto your property to videotape you eating dinner.
You make way too many assumptions. Again, Mickey Mouse, Star Trek and Frodo are brands that are incorporated into works created to derive income from. "Googol" is a word a guy came up with a long time ago to describe a natural phenomena, or "math" if you will. Your example is terrible and they aren't even close to the same thing.
There are some subjects that aren't worth debate. Your use of a poor comparison is worth debate. That the folks trying to extort payment from Google (I have no particular affinity for Google...this could be McDonalds or General Motors or even Microsoft and I'd still be pissed that shit like this flies) are nothing more than common theives, is not worth debate. I call a spade a "spade" and these folks are theives. Or perhaps you prefer words with more syllables. How about extortionists? Blackmailers? Criminals?
Mickey Mouse is a brand name and Disney goes to great links to protect that. Same with Star Trek and Frodo. Googol, on the other hand, is a word. It has never been associated with any brand or trademark this family owns or derives income from.
This is nothing more than a bullshit land grab by theives. Period. They are trying to steal from Google and I wonder what snake put them up to it if they hadn't come up with it themselves...absolute crap.
Has anyone even noticed the glaring mistake in the Slashdot reporting here?
Gates *did not* write or utter that statement, it was written by a Microsoft executive in a memo intended for Gates.
Not that this makes the statement any less damning, but Gates should not be associated with this statement.
I'm shocked at the cultural depravity that would allow the entire thread to miss this one.
Johnny Cash - A Boy Named Sue
I'd quote the lyrics, but you really have to hear this one to get the point. If you haven't already heard it, go look this one up.
And l4m3 April Fool's joke or not, if you name your kid P4u1, he will get his ass kicked once or a thousand times.
Or just use a big freaking rock. I like that idea better anyway...
Only if the projectile is the same mass as the cannon. If the cannon were to be, say, 100 times the mass of the projectile, and granted, IANAP(hysicist), I'd think that F=MA would only transfer 1/100th of the F into the cannon as it would the projectile, or something to that effect.
Ergo, small motors adjusting the position of the weapon should suffice...or, if you are shooting down, this would be an excellent way to maintain the altitude of the weapon without resorting to having large quantities of propellant on the weapon. Gravity will just pull it back down into position eventually...
This is the type of argument you get from a lawyer, a technophobe or someone with a vested interest in being anti-open source. Arguments generally center around "security" "support" and "accountability".
One, Microsoft software, the most popular "closed source" software in the world, is rife with security holes. While the most popular (arguably) open-source software in the world, Apache, doesn't strike me as being terribly buggy *or* full of security holes. For instance, I don't have to update my apache software once a week.
Two, often for popular open-source products there is plenty of free and timely support. Advantage is also to the qualified technophile, who can support his or her own software, and not rely on the timetables of vendors.
Three, accoutability. What has Microsoft *ever* been accountable for? Viruses? Bugs? Data loss?
Well, you certainly are the brilliant wonder and master of the English language. Let us speak of, "as most of our daily life has been easily described by science.".
I'm pretty sure science can explain how your cellphone works.
I'm pretty sure science can explain how your car works.
I'm pretty sure science can explain how the sun appears to come up in the east and go down in the west.
Now, unless your daily life is full of interstellar travel, or you don't happen to believe that knowing "fire is the result of a combustible material reaching its flash point" as opposed to "fire is caused by the fire god" is a very big leap, then I'd say that science has done A PRETTY GOOD GODDAMNED JOB OF EXPLAINING DAILY LIFE!
That's what the fuck I was thinking when I wrote that. I was also thinking that a good portion of the Slashdot audience has little ability for critical thinking, as evidenced by your outburst.
Have a nice day.
Well, quite a diatribe. :-) But, my words were not so much meant to be philosophical as they were meant to be a direct response to original complainer about "anti-religion". This bit in particular:
/., as often times you do end up running into brick walls with the unformed minds of fifteen year old arm-chair philosophers, who just as often, deal in absolutes...and absolutes are, one would think obviously, something to avoid when discussing philosopy (or religion, or Linux...which is like the former....).
:-) Cheers. ...oh, even better, I'm just now understanding that the stupid /. modding system often buries poignent comment under threads...and all that I have written is quite moot. :-(
Why isn't it? Anti-religionists seem to think everything, including anything within religion, should be "provable", no matter what.
This is one example of the extreme viewpoint. On one side of the spectrum. I just re-read the article, and perhaps i'm missing something, but I found no reference to religion or God. The second poster immediately launched into some rant about "oh you ninnys and your science, why do you always have to have an answer to everything".
Now, granted, I am making a generalization, but that is an comment you might hear from your typical fundamentalist Christian type (and I don't mean to pick on them other than it is what I am most familiar with) that likes to ignore what science has to tell us in favor of "faith" or "the Bible".
Though my words may have seemed to portray my opinion as such, I did not mean to suggest that all who accept God or higher power or spiritual being as creator of the universe or what have you...I do not mean to suggest that all those people use God as an excuse to remain ignorant. Some do though, and some do zealously.
Now, before I get too far off the mark, I mean to explain, as you took great time and care to respond to my comment, that I have long since learned to not delve too deeply into philosophical subjects here on
Anyhow, I think you'd find we probably agree on the subject more than we disagree. While what I said may mistate what you describe as "Christian thought", I seriously doubt the original anti-religion complainer is one of what might call a philosopher-Christian and more of the flavor of fundamentalist/absolutist Christian. i.e. One that has little room in his or her mind for the opinions of others, or new ideas, etc.
And rant, rant, rant. Sorry.
Listen, people, I don't necessarily believe anything any more heartily than any of you seem to, but to blanketly blame religion for the woes of the world is not the answer.
Religions consist of groups of people. People are generally not immune to corruption. Did the religion cause the corruption? No. Are people sometimes assholes? Yes.
Saying Catholicism has no redeeming value whatsoever is extremely short sighted and indicative of flawed and predjudiced thinking. Taking any human organization of that size as a whole is not going to be accurate.
The Catholic Church in Europe *was* good for literacy. Often if you were a scholar, you were in the clergy, or closely related lay person.
Perfect example? Gregor Mendel. He was a priest, monk and abbot of his monestary. He also published, in the mid nineteenth century, the definitive description of genetic heredity for nearly a century.
Now, please, stop blaming everybody involved in religion for the actions of a few assholes that probably had political and monetary motivations anyway.
Though it depends perhaps upon which practitioners of religion you investigate. Literacy was kept alive by the Catholic church in Europe. Islam was the religion of science and scholarship during a good portion of the time leading up to the Renaissance. Buddism/Taoism/Confuscianism, to my knowledge, have not been a hinderance to science.
It's all point of view...
I think AC, your post comes from one who does not get it, and by rushing to the defense of religion where no assault is being perpetrated, you miss the mark completely.
It is human nature to "know" how or why things are the way they are. You choose your explanation to be God. It is a nice and easy way to go about life, believing that everything has a purpose, but you do not need know what that is because you have God.
Scientists, on the other hand, have a driving desire to learn. This has nothing to do with "anti-religion" or a desire to prove there is no God. In fact, you may find that quite a few scientists do believe in God or a "creator" or what have you. They just don't try to use this "God" concept to explain away the unexplainable. They have been issued a challenge by the universe and they have chosen to rise to the occasion. My guess is because there is precious little left to explain, as most of our daily life has been easily described by science.
Besides, who is to say that what God is not the final answer to the Theory of Everything? Something tells me we are little closer to explaining how God works than we were a thousand years ago. What if science is merely an attempt to acheive a greater understanding of God?
Lessee here...this thing costs just shy of my PS2, XBox *and* GameCube. *AND* all the games I own for them.
It's my understanding that the best kind of security is physical security. i.e. Don't put your credit card out over the air...even if it is only six inches.
Though you may have a point there. I guess I don't see RFID being any less secure, than, say, the internet. And I'm sure as hell not going to stop using Amazon.
How hard would it be for some unscrupulous person to just hood up a speedpass reader in a high traffic area and try to read, and charge, every speedpass that happened to pass within a foot or so?
Wireless internet connection + speedpass reader + batterys or whatever power source...
I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have my pocket picked electronically...
Obviously you haven't been in a Best Buy or Circuit City (or whatever you have where you live) in quite some time. Stroll in to Best Buy now and you'll see more big-screen TV's than regular TV's. All of them will be hooked to an HD feed, generally DirecTV's HD feed, because it is the easiest to get.
So, apparently do you not know about DirecTV's HD quality, you don't seem to understand the quality of HD in the first place. There is absolutely no way on Earth that your regular PAL/NTSC television has a picture quality anywhere near that of HD.
Also, DirecTV HD takes signal from three separate satellites. Not only is the capability of the newer satellites better, but now there are more of them and you can get channels from all three.
On top of that, there have been multiple two-tuner options available for quite some time. UltimateTV (lord rest its soul) was two tuner from the get-go, and I've now been enjoying it for over two years. DirecTivo has been available with two-tuners for at least a year now.
The only reason I haven't switched is that I'm waiting for HD Tivo...HD is nice, but I'll never live without a PVR again...
Reasonable predictions? Like the rise of an American dictator in 2000? What the fuck planet are you on?!?! How the hell is that reasonable?
What about people who actually DO live under a dictatorship...fearing from death squads, not being able to speak their own mind, not being able to see their children grow up in a safe environment?
I know you lefties like to poke at Bush every chance you get, but this is bullshit. An American dictator is NOT a reasonable prediction.
Don't sweat the benefits and crap. If you're a student, you've prolly already got health insurance...especially if your folks are still listing you as a dependent.
Companies are much more willing to pay big $$$ to someone they don't have to give benefits too...so $50 - $100 per hour may not be out of the question.
Also, if you're only talking a relatively few hours, ask for more. i.e. if it's only 10 hours a week, $100/hour get's you a grand, while 20 hours a week at $50 gets you that same grand...it all looks the same on the company's monthly budget.
Yeah, but I doubt you'll find an investment bank (or investors for that matter) that can take your $350 billion per year and make it grow in an IRA fund at 7% a year.
Military spending IS an investment. All those nuclear missiles and such that we *invested* in back in the day kept the Soviets from frying your parents to a crisp, so they invested in your ability to be born.
Not everthing is tangible, and military spending certainly isn't, but you still aren't going to cut the budget to zero.
By the way, DoD employs well over a million people. Is that money wasted too?
No, you're missing it. Research isn't done by thinking up some crazy ass problem in order to justify finding a solution to it. Problems are encountered in day to day life, and research is done to work around such problems. This is why no one has given $5 billion in order to develop the transporter technology from Star Trek.
You don't usually spend a bunch of $$$ to build a material you have NO USE FOR. A lot of carbon fiber research was done to solve the problem of aircraft wing weight and strength. Thank you DoD for my carbon fibre mountain bike frame.