One pretty obvious thing is that line-of-sight communication by radio or laser, e.g. is far more power efficient and secure than spherical broadcast waves.
Obvious, except that you would have to compensate for anywhere from several years to several centuries travel time *and* you have to know where the reciever is. In the case of ships, esp. exploration vehicles, there is no way of knowing exactly where they'll be. (Unless you just shoot them in straight line; not very good exploration, though.)
In any case, with that much travel time, it's likely that any messeges will be important enough that you'll want everyone to know ("We're extinct!") which is best achieved via omnidirectional transmissions. (Again, you may have unpredictable targets.)
Then you have the problem of keeping the transmissions undetectable. Lasers are not capable of keeping any significant coherence across several light years. At best you might only light up the whole planet, at worst the beam could be multiple AU wide, or larger.
It's not to hard to imagine all our media being on fibreoptic cable (or better) within a century.
Except that you need LOS or direct access for this, which isn't always possible or desirable.
Ok, assume within 1000 years of the invention of radio, civilizations stop wasting energy by sending information in all directions.
Which begs the question, why conserve the energy? We'll be able to produce more than enough energy to do cost effective omnidirectional broadcasts within a few centuries, let alone ten.
It's not that unreasonable to say we have only shown that life off earth is rare, not that it doesn't exist.
But the 64-bit Alpha processors are expensive, and Alpha's future in general is uncertain. Systems based on Intel's Merced are still a year or so away, and they're going to be quite expensive. PowerPC, on the other hand, has excellent floating-point performance, today, for cheap.
I think they missed an important point here. The PPC is wonderful arch., but it isn't going to be long before the industry starts the Big Move to 64-bit (Merced will probably be the catalyst, right before it bombs[0]). Unless IBM is planning a G5 based on the PPC620, this will leave them behind.[1]
Of course, if the price/performance favors the G4/5 enough (say, dual 800Mhz G4's for the price of a 1GHz Alpha) then it may get ahead, but otherwise any victory will be short-lived.
[0]: I still think that IA-64 is a plot by HP to kill Intel. Instead of trying to compete with them, HP offered to help design the new arch., then came up with something so horrible that there is no way it can succeed.
[1]: Before anyone flames me for implying that 64-bit is always superior, think about this: Once the industry begins the move to 64, the Alpha, Sparc, etc will all be there waiting. If Merced bombs, the chip most likely replace it is the Alpha, which blows away a PPC. Demand == lower prices.
Do you really believe that there is any agency in the federal government capable of competently carrying out any kind of conspiracy. Every single bureau i've ever seen has been filled with morons that sit at their computer and play solitaire all day long.
I agree completely. Most gov't agencies couldn't cover up a floor with carpet. I don't believe that they are evil organizations whose only goal is to control the public/hide the truth/whatever[0], or that they employ armies of assassins disguised secretaries and accountants[1]. Gov't workers are almost all just normal people doing mundane jobs--most of them probably wouldn't participate in an evil conspiracy even if the opportunity came up. In fact, I trust the gov't more than many private organizations.[2]
(Want to test the conspiracy? Call both the FBI and SS to report a crime, then watch what happens when the agents arrive. For even more fun, add the BATF.)
But is that the only iterative process that can create life?
Well, since that's how we define 'life', yes.
[0]: Including the NSA, which I actually like quite a bit. IMO, it's all but harmless.
[1]: Including the the CIA. The only reason they have ninja secretaries is because of clerical errors.
[2]: Which shouldn't be taken to mean 'a lot', or even 'a little'. I don't think they're evil, but they are incompetent enough that they can do damage.
Unless I've experienced head-trauma recently, Alpha Centauri is our closest neighbor. It is very unlikely, to put it lightly, that there is anything there.
AC is a trinary system (actually a binary with a third star orbitting way out there). AFAIK, it rather difficult for planets to form in such systems, and even if one did there would be a tremendous amount of radiation, likely preventing life from forming.
The chemical makeup of the local neighborhood of stars is very similar in content because of a star that exploded before the Sun formed and scattered heavy elements througout the local area.
Er, what? The makeup of stars is the same everywhere. Hydrogen, helium, some carbon, etc. varying a little by age and class. I don't know of any supernovae large enough to have 'seeded' other stars, esp. in the area you're describing; even if one existed, star don't contain/burn much in the way of heavy elements--they're tricky to fuse--and that has nothing to do with life.
I'm sure a more advanced would find radio signals a primitive technology.
I find spoken language, math and fire primitive, but I still use them. (Not a flame, I'm just sick of the 'for them x would be primitive' argument.)
If my understanding is correct, then it seems that you could build transmitters based on this, and these transmitters would not leave tell-tail signals.
Two things wrong with this:
1: This is absolutely not correct. Even if there is a real effect here, information--in the information theory sense--cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. This is fairly important to QM.
Very roughly[0], what happens is that two particles (photons seem to be the most popular) may become 'entangled' under special conditions (being emitted from the the same particle at the same time, etc; very special, then). If you measure one of the particles, you will know the state of the other[1]--IIRC they 'balance' out. You cannot influence the attributes of the particles, only measure them[2], so it isn't possible to embed information in them. (There are other reason why you can't do it; this is the simplest, IIRC.)
2: Even if you could transmit info this way, both parties have to have the particles involved, which necessitates some transmissions.
Just because we use radio waves for communication doesn't mean an advanced civilization would.
No, but unless we're missing something increadibly obvious[3], they'd be using *some* kind of EM waves, which we should be able to detect. (Perhaps not via radio telescope, but somehow.)
[0]: I'm not a physicist, I'm a philosopher, so I'm not going to be 100% accurate here, or even 90%.
[1]: There is considerable debate over what is happening here. The 'reasonable' explanation is that the particles really do 'balance' when they are emitted, and we are simply discovering which one is which when we measure. The alternative is that the particles are in flux, and when observed instantly communicate with each other, taking on the proper attributes. (There are about a dozen versions of how this works and what's happening; IMO all of them are equally silly.)
[2]: Of course, measuring them may influence them, which is another debate with some very strange answers.
[3]: Actually, I can think of several cheats here, but none of them are very likely.
I was thinking more along the lines of architecture-specific code; there must be *some* assembly in there. (Bungie said about 5% of Marathon, I'd assume it about the samein MythII.) Assuming it was critical, it'd be easier to pull it from the Mac version than rewrite it from scratch. But then, I've never platform-ported before.
I'd like some more information about this, do you have any references for further reading? The junction of philosophy and science is a fertile area intellectually, and I'd like to become more familiar with some of the perspectives.
The last book I read on this was William Seager's "Metaphysics of Consciousness"[0]. Seager's position is interesting: he finds materialism metaphysically unacceptable, but doesn't believe there are any better alternatives. Nagel has done some work in this area as well, but I keep up with him.
My favorite aletrnatives, at the moment, come from AN Whitehead, and his disciples, particularly David R Griffin[1]. Whitehead attempted to create a system--something of a panpsychism, though extraordinarily well developed--that was compatible with, and actually derived from, physics and biology, as well as experience. Some interesting parallels to Nietzsche, as well.
My only recommendation for online reading would be some of the articles from David Chalmers' site (I don't have he url handy, but it's in Yahoo!). Chalmers isn't my favorite philosopher, but the links are excellent.
but I still stand by the complete statement "Without thought and examination your faith... it can be swayed..."
*shrug* My turn at semantics then. I don't doubt that many, even most, people of faith can be persuaded, have a crisis of faith, etc. However, I usually define 'strong faith' as not being susceptible to those things. Matter of taste, I suppose.
All scientific work must be questioned regardless of the person's religious orientation. Newton was right about classical physics because he was making objective observations of the physical world. We believe that he is right because we can verify his observations experimentally. Further, early this century we were able to accept that he was wrong in some instances, when other data was acquired. Objectivity ties all of this together, and allows learning to take place regardless of religious orientation.
I'm not sure what to make of this. Your original post implied that what's-his-name's convictions could impair his objectivity, but now you say that all scientific statements must be questioned. If this is true, his beliefs are irrelevent, and deserve no special treament and no assumptions that he is less objective.
How simple it would be if it were that black and white.
I'm not sure how it could be less so. Either one is objective or one is not, something is relevent or it is not. While I'm a great fan of grey areas, I don't see how they can be accepted in science.
As far as sci/tech goes, objectivity is key.
Of course, I don't believe that complete objectivity is possible, so science, or that interpretation of scince goes right out the window. Epistemologically, I'm a pragmatist and hard-instrumentalist, which offers a very different view of scientific knowledge. (Roughly, scientific knowledge is not true knowledge, but an interpretation of reality. Science cannot offer actual understanding about the world, only models that are useful for human purposes (engineering, basically)--that is the job of metaphysics. I do occasionally make exceptions when it seem appropriate, but I ackowledge that these may be arbitrary.)
When it comes to personal beliefs, then I urge you to have beliefs are well thought out and consistent with whatever evidence that they are based on.
Which was really what I said. I believe that one should question religious matters as much as anything else. I, for one, don't believe most of what is written in the Bible; I believe there is evidence that much of it never happened and that we were never supposed to believe it did. (Fun theological debate, though I suspect it works better with Rabbi's.) As I said, however, I don't believe relgious experiences can be questioned. If you believe that Jesus 'spoke' to you, then the claim that it was Jesus is questionable--but the fact that something happened to you is not.
...and at least some objectivity about your personal experiences.
Which I hold isn't really possible in religious matters ("at least some" is about as strong as I would allow). You can be objective about the object of experince, but the raw experiences are completely subjective. I believe that true religious experience has no object on which reason can be brought to bear directly. Of course, I have no real experience in these matters (being something of a soft-atheist).
Not considering the arguments against your faith weakens the overall strength of your faith. That is why I took issue with the statement "I don't think, I know."
Just to nitpick, but I though your assertion was that blind faith was an important part of Christianity. If you believe both statements, then you have entirely dismissed an possibility of genuine faith within that religion. While I don't necessarily object to dismissing Christianity, I does seem a bit harsh.
I would like to ask one question (this is really rhetorical, I may not see the answer) but are your beliefs about objectivity themselves objective? The notion that objectivity is important cannot be supported objectively, it is IMO epistemologically absurd, at best circular. As I said, all beliefs that are not immeadiately known to us (raw feels, etc) must be questioned, and objectivity is definately included. (I'd forgotten how fun epistemology can be.)
[0] I just checked my philosophy library. Seager's latest book is "Theories of Consciousness". While I wouldn't recommend it for a metaphysical interpretation, the first chapter is an excellent analysis of Descates' dualism, leading up to the proposal that in many ways he was as much a materialist as, say, Locke. Some fascinating parallels between Descartes' theory of how the brain works and he actual functioning of neural networks.
[1] Griffin's "Unsnarling the World Know" (the only book oh his that I've read) also contains quite a bit on what he calls "hard-core commonsense notions", beliefs which cannot be called into question or disproven, by science or philosophy.
I can't believe someone on/. wrote that comment about atheism, let alone the second half. Add to that your other comments and I'm beginning to suspect that you're an agent from some more intelligent part of the Internet. Are you single, or female? I'll be happy with one out of two! Will you at least tell me if there are other people like you out there?
(And I'd worked out a beautiful draft of a paper comparing OSes to the relationships between Christianity and Islam throughout history, but now no one will every see it. I hope your happy.)
As far as Christianity goes, it was my understanding that the core beliefs were centered around having faith.
This is an interesting issue. While that is certainly what Christians say, and usually believe, the fact that they point to the Bible as 'proof', or that Jesus 'proved' that he was in fact the Son of God (the resurrection, etc) implies that it may not be so simple. I'll address this fom another angle below.
You cannot rationally know about the validity of the nature and sacrifices of Christ. Futhermore, you cannot even know that the Christian worldview of sin and redemption correlates with the true nature of the universe.
This is a central problem of epistemology. You cannot rationally know that anything correlates with reality. Science, for example, has serious metaphysical problems that bring into doubt whether it reflects reality, or is simply a very successful interpretaion. Descartes pointed out what is likely to only truth we can positively know: that we exist.
Saying that you don't think, but rather know it to be true must be interpreted as an ironic misunderstanding, or a hyperbole about the strenghth of your faith.
Semantics. To 'know' something is 'true', is to have a strong belief that it is true. Having faith in something also leads to a strong belief. In either case, 'knowledge' is simply an extremely strong belief, and thus both routes lead to an equivelent 'truth' (though these 'truths' may not actually be true, of course).
Without thought and examination, your strong faith can be discounted as blind acceptance, or swayed by other persuasive arguments.
The latter contradicts the very idea of 'strong faith'. The former, though, I partially agree with. There are large parts of religion--for example, the actually works of Jesus--for which there is no evidence, and which are in doubt from any reasonable perspective. However, there is another element to religion which cannot be disproven and which requires no examination: religious experience, in its purest sense.
Unfortunately, people tend to rationalize these experiences and make them fit into their world-view or prior religious beliefs. Those additions and interpretations are open to attack. However, if I experience 'God', whatever that experience may be, it can not be called into doubt. Something has happened which can not be refuted. (Assuming that experiencing 'God' is possibly without interpretation. Even if it is not, there seems to be a common type of experience, protect under my argument, which people believe is 'God'.)
However your philosophy discounts the role of objectivity that is so important in technological pursuits.
Would you discount the scientific work of every theologian, or every believer? Newton is a common example; he wrote more extensively on matters of faith than physics, yet few people question the objectivity of his work
If you argue that one only must be objective within the scope of science and technology then the only concern is that he remain objective in that context, and his belief in God may be irrelevent. However, if you believe that objectivity must be absolute then you have to consider the the entire concept of objectivity and how it relates to the 'geek world-view'.
For example, most science is founded on the belief that the world is fundamentally material, or at any rate can be explained as such. However, beyond the success of physics, there is no objective reason to believe this. In fact, there are some very good reasons to doubt it. (From a philosophical standpoint, materialism was never terribly coherent. The modern mind-body problem, qualia, and the reappearance of metaphysics have resurrected discussion of its faults.)
Aristotle investigated species, (maybe) heredity and formed a biological classification system. However, he believed that species were static; whatever species existed had always existed and, if left undisturbed, always would. I can't recall the reason why he believed this, but IIRC it was derived from his metaphysics.
I do believe you're right that Darwin wasn't the first to theorize about evolution. I recall reading that there were a number of scientists and philosophers, both contemperaries of Darwin and predating him, who did a great deal of research in that area, and who influenced his own theories.
There is an FAQ for Third Edition somewhere, but WotC has done a good job hiding it. (The official site is here but I don't recommend it; 500+KB flash applet with almost no content.)
But for all who haven't been paying attention to r.g.f.d (*tsk tsk*), here's a very quick summary of the changes (that I can remember, anyway):
Inititaive is rolled at the beginning of combat, not every round, but per-round is still supported as an option.
Proficiencies (W&NW) and THAC0 are gone, replaced by a skill system. AC's are reversed and used as the target # for a skill roll (so AC 0 is now AC 20).
Weapons no longer have speed factors.
They've brought back several 1st Ed classes, including assassins and monksThere's also been mention of a sorcerer class, but I can't find any info about it.
There are apparently no longer racial limitations on classes--somewhere I saw a Gnome Paladin/Mage metioned as a viable option.
There were some hints that kits are gone, or changed considerably.
Demihumans now have unlimited advancement.
The Options books are gone, some features have been folded into the main rules.
Greyhawk is being resurrected as the default setting. FR will still be the primary advanced setting, and DragonLance will still be around, but mostly as novels and novel-derived adventures.
Ravenloft, Dark Sun, etc are no more. Planescape was been eliminated because WotC decided it would be more fun for DM's to invent their own cosmology. Gee, thanks.
The core books (PH, DMG, MM) are slated for release in one month intervals beginning *next* August, priced at $20US. There will conversion rules, but there were hints that WotC is encouraging DM to "wind their campaigns down" before switching. (In other words, it may not be possible to convert everything.)
As for NWN, there is an article here and a much more informative interview here.
Dammit! You were supposed to be obstinate and flame me! You cheated me out of an argument!;-)
freekevin is a good starting point, though granted it is biased. You can also sift through the archives of HNN, which has reliably documented the Mitnick case. They also have external links to various news organizations' stories on the issue. I speak based on having read those stories, read the website, and also read numerous newspaper articles over the years.
Yeah, yeah. I was arguing against the (apparent) absurbity of your complaining about him making arbitrary statements about reality, while you yourself do it quite a bit. (Of course, so do I; I just attach a disclaimer that I'm only arguing from *my* Truth.)
I suppose that you're right, I mean, afterall.. if it's been going on for that long, it must be more OK than something that's only been going on for a few weeks... And as to where I've been - I've been in college, online, I've been through public schools, I've had an interesting life. And I also believe that other people are entitled to those same freedoms. That's where I've been.
*sigh* Just once I'd like to see someone answer that argument without my having to explain it...
I wasn't implying that Kevin should be left to rot because he's just one of many[1]. My point was more that the efforts should be redirected at the larger problem. Instead of freeing Kevin, how about we free *all* political prisoners, him included. Free Kevin can wait if the time is used to Free Everybody. (I should add that I don't think Kevin deserves to be the central case in a movement to the unjustly imprisoned. He's still a script kiddie, AKAIC.)
1 I actually couldn't care less if Kevin rots in prison. In my book he's a career criminal, and not a very bright one at that, and derserves to be punished. But, in principle, I disagree with his *current* incarceration, which does seem a tad unjust.
And since when were you the sole arbiter of truth? The truth is only strained from the facts by careful research, fact checking and fact finding, and sometimes alittle luck.
Secondly, it is only by raising public awareness and education that will ever cause any change to occur.
Along with "All progress depends on unreasonable men" from one of your other posts.
For someone so concerned about research and fact checking, you sure seem to make a lot of grand statements about the nature of politics and epistemology without any evidence to back you up. Who made you the sole arbiter of knowledge?
Since you show little inclination to familiarize yourself with the case, I won't bore you on details.
And I see you're eager to share your considerable research...
Who will America's next political prisoner be? Who's rights will be sacrificed next? Mine? Yours?
Well, there's an objective statement of fact. Nothing gets people going like an irrational fear that "they're next". I suppose you believe in slippery-slopes, too.
You missed something that is rather important: a lot of this Free Kevin stuff isn't helping, and could be hurting his case. Have you noticed all of the "Kevin wasn't a script kiddie, he was 3117" posts on/.? How does it help to make people believe he was a super-cracker?
In fact, if he appears as a worthless little script-kiddie it's a lot more likely that there will be enough public outrage to have him freed. No one wants to help a 'cyber-terrorist', but a young man just trying to look cool and mess around with computers? Why should *he* be in jail?
Of course, a public outcry shouldn't be required anyway. I agree that he has been something stinks about his imprisionment, the gov't hasn't been playing it straight and the companies have been lying there asses off. OTOH, I've got to wonder where you've been. This sort of thing has been happening for decades (centuries, even). Kevin is just one in a very long line (and he's doing rather well, compared to many others). Pep rallies aren't going to fix it because the public just doesn't care. Sure they may feel bad for him, but don't count on them to actually *do* anything. For many (most?) people, there's a wide gulf between the little world they make for themselves and the one they share with us. Don't expect them to cross it just because of a little thing like justice or principle.
(And before anyone points out that I'm making statements about mankind no less grand than his, remember: I never *claimed* to be objective or know anything about the Truth with a capital 'T'.)
First off if you would have read me post you would have noticed i type "as reported by the compaines them selves." Never did I actually agree with the damages being that high considering that none of the source code he stole is currently used to day, besides the source code which sun is now giving away.
Er, fine. But you used the million dollar figure as evidence that he wasn't a petty criminal. So, either he did that much damage and is (a little) dangerous, or he didn't and he's a script kiddie.
I actually haven't heard anything on CNN about Kevin because I don't think they put anything on about him just like the rest of the Main stream media.
1: Relatively few people in the world give a shit about Kevin, so CNN has little reason to run round the clock coverage (ratings, you know).
2: They *have* run stories every now and then about him; I remember seeing his face on TV fairly recently (besides on ZDTV).
I did however read takedown (horribly written.) And Online with Kevin Mitnick as well as hnn, 2600 and the free kevin page.
Good for you.
I don't know if I belive that shit about him just getting everything of Usenet or their would be a hell of alot more damage done by script kiddes that have gotten passwords of usenet.
First, this happened several years ago, before the script kiddies outnumbered the rest of us, and back when a lot of people were lax in securing their systems. Things are better now, but you can still find quite a bit of info in the Usenet that can be used for evil.
Second, script kiddies can do a lot of damage. Maybe we shoul have a ranking system: most SK's are completely worthless, but some are 1337 enough to do some damage if they get in. Depending on how you look at it, Kevin may have been in the latter group. (Hint: it helps his case if he isn't.)
I think that you sould at least admit your wrong by saying that Kevin was a petty theft.
Except he *was* a petty thief. Maybe he was just a particularly skilled petty thief.
I'm not sure if password harvesting makes Kevin a Script kiddes.
It does, or else we'd have to come up with a new term. (How about luser?)
I really don't beleive that Saumuri was the one that stole the source code and the accidently left a open ftp port on his box.
Why not? Do you have any evidence that he didn't?
I really don't consider myself a toll.
You're right, you aren't a troll. Keep trying though, you're almost there...
but I really don't care about your petty name calling.
So you said he was speaking out of his ass. OK...
Unfortunately, I don't have any links either. I used to know where to find the info that would prove you wrong, but the little wisp of concern I had for Kevin has long since been crushed under the feet of the cults that have sprung up to support him. I would sugest you use the vast power of the Internet and look for the facts yourself; try sites/people that are critical of him first, they're often at least half right. To be honest I wouldn't believe kevinmitnick.com if they told me the sky was blue: even if they are right, they have too much personal interest in the case to be trusted.
Finally, I would like to point out the more pathetic he looks, the more of a brain-damaged script kiddie people believe he is, the more it hurts the case against him. I could see throwing a cyber-terrorist (or whatever they call them now) in prison, but a a little weenie puling passwords of the Usenet? I'd let him go now. You guys (his loyal supporters) are probably doing more damage to his case by making him look like Gods-gift-to-warez than he ever did with his actual crimes.
Basically, it has every important feature from every card on the market, running about 3-4x faster (I'm not sure if I buy this, but...). It also has full OpenGL and Directx 7 support, but isn't listed as being Linux compatable.
Now, what it doesn't have, and what I'm waiting for: full geometry. I don't really care what this thing is packing, if someone (I'm betting on Matrox at the moment) can get a card with full onboard geometry[1], that what I'm waiting for. (Oh, and at least 128MB memory, preferably 256--I hate AGP.)
1: I don't mean geometry boosters, or a crutch for my poor celerons; I want complete FP and vector units on card, with whatever bus mastering it would take to circumvent the processors. (Can AGP tap into core for more than textures? That would just about fit the bill, esp. at 4x.) Sure it'll cost a fortune, but Halo II is worth it;-)
IANA Diplomat, but I don't believe that attacking a web site quite meets the requirements to start a war.
And we must remember that there's really no way of knowing if it actually is the Chinese gov't doing this. It could be a Chinese script-kiddie, or a member of the movement/religion/whatever trying to attract attention. Or, as someone else said, a Free Tibet protester doing the same. Or a 14 year-old kid in Ohio. Hell, they may even have faked the attack to make China look bad.
I believe that RMS wrote the first set of functions, but it was Steele who gathered them together into a single package. (Hmm, doesn't make much sense, but that's what I've read...)
(I've never seen/. eat an HREF before. Wierd. The link (obviously) doesn't work, and Deja can't the post. The Gods of computing seem to be cranky today.)
The centi thing if the fault of the French. I just checked OED, and "centi-" means one-*hundreth*, but apparently only when it is attached to a metric measurement or alone; English uses it as one-hundred. Interestingly, the root of 'centi-' means hundred also--apparently whoever made up the metric prefixes took some liberties with the language.
Something similar occasionally happens with artificial neural networks. I've read about two seperate projects, one involving vision and other language processing, where the researchers trained the networks to mimic (simplified) human abilities. Pattern recognition and visual attention on the one hand, some understanding of grammar on the other. In both cases the networks were more or less randomly wired at the outset and trained in the dark (without direct intervention by the researchers.)
When they finished the training and cracked open the black boxes, they found that the networks were nearly identical to the corresponding parts of the brain. The visual systems had organized into layers and hemispheres, while the linguistic network was organized geographically by word type--verbs in one area, nouns in another--and by sub-type (object/subject, proper and improper nouns, etc). AFAIK, they haven't figured out how it happened.
There are some interesting implications in all of this.
just because gibson was first doesn't make him the God of cyberpunk
Actually, he wasn't first. Shockwave Rider (*grumblegrumble* still can't find a copy) beat him by 7(?) years, and was in turn behind Vinge, IIRC. But Gibson really defined the genre, albeit retroactively.
and Stephenson is not gibson for dummies--it is gibson off of the crack pipe
The crack pipe is part of the genre. The thing Stephenson is lacking is the punk. Sure the world of Snowcrash isn't nice, but it's a kind of shallow dystopia--all strip malls and suburbia (this is on purpose, of course; Snowcrash was supposed to be fairly light-hearted). In fact, everything is shallow: the characters, the plot, etc. Hiro is a generic hacker/warrior, Raven a generic tank, and the most interesting parts of the book are monologues about Sumerian culture and dated neuroscience. Some neat ideas (though not after I actually studied neuroscience) and stuff to steal for games, but it may as well have been a sourcebook for the Snowcrash world for all the story in it. All of this IMO, of course;-)
you know where I first remember hearing about a cell phone? Space Cadet by Robert Heinlien, writen in like 194?, 195? something
How about Metropolis, 1927? Andriods, the 'plex, dystopia, etc. Very cyberpunk, esp. for a 72 year old German film.
The process of 'surfing' is usually[1] referred to as 'decking', a reference to the little dedicated computers that handle the neural interface and usually the networking and net-specific programs. The users of such devices are called 'deckers'.
1: In RPG's anyway, which give Gibson credit for the terms. Authors tend to think up there own words, though none them have the same staying power.
Whoops. I thoroughly destroyed one paragraph there. Here's the corrected version:
Um, you don't see the problem here? Actually, three problems, the first being that the 'majority' rarely get involved (depending on how one interprets 'majority'. The majority of Christians have read the New Testament, the majority of Hindus have not.) Second, there is no way of measuring what people 'think' on any significant scale, except for popularity (and mass polling, which is even worse.). Thirdly, you never said *how* the masses 'vote' for somethings greatness. If you believe it is their opinion that counts, you should have *said* that, instead of something is a "great work" when enough people say it is. How am I to know how they "say" it, other than buy purchasing it (objective measurement).
My browser is slowing spiralling toward death as I type this, so I'll forgoe any more correction until you respond (if you evr do).
"if they really wanted to protect you, they could just load up a URL with info on removing and detecting BO"
I actually tried this once. Occasionally I do a quick sweep of my ISP[1] to make sure no copies of BO are present. (Good reason to do this: my *ISP* had an infected machine and didn't do anything about it; they weren't about to help the customers.) I found one and proceeded to get into a 3+ hour discussion, via dialog boxes, with the owner of the machine. When it all over she *still* didn't believe that she had BO, and she refused to go to download.com(!) to get an antivirus because she didn't trust my URL's. I finally pushed her enough that she contacted her ISP (which either shares one of our class-C's, or I typoed the address) and they took care of it.
Moral: don't rely on users to fix their problems.
1: Before anyone accuses me of being a cracker, I don't do anything evil if I find a copy. I just flash an error on screen to get the users attention and note the IP. If they don't fix it within a reasonable amount of time, I try to kill it myself. The only exception is the High School I (kinda) work at, where BO was purposely placed on a few machines by the sysadmins to play with the users--I don't interfere with their fun. (I never said I wasn't evil; I just don't crack;-)
Slashdot Mirror
One pretty obvious thing is that line-of-sight communication by radio or laser, e.g. is far more power efficient and secure than spherical broadcast waves.
Obvious, except that you would have to compensate for anywhere from several years to several centuries travel time *and* you have to know where the reciever is. In the case of ships, esp. exploration vehicles, there is no way of knowing exactly where they'll be. (Unless you just shoot them in straight line; not very good exploration, though.)
In any case, with that much travel time, it's likely that any messeges will be important enough that you'll want everyone to know ("We're extinct!") which is best achieved via omnidirectional transmissions. (Again, you may have unpredictable targets.)
Then you have the problem of keeping the transmissions undetectable. Lasers are not capable of keeping any significant coherence across several light years. At best you might only light up the whole planet, at worst the beam could be multiple AU wide, or larger.
It's not to hard to imagine all our media being on fibreoptic cable (or better) within a century.
Except that you need LOS or direct access for this, which isn't always possible or desirable.
Ok, assume within 1000 years of the invention of radio, civilizations stop wasting energy by sending information in all directions.
Which begs the question, why conserve the energy? We'll be able to produce more than enough energy to do cost effective omnidirectional broadcasts within a few centuries, let alone ten.
It's not that unreasonable to say we have only shown that life off earth is rare, not that it doesn't exist.
But the 64-bit Alpha processors are expensive, and Alpha's future in general is uncertain. Systems based on Intel's Merced are still a year or so away, and they're going to be quite expensive. PowerPC, on the other hand, has excellent floating-point performance, today, for cheap.
I think they missed an important point here. The PPC is wonderful arch., but it isn't going to be long before the industry starts the Big Move to 64-bit (Merced will probably be the catalyst, right before it bombs[0]). Unless IBM is planning a G5 based on the PPC620, this will leave them behind.[1]
Of course, if the price/performance favors the G4/5 enough (say, dual 800Mhz G4's for the price of a 1GHz Alpha) then it may get ahead, but otherwise any victory will be short-lived.
[0]: I still think that IA-64 is a plot by HP to kill Intel. Instead of trying to compete with them, HP offered to help design the new arch., then came up with something so horrible that there is no way it can succeed.
[1]: Before anyone flames me for implying that 64-bit is always superior, think about this: Once the industry begins the move to 64, the Alpha, Sparc, etc will all be there waiting. If Merced bombs, the chip most likely replace it is the Alpha, which blows away a PPC. Demand == lower prices.
Do you really believe that there is any agency in the federal government capable of competently carrying out any kind of conspiracy. Every single bureau i've ever seen has been filled with morons that sit at their computer and play solitaire all day long.
I agree completely. Most gov't agencies couldn't cover up a floor with carpet. I don't believe that they are evil organizations whose only goal is to control the public/hide the truth/whatever[0], or that they employ armies of assassins disguised secretaries and accountants[1]. Gov't workers are almost all just normal people doing mundane jobs--most of them probably wouldn't participate in an evil conspiracy even if the opportunity came up. In fact, I trust the gov't more than many private organizations.[2]
(Want to test the conspiracy? Call both the FBI and SS to report a crime, then watch what happens when the agents arrive. For even more fun, add the BATF.)
But is that the only iterative process that can create life?
Well, since that's how we define 'life', yes.
[0]: Including the NSA, which I actually like quite a bit. IMO, it's all but harmless.
[1]: Including the the CIA. The only reason they have ninja secretaries is because of clerical errors.
[2]: Which shouldn't be taken to mean 'a lot', or even 'a little'. I don't think they're evil, but they are incompetent enough that they can do damage.
Unless I've experienced head-trauma recently, Alpha Centauri is our closest neighbor. It is very unlikely, to put it lightly, that there is anything there.
AC is a trinary system (actually a binary with a third star orbitting way out there). AFAIK, it rather difficult for planets to form in such systems, and even if one did there would be a tremendous amount of radiation, likely preventing life from forming.
The chemical makeup of the local neighborhood of stars is very similar in content because of a star that exploded before the Sun formed and scattered heavy elements througout the local area.
Er, what? The makeup of stars is the same everywhere. Hydrogen, helium, some carbon, etc. varying a little by age and class. I don't know of any supernovae large enough to have 'seeded' other stars, esp. in the area you're describing; even if one existed, star don't contain/burn much in the way of heavy elements--they're tricky to fuse--and that has nothing to do with life.
I'm sure a more advanced would find radio signals a primitive technology.
I find spoken language, math and fire primitive, but I still use them. (Not a flame, I'm just sick of the 'for them x would be primitive' argument.)
If my understanding is correct, then it seems that you could build transmitters based on this, and these transmitters would not leave tell-tail signals.
Two things wrong with this:
1: This is absolutely not correct. Even if there is a real effect here, information--in the information theory sense--cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. This is fairly important to QM.
Very roughly[0], what happens is that two particles (photons seem to be the most popular) may become 'entangled' under special conditions (being emitted from the the same particle at the same time, etc; very special, then). If you measure one of the particles, you will know the state of the other[1]--IIRC they 'balance' out. You cannot influence the attributes of the particles, only measure them[2], so it isn't possible to embed information in them. (There are other reason why you can't do it; this is the simplest, IIRC.)
2: Even if you could transmit info this way, both parties have to have the particles involved, which necessitates some transmissions.
Just because we use radio waves for communication doesn't mean an advanced civilization would.
No, but unless we're missing something increadibly obvious[3], they'd be using *some* kind of EM waves, which we should be able to detect. (Perhaps not via radio telescope, but somehow.)
[0]: I'm not a physicist, I'm a philosopher, so I'm not going to be 100% accurate here, or even 90%.
[1]: There is considerable debate over what is happening here. The 'reasonable' explanation is that the particles really do 'balance' when they are emitted, and we are simply discovering which one is which when we measure. The alternative is that the particles are in flux, and when observed instantly communicate with each other, taking on the proper attributes. (There are about a dozen versions of how this works and what's happening; IMO all of them are equally silly.)
[2]: Of course, measuring them may influence them, which is another debate with some very strange answers.
[3]: Actually, I can think of several cheats here, but none of them are very likely.
I was thinking more along the lines of architecture-specific code; there must be *some* assembly in there. (Bungie said about 5% of Marathon, I'd assume it about the samein MythII.) Assuming it was critical, it'd be easier to pull it from the Mac version than rewrite it from scratch. But then, I've never platform-ported before.
Turbo-Ginsu Mode:
...and at least some objectivity about your personal experiences.
I'd like some more information about this, do you have any references for further reading? The junction of philosophy and science is a fertile area intellectually, and I'd like to become more familiar with some of the perspectives.
The last book I read on this was William Seager's "Metaphysics of Consciousness"[0]. Seager's position is interesting: he finds materialism metaphysically unacceptable, but doesn't believe there are any better alternatives. Nagel has done some work in this area as well, but I keep up with him.
My favorite aletrnatives, at the moment, come from AN Whitehead, and his disciples, particularly David R Griffin[1]. Whitehead attempted to create a system--something of a panpsychism, though extraordinarily well developed--that was compatible with, and actually derived from, physics and biology, as well as experience. Some interesting parallels to Nietzsche, as well.
My only recommendation for online reading would be some of the articles from David Chalmers' site (I don't have he url handy, but it's in Yahoo!). Chalmers isn't my favorite philosopher, but the links are excellent.
but I still stand by the complete statement "Without thought and examination your faith... it can be swayed..."
*shrug* My turn at semantics then. I don't doubt that many, even most, people of faith can be persuaded, have a crisis of faith, etc. However, I usually define 'strong faith' as not being susceptible to those things. Matter of taste, I suppose.
All scientific work must be questioned regardless of the person's religious orientation. Newton was right about classical physics because he was making objective observations of the physical world. We believe that he is right because we can verify his observations experimentally. Further, early this century we were able to accept that he was wrong in some instances, when other data was acquired. Objectivity ties all of this together, and allows learning to take place regardless of religious orientation.
I'm not sure what to make of this. Your original post implied that what's-his-name's convictions could impair his objectivity, but now you say that all scientific statements must be questioned. If this is true, his beliefs are irrelevent, and deserve no special treament and no assumptions that he is less objective.
How simple it would be if it were that black and white.
I'm not sure how it could be less so. Either one is objective or one is not, something is relevent or it is not. While I'm a great fan of grey areas, I don't see how they can be accepted in science.
As far as sci/tech goes, objectivity is key.
Of course, I don't believe that complete objectivity is possible, so science, or that interpretation of scince goes right out the window. Epistemologically, I'm a pragmatist and hard-instrumentalist, which offers a very different view of scientific knowledge. (Roughly, scientific knowledge is not true knowledge, but an interpretation of reality. Science cannot offer actual understanding about the world, only models that are useful for human purposes (engineering, basically)--that is the job of metaphysics. I do occasionally make exceptions when it seem appropriate, but I ackowledge that these may be arbitrary.)
When it comes to personal beliefs, then I urge you to have beliefs are well thought out and consistent with whatever evidence that they are based on.
Which was really what I said. I believe that one should question religious matters as much as anything else. I, for one, don't believe most of what is written in the Bible; I believe there is evidence that much of it never happened and that we were never supposed to believe it did. (Fun theological debate, though I suspect it works better with Rabbi's.) As I said, however, I don't believe relgious experiences can be questioned. If you believe that Jesus 'spoke' to you, then the claim that it was Jesus is questionable--but the fact that something happened to you is not.
Which I hold isn't really possible in religious matters ("at least some" is about as strong as I would allow). You can be objective about the object of experince, but the raw experiences are completely subjective. I believe that true religious experience has no object on which reason can be brought to bear directly. Of course, I have no real experience in these matters (being something of a soft-atheist).
Not considering the arguments against your faith weakens the overall strength of your faith. That is why I took issue with the statement "I don't think, I know."
Just to nitpick, but I though your assertion was that blind faith was an important part of Christianity. If you believe both statements, then you have entirely dismissed an possibility of genuine faith within that religion. While I don't necessarily object to dismissing Christianity, I does seem a bit harsh.
I would like to ask one question (this is really rhetorical, I may not see the answer) but are your beliefs about objectivity themselves objective? The notion that objectivity is important cannot be supported objectively, it is IMO epistemologically absurd, at best circular. As I said, all beliefs that are not immeadiately known to us (raw feels, etc) must be questioned, and objectivity is definately included. (I'd forgotten how fun epistemology can be.)
[0] I just checked my philosophy library. Seager's latest book is "Theories of Consciousness". While I wouldn't recommend it for a metaphysical interpretation, the first chapter is an excellent analysis of Descates' dualism, leading up to the proposal that in many ways he was as much a materialist as, say, Locke. Some fascinating parallels between Descartes' theory of how the brain works and he actual functioning of neural networks.
[1] Griffin's "Unsnarling the World Know" (the only book oh his that I've read) also contains quite a bit on what he calls "hard-core commonsense notions", beliefs which cannot be called into question or disproven, by science or philosophy.
Probably not terribly relevant, but MythII was already available on Macs, which may have sped the porting process (couldn't hurt, anyway).
*pulling myself up from the floor*
/. wrote that comment about atheism, let alone the second half. Add to that your other comments and I'm beginning to suspect that you're an agent from some more intelligent part of the Internet. Are you single, or female? I'll be happy with one out of two! Will you at least tell me if there are other people like you out there?
I can't believe someone on
(And I'd worked out a beautiful draft of a paper comparing OSes to the relationships between Christianity and Islam throughout history, but now no one will every see it. I hope your happy.)
(I'm slicing this up into bite sized chucks.)
As far as Christianity goes, it was my understanding that the core beliefs were centered around having faith.
This is an interesting issue. While that is certainly what Christians say, and usually believe, the fact that they point to the Bible as 'proof', or that Jesus 'proved' that he was in fact the Son of God (the resurrection, etc) implies that it may not be so simple. I'll address this fom another angle below.
You cannot rationally know about the validity of the nature and sacrifices of Christ. Futhermore, you cannot even know that the Christian worldview of sin and redemption correlates with the true nature of the universe.
This is a central problem of epistemology. You cannot rationally know that anything correlates with reality. Science, for example, has serious metaphysical problems that bring into doubt whether it reflects reality, or is simply a very successful interpretaion. Descartes pointed out what is likely to only truth we can positively know: that we exist.
Saying that you don't think, but rather know it to be true must be interpreted as an ironic misunderstanding, or a hyperbole about the strenghth of your faith.
Semantics. To 'know' something is 'true', is to have a strong belief that it is true. Having faith in something also leads to a strong belief. In either case, 'knowledge' is simply an extremely strong belief, and thus both routes lead to an equivelent 'truth' (though these 'truths' may not actually be true, of course).
Without thought and examination, your strong faith can be discounted as blind acceptance, or swayed by other persuasive arguments.
The latter contradicts the very idea of 'strong faith'. The former, though, I partially agree with. There are large parts of religion--for example, the actually works of Jesus--for which there is no evidence, and which are in doubt from any reasonable perspective. However, there is another element to religion which cannot be disproven and which requires no examination: religious experience, in its purest sense.
Unfortunately, people tend to rationalize these experiences and make them fit into their world-view or prior religious beliefs. Those additions and interpretations are open to attack. However, if I experience 'God', whatever that experience may be, it can not be called into doubt. Something has happened which can not be refuted. (Assuming that experiencing 'God' is possibly without interpretation. Even if it is not, there seems to be a common type of experience, protect under my argument, which people believe is 'God'.)
However your philosophy discounts the role of objectivity that is so important in technological pursuits.
Would you discount the scientific work of every theologian, or every believer? Newton is a common example; he wrote more extensively on matters of faith than physics, yet few people question the objectivity of his work
If you argue that one only must be objective within the scope of science and technology then the only concern is that he remain objective in that context, and his belief in God may be irrelevent. However, if you believe that objectivity must be absolute then you have to consider the the entire concept of objectivity and how it relates to the 'geek world-view'.
For example, most science is founded on the belief that the world is fundamentally material, or at any rate can be explained as such. However, beyond the success of physics, there is no objective reason to believe this. In fact, there are some very good reasons to doubt it. (From a philosophical standpoint, materialism was never terribly coherent. The modern mind-body problem, qualia, and the reappearance of metaphysics have resurrected discussion of its faults.)
You aren't going to find it.
Aristotle investigated species, (maybe) heredity and formed a biological classification system. However, he believed that species were static; whatever species existed had always existed and, if left undisturbed, always would. I can't recall the reason why he believed this, but IIRC it was derived from his metaphysics.
I do believe you're right that Darwin wasn't the first to theorize about evolution. I recall reading that there were a number of scientists and philosophers, both contemperaries of Darwin and predating him, who did a great deal of research in that area, and who influenced his own theories.
The game is now called "Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition". WotC has dropped the "Advanced".
But for all who haven't been paying attention to r.g.f.d (*tsk tsk*), here's a very quick summary of the changes (that I can remember, anyway):
The core books (PH, DMG, MM) are slated for release in one month intervals beginning *next* August, priced at $20US. There will conversion rules, but there were hints that WotC is encouraging DM to "wind their campaigns down" before switching. (In other words, it may not be possible to convert everything.)
As for NWN, there is an article here and a much more informative interview here.
Dammit! You were supposed to be obstinate and flame me! You cheated me out of an argument! ;-)
freekevin is a good starting point, though granted it is biased. You can also sift through the archives of HNN, which has reliably documented the Mitnick case. They also have external links to various news organizations' stories on the issue. I speak based on having read those stories, read the website, and also read numerous newspaper articles over the years.
Yeah, yeah. I was arguing against the (apparent) absurbity of your complaining about him making arbitrary statements about reality, while you yourself do it quite a bit. (Of course, so do I; I just attach a disclaimer that I'm only arguing from *my* Truth.)
I suppose that you're right, I mean, afterall.. if it's been going on for that long, it must be more OK than something that's only been going on for a few weeks... And as to where I've been - I've been in college, online, I've been through public schools, I've had an interesting life. And I also believe that other people are entitled to those same freedoms. That's where I've been.
*sigh* Just once I'd like to see someone answer that argument without my having to explain it...
I wasn't implying that Kevin should be left to rot because he's just one of many[1]. My point was more that the efforts should be redirected at the larger problem. Instead of freeing Kevin, how about we free *all* political prisoners, him included. Free Kevin can wait if the time is used to Free Everybody. (I should add that I don't think Kevin deserves to be the central case in a movement to the unjustly imprisoned. He's still a script kiddie, AKAIC.)
1 I actually couldn't care less if Kevin rots in prison. In my book he's a career criminal, and not a very bright one at that, and derserves to be punished. But, in principle, I disagree with his *current* incarceration, which does seem a tad unjust.
(Watch me get accused of being a troll...)
/.? How does it help to make people believe he was a super-cracker?
And since when were you the sole arbiter of truth? The truth is only strained from the facts by careful research, fact checking and fact finding, and sometimes alittle luck.
Secondly, it is only by raising public awareness and education that will ever cause any change to occur.
Along with "All progress depends on unreasonable men" from one of your other posts.
For someone so concerned about research and fact checking, you sure seem to make a lot of grand statements about the nature of politics and epistemology without any evidence to back you up. Who made you the sole arbiter of knowledge?
Since you show little inclination to familiarize yourself with the case, I won't bore you on details.
And I see you're eager to share your considerable research...
Who will America's next political prisoner be? Who's rights will be sacrificed next? Mine? Yours?
Well, there's an objective statement of fact. Nothing gets people going like an irrational fear that "they're next". I suppose you believe in slippery-slopes, too.
You missed something that is rather important: a lot of this Free Kevin stuff isn't helping, and could be hurting his case. Have you noticed all of the "Kevin wasn't a script kiddie, he was 3117" posts on
In fact, if he appears as a worthless little script-kiddie it's a lot more likely that there will be enough public outrage to have him freed. No one wants to help a 'cyber-terrorist', but a young man just trying to look cool and mess around with computers? Why should *he* be in jail?
Of course, a public outcry shouldn't be required anyway. I agree that he has been something stinks about his imprisionment, the gov't hasn't been playing it straight and the companies have been lying there asses off. OTOH, I've got to wonder where you've been. This sort of thing has been happening for decades (centuries, even). Kevin is just one in a very long line (and he's doing rather well, compared to many others). Pep rallies aren't going to fix it because the public just doesn't care. Sure they may feel bad for him, but don't count on them to actually *do* anything. For many (most?) people, there's a wide gulf between the little world they make for themselves and the one they share with us. Don't expect them to cross it just because of a little thing like justice or principle.
(And before anyone points out that I'm making statements about mankind no less grand than his, remember: I never *claimed* to be objective or know anything about the Truth with a capital 'T'.)
First off if you would have read me post you would have noticed i type "as reported by the compaines them selves." Never did I actually agree with the damages being that high considering that none of the source code he stole is currently used to day, besides the source code which sun is now giving away.
Er, fine. But you used the million dollar figure as evidence that he wasn't a petty criminal. So, either he did that much damage and is (a little) dangerous, or he didn't and he's a script kiddie.
I actually haven't heard anything on CNN about Kevin because I don't think they put anything on about him just like the rest of the Main stream media.
1: Relatively few people in the world give a shit about Kevin, so CNN has little reason to run round the clock coverage (ratings, you know).
2: They *have* run stories every now and then about him; I remember seeing his face on TV fairly recently (besides on ZDTV).
I did however read takedown (horribly written.) And Online with Kevin Mitnick as well as hnn, 2600 and the free kevin page.
Good for you.
I don't know if I belive that shit about him just getting everything of Usenet or their would be a hell of alot more damage done by script kiddes that have gotten passwords of usenet.
First, this happened several years ago, before the script kiddies outnumbered the rest of us, and back when a lot of people were lax in securing their systems. Things are better now, but you can still find quite a bit of info in the Usenet that can be used for evil.
Second, script kiddies can do a lot of damage. Maybe we shoul have a ranking system: most SK's are completely worthless, but some are 1337 enough to do some damage if they get in. Depending on how you look at it, Kevin may have been in the latter group. (Hint: it helps his case if he isn't.)
I think that you sould at least admit your wrong by saying that Kevin was a petty theft.
Except he *was* a petty thief. Maybe he was just a particularly skilled petty thief.
I'm not sure if password harvesting makes Kevin a Script kiddes.
It does, or else we'd have to come up with a new term. (How about luser?)
I really don't beleive that Saumuri was the one that stole the source code and the accidently left a open ftp port on his box.
Why not? Do you have any evidence that he didn't?
I really don't consider myself a toll.
You're right, you aren't a troll. Keep trying though, you're almost there...
but I really don't care about your petty name calling.
So you said he was speaking out of his ass. OK...
Unfortunately, I don't have any links either. I used to know where to find the info that would prove you wrong, but the little wisp of concern I had for Kevin has long since been crushed under the feet of the cults that have sprung up to support him. I would sugest you use the vast power of the Internet and look for the facts yourself; try sites/people that are critical of him first, they're often at least half right. To be honest I wouldn't believe kevinmitnick.com if they told me the sky was blue: even if they are right, they have too much personal interest in the case to be trusted.
Finally, I would like to point out the more pathetic he looks, the more of a brain-damaged script kiddie people believe he is, the more it hurts the case against him. I could see throwing a cyber-terrorist (or whatever they call them now) in prison, but a a little weenie puling passwords of the Usenet? I'd let him go now. You guys (his loyal supporters) are probably doing more damage to his case by making him look like Gods-gift-to-warez than he ever did with his actual crimes.
3DNews has more info here.
;-)
Basically, it has every important feature from every card on the market, running about 3-4x faster (I'm not sure if I buy this, but...). It also has full OpenGL and Directx 7 support, but isn't listed as being Linux compatable.
Now, what it doesn't have, and what I'm waiting for: full geometry. I don't really care what this thing is packing, if someone (I'm betting on Matrox at the moment) can get a card with full onboard geometry[1], that what I'm waiting for. (Oh, and at least 128MB memory, preferably 256--I hate AGP.)
1: I don't mean geometry boosters, or a crutch for my poor celerons; I want complete FP and vector units on card, with whatever bus mastering it would take to circumvent the processors. (Can AGP tap into core for more than textures? That would just about fit the bill, esp. at 4x.) Sure it'll cost a fortune, but Halo II is worth it
IANA Diplomat, but I don't believe that attacking a web site quite meets the requirements to start a war.
And we must remember that there's really no way of knowing if it actually is the Chinese gov't doing this. It could be a Chinese script-kiddie, or a member of the movement/religion/whatever trying to attract attention. Or, as someone else said, a Free Tibet protester doing the same. Or a 14 year-old kid in Ohio. Hell, they may even have faked the attack to make China look bad.
I believe that RMS wrote the first set of functions, but it was Steele who gathered them together into a single package. (Hmm, doesn't make much sense, but that's what I've read...)
/. eat an HREF before. Wierd. The link (obviously) doesn't work, and Deja can't the post. The Gods of computing seem to be cranky today.)
(I've never seen
The centi thing if the fault of the French. I just checked OED, and "centi-" means one-*hundreth*, but apparently only when it is attached to a metric measurement or alone; English uses it as one-hundred. Interestingly, the root of 'centi-' means hundred also--apparently whoever made up the metric prefixes took some liberties with the language.
Something similar occasionally happens with artificial neural networks. I've read about two seperate projects, one involving vision and other language processing, where the researchers trained the networks to mimic (simplified) human abilities. Pattern recognition and visual attention on the one hand, some understanding of grammar on the other. In both cases the networks were more or less randomly wired at the outset and trained in the dark (without direct intervention by the researchers.)
When they finished the training and cracked open the black boxes, they found that the networks were nearly identical to the corresponding parts of the brain. The visual systems had organized into layers and hemispheres, while the linguistic network was organized geographically by word type--verbs in one area, nouns in another--and by sub-type (object/subject, proper and improper nouns, etc). AFAIK, they haven't figured out how it happened.
There are some interesting implications in all of this.
just because gibson was first doesn't make him the God of cyberpunk
;-)
Actually, he wasn't first. Shockwave Rider (*grumblegrumble* still can't find a copy) beat him by 7(?) years, and was in turn behind Vinge, IIRC. But Gibson really defined the genre, albeit retroactively.
and Stephenson is not gibson for dummies--it is gibson off of the crack pipe
The crack pipe is part of the genre. The thing Stephenson is lacking is the punk. Sure the world of Snowcrash isn't nice, but it's a kind of shallow dystopia--all strip malls and suburbia (this is on purpose, of course; Snowcrash was supposed to be fairly light-hearted). In fact, everything is shallow: the characters, the plot, etc. Hiro is a generic hacker/warrior, Raven a generic tank, and the most interesting parts of the book are monologues about Sumerian culture and dated neuroscience. Some neat ideas (though not after I actually studied neuroscience) and stuff to steal for games, but it may as well have been a sourcebook for the Snowcrash world for all the story in it. All of this IMO, of course
you know where I first remember hearing about a cell phone? Space Cadet by Robert Heinlien, writen in like 194?, 195? something
How about Metropolis, 1927? Andriods, the 'plex, dystopia, etc. Very cyberpunk, esp. for a 72 year old German film.
Jacking out.
The process of 'surfing' is usually[1] referred to as 'decking', a reference to the little dedicated computers that handle the neural interface and usually the networking and net-specific programs. The users of such devices are called 'deckers'.
1: In RPG's anyway, which give Gibson credit for the terms. Authors tend to think up there own words, though none them have the same staying power.
Whoops. I thoroughly destroyed one paragraph there. Here's the corrected version:
Um, you don't see the problem here? Actually, three problems, the first being that the 'majority' rarely get involved (depending on how one interprets 'majority'. The majority of Christians have read the New Testament, the majority of Hindus have not.) Second, there is no way of measuring what people 'think' on any significant scale, except for popularity (and mass polling, which is even worse.). Thirdly, you never said *how* the masses 'vote' for somethings greatness. If you believe it is their opinion that counts, you should have *said* that, instead of something is a "great work" when enough people say it is. How am I to know how they "say" it, other than buy purchasing it (objective measurement).
My browser is slowing spiralling toward death as I type this, so I'll forgoe any more correction until you respond (if you evr do).
"if they really wanted to protect you, they could just load up a URL with info on removing and detecting BO"
;-)
I actually tried this once. Occasionally I do a quick sweep of my ISP[1] to make sure no copies of BO are present. (Good reason to do this: my *ISP* had an infected machine and didn't do anything about it; they weren't about to help the customers.) I found one and proceeded to get into a 3+ hour discussion, via dialog boxes, with the owner of the machine. When it all over she *still* didn't believe that she had BO, and she refused to go to download.com(!) to get an antivirus because she didn't trust my URL's. I finally pushed her enough that she contacted her ISP (which either shares one of our class-C's, or I typoed the address) and they took care of it.
Moral: don't rely on users to fix their problems.
1: Before anyone accuses me of being a cracker, I don't do anything evil if I find a copy. I just flash an error on screen to get the users attention and note the IP. If they don't fix it within a reasonable amount of time, I try to kill it myself. The only exception is the High School I (kinda) work at, where BO was purposely placed on a few machines by the sysadmins to play with the users--I don't interfere with their fun. (I never said I wasn't evil; I just don't crack