I'm sorry, have you never read Plato on sex with young boys? BTW, he made a big comeback at the end of the 19th century.
Yes, in fact I teach Plato to college students. But he didn't make a big comeback in Victorian England because of his (strikingly sporadic) depictions of sex with boys, but rather because of his extraordinary insight into the truth of things. But notice in my post that I was talking about the past "dozens of generations", fully recognizing that this is not the first time in human history that aberrant sexual behavior has crept more towards the norm. And before you jump all over "aberrant", by that word I simply mean, without moral judgement, sexual behavior that deviates from that for the propagation of the species.
What could possibly be your point in saying that people once disapproved of depicting sex with children...
Simply this, and not much more: there seems to be an over-heightened sense that we're being "watched" these days because of post-attack terror-related legislation. Without trying to diminish the truth of that (there certainly is more watching going on than there was ten years ago), I wanted to point out that we were "watched" much more closely in generations past (sometimes by government (you pointed out the Nazis), sometimes by peers in society (you pointed out the witch trials)) than we are now, but particularly with regard to sexual activity.
These days, you're much more likely to show up on some government scan for buying a gun or some potentially explosive chemicals than you are for (for example) open homosexual activity. That would have been just the reverse in the past. That's my main point.
I like to think we can meet a higher moral standard now.
I wonder why? (I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm really interested in the answer.) Is it because right moral awareness necessarily correlates with the passage of time for some reason? Is there something about the mere advancement of years that makes you think that we ought to be better at judging in matters of morals than we were? Sure, there are lots of things we're better at, particularly in the realm of judging treatments of groups of people (no more legalized racial slavery in the US, for an obvious and well-worn example), but the case can be made that we're poorer judges of the good in many cases today than we were in the past.
So the relevance of what you wrote is totally puzzling to me.
I hope it's less so now. Please note that I wasn't criticizing you as much as pointing out that I tend to notice on slashdot especially (and in other similar forums) a certain unrealistic sense of paranoia about these sorts of things, especially in comparison with the past generations.
Wasn't there some US law that was being considered about sexually explicit rendered pictures depicting children? Will there be laws that forbid you from drawing certain scenes? That would be weird, but we're living in weird times.
I hope you're not implying that we're "living in weird times" because our society doesn't think it's a good idea to depict sex with children, because that's how it sounds in the context of your message. In terms of these sorts of things (unconventional sexual behaviour) we're living in the most permissive western society in dozens of generations.
A hundred years ago, if you thought it might be fun to depict sex with children, people wouldn't have done anything quite as nice as to take away your working materials and send you away for a few months or years. You probably wouldn't have even made it to someplace quite as comfy as a court of law. There probably would have been a mob of people at your front door knocking each other over to be the one that got to string you up by your genitals in the town square.
Yes, we may feel that the government (or whoever) is watching us more closely in the past few years than it had in recent memory, but let's not blow things out of proportion, or forget what things were like in the past.
Then you can keep whatever you want on it...and with the price of drives, RAID controllers, and bandwidth, it's not terribly expensive either.
That's assuming you've already got the infrastructure in place. That is, if you already have a box in place running 24/7 (like a firewall), then it's trivial (in terms of cost) to add a mail server to that same box.
But if you're planning to put an additional (standard tower) PC up just to run a mail server, you'll need to consider electricity costs. I pulled my mail server down for a month (actually, I relocated it somewhere else) to see what it did to my electric bill, and it turned out that my $90/mo bill went down to about $60/mo.
Of course that's terribly unscientific, since there could have been other factors involved, but it's not too far off what I calculated theoretically. I figured it would cost about $25 for 30 days of power to operate my mid-tower case, PIII 600 MHz processor, 300W power supply, running full time.
Anyway, my point is that it's not negligibly expensive to start building mail/web servers and dropping them into closets in your house. But if you're already running these PCs as file servers or whatever, then of course the added cost of adding mail functionality is negligible.
I know that's the conventional wisdom about NPR, but I just don't hear it.
Of course you don't; that's the most sure sign that you're just a bit liberal. It's the same reason that conservatives think that Fox news is "fair and balanced". If you're comfortable with what they're saying, if it doesn't grate on you (like NPR does with the parent poster), and like Fox News does with most Slashdot readers, you probably agree with much of what they're saying, and therefore don't notice whatever bent they might have.
If you want to know whether a media outlet is biased one way or the other, ask conservatives and liberals alike; you'll find out quickly.
In other news, this seems to be the only hidden page on the gmail server, there are so far only 4 pages on it.
Weird, one of those pages lists browser requirements, but says my browser (Firefox 0.8 for Windows) isn't compliant, but then proceeds to list the compliant browsers below, and includes Firefox 0.8 for Windows.
I guess what's most likely is that this page isn't ready yet, and they're not really doing browser checks yet, and the only part of this page they have ready so far is the "not compliant" part.
If you're really worried about people digging up dirt on you if you get into a position of power, it's probably better to stay away from the Internet entirely.
Or, just don't do things worth digging up. Be good. Don't have anything to hide.
No, you missed the point. I was joking with you, not at you. I was just saying that (at least around here) it seems that the slashbots are the ones more likely to be subverting the truth, and therefore all other truth subverters should be compared against them as the standard of truth subversion, not the other way around.
Don't try to subvert truth like some neocon on a power trip.
Funny, because I'm always warning my neocon friends not to subvert the truth like some Microsoft-hating slashbot on an ego trip. Now, which was the exemplar, and which the likeness?
The Elements is a brilliantly organized treatment of the science of geometry as a whole. While reading it, ask yourself what the subject of each book is (there are 13 books). Ask why they're in the order they're in. Ask why the propositions within each book are done in this order. When he gives a definition (like the definition of a circle) ask yourself whether that's the best definition, and why. Read each of the propositions (proofs) carefully, and try to re-present them in writing without looking at the book.
I know the OP is suggesting algebra, and I'm suggesting geometry, but high-school algebra is really no different than geometry represented symbolically. Book II of the Elements is devoted to geometrical representations of the same truths that high schools teach algebraically.
Even Abe Lincoln read Euclid every night before he fell asleep because it helped him to think logically and even philosophically.
The worst travesty done to ancient mathematical thought has been to try to introduce it to children in modern math textbooks.
When I bought my first computer...it was referred to as a "luggable".
Nice thing about that is that if you use the luggable as a travelling file server for your local linux users group, you have a convenient little pun on your hands: the LUGgable.
I'd like to make an analogy (despite it being the weakest form of argument)
Don't be so hard on yourself: analogy may be weaker than demonstration (i.e, deductive proof from true premises), but it's certainly not as weak as the argument from authority. Example: "Linus says [something], so it must be true."
Of course, that doesn't mean that if Linus says [something] that [something] isn't true; in fact Linus is a smart guy, and the fact that he said it lends weight to (i.e., gives an argument for) its truth, especially if it's in his field of expertise. But this sort of argument is less weighty that those given by demonstration and analogy.
Actually, apparently it's so 18 months ago. The site FAQ shows that it was featured on Slashdot on Sept 8, 2002 and (in true Slashdot dupe tradition) Sept 12, 2002).
Study CS in undergrad. Wait until Graduate School to specialize.
Study liberal arts in undergrad. Wait until grad school or your career to specialize.
As an employer in almost any field, I'd rather have someone that can think critically about everything generally rather than only one thing specifically. Nowadays they call this being well-rounded, but they used to just call it being educated.
Look at programs like St. John's College (no affiliation with this school, except that I also am in IT after having studied the general liberal arts somewhere else) where you read great books and discuss them for four years, learning to think rather than learning what other people think. While you're at a school like this, get involved with their IT department as a work-study job. Learn their network inside and out. Save money for your CCNA tests (or whatever), then start looking for work or grad programs after you're finished.
Your starting salary may suffer for not having a tech degree, but if you're a sharp kid with a broad education, you will surely advance more quickly than the specialists in the long run.
Belloc
Re:I wrote a review..
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This curious mathematical relationship, widely known as the "Golden Ratio," was defined by Euclid more than two thousand years ago because of its crucial role in the construction of the pentagram, to which magical properties had been attributed.
Funny, because there's not a single pentagram anywhere in Euclid's Elements. Care to research your plagiarees a bit further?
What kind of incredibly advanced intelligence can possibly engineer that? I can only think of One. -- Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul, Ash nazg thrakatuluk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Sauron?
Another *really* nice thing about the golden ratio
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 1
Something I like about the golden ratio is that it is the number that is exactly 1.0 greater than its reciprocal.
Another slick thing is that it is the limit of ratios of successive terms in a Fibonacci (or similar) sequence. Here's what I mean:
1. Take any two numbers (we'll use positive integers for this exercise, but they don't have to be), say, 5 and 9.
2. Add them up. 5 + 9 = 14
3. Now add the greater number (9) and the previous sum (14). 9 + 14 = 23.
4. Do this a bunch of times, and you get a nice sequence of numbers. 5, 9, 14, 23, 37, 60, 157...
5. Take the ratio of any two successive numbers in the sequence, the greater over the smaller: 60/37 = 1.6216..., or 157/60 = 1.6185...
6. Notice that these ratios approach the golden mean (1.618033989...) as a limit. Be amazed!
The golden mean is also expressible as: (1 + sqrt(5))/2, which is nice and simple (as opposed to its decimal form, which is an infinite expression).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, have you never read Plato on sex with young boys? BTW, he made a big comeback at the end of the 19th century.
Yes, in fact I teach Plato to college students. But he didn't make a big comeback in Victorian England because of his (strikingly sporadic) depictions of sex with boys, but rather because of his extraordinary insight into the truth of things. But notice in my post that I was talking about the past "dozens of generations", fully recognizing that this is not the first time in human history that aberrant sexual behavior has crept more towards the norm. And before you jump all over "aberrant", by that word I simply mean, without moral judgement, sexual behavior that deviates from that for the propagation of the species.
What could possibly be your point in saying that people once disapproved of depicting sex with children...
Simply this, and not much more: there seems to be an over-heightened sense that we're being "watched" these days because of post-attack terror-related legislation. Without trying to diminish the truth of that (there certainly is more watching going on than there was ten years ago), I wanted to point out that we were "watched" much more closely in generations past (sometimes by government (you pointed out the Nazis), sometimes by peers in society (you pointed out the witch trials)) than we are now, but particularly with regard to sexual activity.
These days, you're much more likely to show up on some government scan for buying a gun or some potentially explosive chemicals than you are for (for example) open homosexual activity. That would have been just the reverse in the past. That's my main point.
I like to think we can meet a higher moral standard now.
I wonder why? (I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm really interested in the answer.) Is it because right moral awareness necessarily correlates with the passage of time for some reason? Is there something about the mere advancement of years that makes you think that we ought to be better at judging in matters of morals than we were? Sure, there are lots of things we're better at, particularly in the realm of judging treatments of groups of people (no more legalized racial slavery in the US, for an obvious and well-worn example), but the case can be made that we're poorer judges of the good in many cases today than we were in the past.
So the relevance of what you wrote is totally puzzling to me.
I hope it's less so now. Please note that I wasn't criticizing you as much as pointing out that I tend to notice on slashdot especially (and in other similar forums) a certain unrealistic sense of paranoia about these sorts of things, especially in comparison with the past generations.
Belloc
Wasn't there some US law that was being considered about sexually explicit rendered pictures depicting children? Will there be laws that forbid you from drawing certain scenes? That would be weird, but we're living in weird times.
I hope you're not implying that we're "living in weird times" because our society doesn't think it's a good idea to depict sex with children, because that's how it sounds in the context of your message. In terms of these sorts of things (unconventional sexual behaviour) we're living in the most permissive western society in dozens of generations.
A hundred years ago, if you thought it might be fun to depict sex with children, people wouldn't have done anything quite as nice as to take away your working materials and send you away for a few months or years. You probably wouldn't have even made it to someplace quite as comfy as a court of law. There probably would have been a mob of people at your front door knocking each other over to be the one that got to string you up by your genitals in the town square.
Yes, we may feel that the government (or whoever) is watching us more closely in the past few years than it had in recent memory, but let's not blow things out of proportion, or forget what things were like in the past.
Belloc
And that's how it ended up :)... rhymes with three, but is not free
Thank you, Johnny Cochran.
"I believe in parting a fool and his money as soon as possible" -- someone
The saying is: "A fool and his money are soon parted."
This is a statement of the way things are, not what someone thinks ought to happen. That's why it's insightful.
Belloc
Which raises the question, what did they use for a base before 1970?
Well, back then, all their base weren't belong to...^H^H^H^H
Well, there were no bases to belong to...us...back^H^H^H^H
In the '60s, all their bases were belong to them...^H^H^H^H
Oh, forget it. I'll never be 'Slashdot funny'.
Belloc
Then you can keep whatever you want on it...and with the price of drives, RAID controllers, and bandwidth, it's not terribly expensive either.
That's assuming you've already got the infrastructure in place. That is, if you already have a box in place running 24/7 (like a firewall), then it's trivial (in terms of cost) to add a mail server to that same box.
But if you're planning to put an additional (standard tower) PC up just to run a mail server, you'll need to consider electricity costs. I pulled my mail server down for a month (actually, I relocated it somewhere else) to see what it did to my electric bill, and it turned out that my $90/mo bill went down to about $60/mo.
Of course that's terribly unscientific, since there could have been other factors involved, but it's not too far off what I calculated theoretically. I figured it would cost about $25 for 30 days of power to operate my mid-tower case, PIII 600 MHz processor, 300W power supply, running full time.
Anyway, my point is that it's not negligibly expensive to start building mail/web servers and dropping them into closets in your house. But if you're already running these PCs as file servers or whatever, then of course the added cost of adding mail functionality is negligible.
Belloc
its liberal bent is my biggest complaint about it
I know that's the conventional wisdom about NPR, but I just don't hear it.
Of course you don't; that's the most sure sign that you're just a bit liberal. It's the same reason that conservatives think that Fox news is "fair and balanced". If you're comfortable with what they're saying, if it doesn't grate on you (like NPR does with the parent poster), and like Fox News does with most Slashdot readers, you probably agree with much of what they're saying, and therefore don't notice whatever bent they might have.
If you want to know whether a media outlet is biased one way or the other, ask conservatives and liberals alike; you'll find out quickly.
Belloc
In other news, this seems to be the only hidden page on the gmail server, there are so far only 4 pages on it.
Weird, one of those pages lists browser requirements, but says my browser (Firefox 0.8 for Windows) isn't compliant, but then proceeds to list the compliant browsers below, and includes Firefox 0.8 for Windows.
I guess what's most likely is that this page isn't ready yet, and they're not really doing browser checks yet, and the only part of this page they have ready so far is the "not compliant" part.
Belloc
If you're really worried about people digging up dirt on you if you get into a position of power, it's probably better to stay away from the Internet entirely.
Or, just don't do things worth digging up. Be good. Don't have anything to hide.
Belloc
No, you missed the point. I was joking with you, not at you. I was just saying that (at least around here) it seems that the slashbots are the ones more likely to be subverting the truth, and therefore all other truth subverters should be compared against them as the standard of truth subversion, not the other way around.
Belloc
Don't try to subvert truth like some neocon on a power trip.
Funny, because I'm always warning my neocon friends not to subvert the truth like some Microsoft-hating slashbot on an ego trip. Now, which was the exemplar, and which the likeness?
Belloc
Dear lord, don't do this. Go get yourself a copy of Euclid's Elements instead. Or take a look at the java-enhanced version online.
The Elements is a brilliantly organized treatment of the science of geometry as a whole. While reading it, ask yourself what the subject of each book is (there are 13 books). Ask why they're in the order they're in. Ask why the propositions within each book are done in this order. When he gives a definition (like the definition of a circle) ask yourself whether that's the best definition, and why. Read each of the propositions (proofs) carefully, and try to re-present them in writing without looking at the book.
I know the OP is suggesting algebra, and I'm suggesting geometry, but high-school algebra is really no different than geometry represented symbolically. Book II of the Elements is devoted to geometrical representations of the same truths that high schools teach algebraically.
Even Abe Lincoln read Euclid every night before he fell asleep because it helped him to think logically and even philosophically.
The worst travesty done to ancient mathematical thought has been to try to introduce it to children in modern math textbooks.
Belloc
When I bought my first computer...it was referred to as a "luggable".
Nice thing about that is that if you use the luggable as a travelling file server for your local linux users group, you have a convenient little pun on your hands: the LUGgable.
I'd like to make an analogy (despite it being the weakest form of argument)
Don't be so hard on yourself: analogy may be weaker than demonstration (i.e, deductive proof from true premises), but it's certainly not as weak as the argument from authority. Example: "Linus says [something], so it must be true."
Of course, that doesn't mean that if Linus says [something] that [something] isn't true; in fact Linus is a smart guy, and the fact that he said it lends weight to (i.e., gives an argument for) its truth, especially if it's in his field of expertise. But this sort of argument is less weighty that those given by demonstration and analogy.
Belloc
"We are exploring ways to add value to Windows XP."
Sounds more like they are Exploring (TM) ways to add value to Microsoft.
Belloc
Sorry if this is "so last week
Actually, apparently it's so 18 months ago. The site FAQ shows that it was featured on Slashdot on Sept 8, 2002 and (in true Slashdot dupe tradition) Sept 12, 2002).
Belloc
Simple. Be honest...It'll be worth it in the end.
Strange that every exhortation to be honest seems to give honesty as a means to an end in employment. I'd recommend honesty because it's virtuous.
Belloc
the internet isn't fun now that goatse's gone...
The latest twist in goatse trolling: telling people it's gone so they'll go see if it really is.
Study CS in undergrad. Wait until Graduate School to specialize.
Study liberal arts in undergrad. Wait until grad school or your career to specialize.
As an employer in almost any field, I'd rather have someone that can think critically about everything generally rather than only one thing specifically. Nowadays they call this being well-rounded, but they used to just call it being educated.
Look at programs like St. John's College (no affiliation with this school, except that I also am in IT after having studied the general liberal arts somewhere else) where you read great books and discuss them for four years, learning to think rather than learning what other people think. While you're at a school like this, get involved with their IT department as a work-study job. Learn their network inside and out. Save money for your CCNA tests (or whatever), then start looking for work or grad programs after you're finished.
Your starting salary may suffer for not having a tech degree, but if you're a sharp kid with a broad education, you will surely advance more quickly than the specialists in the long run.
Belloc
This curious mathematical relationship, widely known as the "Golden Ratio," was defined by Euclid more than two thousand years ago because of its crucial role in the construction of the pentagram, to which magical properties had been attributed.
Funny, because there's not a single pentagram anywhere in Euclid's Elements. Care to research your plagiarees a bit further?
Belloc
--
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatuluk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Sauron?
Something I like about the golden ratio is that it is the number that is exactly 1.0 greater than its reciprocal.
...
Another slick thing is that it is the limit of ratios of successive terms in a Fibonacci (or similar) sequence. Here's what I mean:
1. Take any two numbers (we'll use positive integers for this exercise, but they don't have to be), say, 5 and 9.
2. Add them up. 5 + 9 = 14
3. Now add the greater number (9) and the previous sum (14). 9 + 14 = 23.
4. Do this a bunch of times, and you get a nice sequence of numbers. 5, 9, 14, 23, 37, 60, 157
5. Take the ratio of any two successive numbers in the sequence, the greater over the smaller: 60/37 = 1.6216..., or 157/60 = 1.6185...
6. Notice that these ratios approach the golden mean (1.618033989...) as a limit. Be amazed!
The golden mean is also expressible as: (1 + sqrt(5))/2, which is nice and simple (as opposed to its decimal form, which is an infinite expression).
Belloc
Obligatory Wargames citation:
Belloc
Besides It just feels wrong to to sitting in a tent in the middle of nowhere with a pc ;).
Yes, and sitting in a tent with a typewriter feels perfectly normal.
Belloc
Here in Alaska, 18" dishes wont even work. Minimal size is 30". Personally, we ended up with a 1.2 meter dish which is more immune to weather.
That's because the metric system works much better in Alaska.
Belloc