However; they never (to my knowledge) restricted its use inside the United States.
Not successfully, true. However, you do remember the move to require backdoors (government keyescrow, actually) in the early 1990s, right?
Read the arguments put forth against the recent liberalization of export controls. At least half of the objections made didn't have anything to do with other countries--they were regarding law enforcement's 'need' to be able to successfully tap encrypted communications. Do you really think that they want to draw the line at the U.S. border?
They'll simply declare that, like plutonium and surface-to-air-missiles, it's something that they can't abide the public owning, and will outlaw it. What else could they do?
I guess I can hope against hope that they will do the same for Daniel Keys Moran's _The Continuing Time_ series, starting with Emerald Eyes...
Re:Not really a blue moon
on
Is MOXI Toast?
·
· Score: 2
>> Language is not static. Any attempt to keep it >> that is self-delusion and Luddism.
> I see you are trying out a new definition of > Luddism/Luddite.
Not really, it's definition 2 as you put forth:
2.One who opposes technical or technological change.
We can argue over whether language is a technology (from an anthropological point of view, I think it satisfies most of what I would consider criteria).
But you gave a great example for my argument in the term "Luddite". Would you not agree that the original meaning was definition 1, and over time (and what would have appeared, at the time, to be a 'misuse' of the word) changed to additionally encompass definition 2.
QED.
Re:Not really a blue moon
on
Is MOXI Toast?
·
· Score: 2
Philosophically, does common misusage of a word or term create a new "correct" usage? Some of us old sticklers don't like it that way but we recognize that "it" happens.
Yes. Otherwise, for example, we'd still be talking about napron strings instead of apron strings ("a napron" was corrupted into "an apron" a few hundred years ago).
We'd also pronouce "knight" as something closer to "k-neecht", if I remember correctly from my medieval english lit courses.
Language is not static. Any attempt to keep it that is self-delusion and Luddism.
I don't program in the microsoft vein, but when I extracted the.zip file what I ended up with didn't look like a complete program.
It is. I don't mean to be rude, but the fact that you don't program Windows is what kept you from seeing it. Don't assume that because you don't know how to compile it, that it's incomplete.
Has anybody actually managed to COMPILE the sources that they distributed???
Yep. Running right now. The did apparently forget to include the res directory (icons and bitmaps), but those were easily ripped from the executable, and I'm willing to believe that's just an oversight.
The "build scripts" you're talking about are the.dsw and.dsp files, which are the equivalent of Makefile on UNIX systems.
...shouldn't there be a source file for Gnucleus.aps?
No. It's an automatically generated file, created from the sources by the IDE.
One of the main reasons to prefer a client/server architecture is for security. I've worked on commercial games based on both serverless and client/server systems. The serverless game we released was subject to a number of different kinds of cheating; as a result, we designed the second game with a strict trust design which kept all the "important" game state on the server, as you mentioned in your original post.
There is no way to completely secure a serverless system. (I'm making an absolute, sweeping generalization in the hopes that someone can prove me wrong, but I'm not hopeful).
Pushing a server down to the client side essentially makes it a non-secure server, vulnerable to proxying, man-in-the-middle attacks, server replacement, etc.
If you're thinking about c/s for security reasons, you've pretty much taken away that advantage if you push a server down to the client. I'm not saying that the approach is unworkable, but just be sure that in your design this "team server" is treated as being outside the trusted sphere.
According to an interview with Howard and Crowe on NPR, the two met once during shooting. Howard didn't really want them to meet for fear of affecting Crowe's portrayal, but they met and talked briefly.
Re:great book, but no conclusion
on
Browsing Alone
·
· Score: 1
I don't think you _should_ draw a conclusion from such a short trendline. The obvious, naive conclusion is that because the past two generations have done successively less and less socially, the next one or two will see the end of civic participation.
This is as absurd as the humorous proof that all odd integers are prime: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, therefore the rest are prime by induction."
Social effects tend to follow oscillations, not trendlines. Look at Victorianism--it was a backlash against libertinism, which was a backlash against religiously-enforced morality. Look at the paths of socialism in the early 20th century, versus the middle 20th century, vs the present day. Look at the "sensitivity" movement of the 1700s (which resembled nothing more than Bhuddism in its disdain for taking any life, no matter how lowly), vs the "smoke is progress" ideals and mass extinctions of the 19th and 20th centuries, vs the current return to environmentalism (not among the big companies, of course, but in the general psyche: Earth Day, Japan's enforced recycling programs, etc.)
"This too shall pass". And it will come back again, and it will pass, and...
Not dimensions, universes. The theory you speak of only postulates a small number of "extra" (n>4) dimensions, but a large number of histories. And even then, those histories aren't observable--their wave functions collapse, cancelling out the potentially infinite number and leaving us with only one, according to Feynman.
In any event, considering a history that is identical to our own except that one set of supposedly self-aware macromolecules discovered a bit of physics before another set of supposedly self-aware macromolecules is rather uninteresting, compared to, oh, say, a history in which the ambient energy was too high to allow the formation of mass.
It may be an urban legend, but I've heard rumors that some upscale car dealers used to do exactly that, from the registration of the car you came to the dealership in.
Unless one is captured it's stupid to try making a definate classification.
Aha... but one has been captured, or some some scientists think. According to the NPR report yesterday there is a small squid in a jar in (IIRC) the Smithsonian. The gent who wrote the article in Science this month is hypothesizing that it may be a juvenile of the same species as the large squid that has been captured on video.
How efficient could propulsion by rounded tentacle be[...]
It doesn't use the tentacles for swimming, according to the story on NPR yesterday. It has a pair of elephant-ear-shaped wings on top of the body, which give it both good speed and fine control, and make it to hover while it's feeding.
Current conjecture is that the tentacles are "sticky" (whether due to a substance or suction mechanisms, they didn't say). One specimen that was actually caught on video seems to be "stuck" to the submersible that was shooting the video, and coudn't easily get free. The squid appears to spread the tentacles much like a spider's web, hoping to snag smal crustaceans that bump into it.
How exactly do you get from "hydrogen detection" to "water"?
Given that this stuff is at the poles, isn't it at least equally possible that it's CH4 slurry?
The court ruled that the online journalist was protected under the First Amendment, referring to the case NY Times v. Sullivan, the case that gave freedom of the press.
No, NYT v. Sullivan did not "give freedom of the press." That was acknowledged (NOT granted! just acknowledged) by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
NYT v. Sullivan had a much narrower scope. It stated that a journalist who, without malice, makes errors of fact regarding a public official cannot be sued for defamation.
I think that some of the ire toward PayPal is because you only hear about the bad things that happen. When a transaction goes well, no one stands up and screams.
I've been using PayPal for a long time, and I've never had a problem with it. I wish I could say the same for some of the vendor sites out there (e.g., I'll never buy again from half.com, but that's another story).
In case anyone's wondering, this isn't astroturf support. I'm a real person who just happens to like PayPal.
Had you really read about this thing, you would have found out that you can use any ISP that supports a standard PPP connection (i.e., no special AOL dialer, PPP-over-ether, etc.).
> And you're telling me PBS is profitable?
> That it would exist without government aid?
> That it's not a socialist institution?
This is a common misperception. Most public stations no longer get the majority of their funding from governmental sources, and the funding that does come from government comes at the state and local level. For example, my home station of WITF got only 6% of its total annual funding last year from Uncle Sam (per their annual report).
Please check your facts before throwing them around.
Slashdot Mirror
You never calculate anything using local time. You always calculate using GMT, and only convert to local time if it's necessary for user presentation.
However; they never (to my knowledge) restricted its use inside the United States.
Not successfully, true. However, you do remember the move to require backdoors (government keyescrow, actually) in the early 1990s, right?
Read the arguments put forth against the recent liberalization of export controls. At least half of the objections made didn't have anything to do with other countries--they were regarding law enforcement's 'need' to be able to successfully tap encrypted communications. Do you really think that they want to draw the line at the U.S. border?
They'll simply declare that, like plutonium and surface-to-air-missiles, it's something that they can't abide the public owning, and will outlaw it. What else could they do?
Oh yeah, and it looks like the HoRSE in question is the offspring of an AT-ST from The Empire Strikes Back.
:-)
How ironic, given that the M.U.L.E. in the original was modeled after the AT-AT from the same movie.
I guess I can hope against hope that they will do the same for Daniel Keys Moran's _The Continuing Time_ series, starting with Emerald Eyes...
>> Language is not static. Any attempt to keep it
>> that is self-delusion and Luddism.
> I see you are trying out a new definition of
> Luddism/Luddite.
Not really, it's definition 2 as you put forth:
2.One who opposes technical or technological change.
We can argue over whether language is a technology (from an anthropological point of view, I think it satisfies most of what I would consider criteria).
But you gave a great example for my argument in the term "Luddite". Would you not agree that the original meaning was definition 1, and over time (and what would have appeared, at the time, to be a 'misuse' of the word) changed to additionally encompass definition 2.
QED.
Philosophically, does common misusage of a word or term create a new "correct" usage? Some of us old sticklers don't like it that way but we recognize that "it" happens.
Yes. Otherwise, for example, we'd still be talking about napron strings instead of apron strings ("a napron" was corrupted into "an apron" a few hundred years ago).
We'd also pronouce "knight" as something closer to "k-neecht", if I remember correctly from my medieval english lit courses.
Language is not static. Any attempt to keep it that is self-delusion and Luddism.
Mirror at lesher.ws
I don't program in the microsoft vein, but when I extracted the .zip file what I ended up with didn't look like a complete program.
.dsw and .dsp files, which are the equivalent of Makefile on UNIX systems.
...shouldn't there be a source file for Gnucleus.aps?
It is. I don't mean to be rude, but the fact that you don't program Windows is what kept you from seeing it. Don't assume that because you don't know how to compile it, that it's incomplete.
Has anybody actually managed to COMPILE the sources that they distributed???
Yep. Running right now. The did apparently forget to include the res directory (icons and bitmaps), but those were easily ripped from the executable, and I'm willing to believe that's just an oversight.
The "build scripts" you're talking about are the
No. It's an automatically generated file, created from the sources by the IDE.
You mean like metaphysics, metastasis, metamorphosis?
Yeah, I think so.
In other news, demons all over Hell were seen lacing up their skates for the upcoming hockey match against the U.S. National team.
One of the main reasons to prefer a client/server architecture is for security. I've worked on commercial games based on both serverless and client/server systems. The serverless game we released was subject to a number of different kinds of cheating; as a result, we designed the second game with a strict trust design which kept all the "important" game state on the server, as you mentioned in your original post.
There is no way to completely secure a serverless system. (I'm making an absolute, sweeping generalization in the hopes that someone can prove me wrong, but I'm not hopeful).
Pushing a server down to the client side essentially makes it a non-secure server, vulnerable to proxying, man-in-the-middle attacks, server replacement, etc.
If you're thinking about c/s for security reasons, you've pretty much taken away that advantage if you push a server down to the client. I'm not saying that the approach is unworkable, but just be sure that in your design this "team server" is treated as being outside the trusted sphere.
According to an interview with Howard and Crowe on NPR, the two met once during shooting. Howard didn't really want them to meet for fear of affecting Crowe's portrayal, but they met and talked briefly.
I don't think you _should_ draw a conclusion from such a short trendline. The obvious, naive conclusion is that because the past two generations have done successively less and less socially, the next one or two will see the end of civic participation.
This is as absurd as the humorous proof that all odd integers are prime: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, therefore the rest are prime by induction."
Social effects tend to follow oscillations, not trendlines. Look at Victorianism--it was a backlash against libertinism, which was a backlash against religiously-enforced morality. Look at the paths of socialism in the early 20th century, versus the middle 20th century, vs the present day. Look at the "sensitivity" movement of the 1700s (which resembled nothing more than Bhuddism in its disdain for taking any life, no matter how lowly), vs the "smoke is progress" ideals and mass extinctions of the 19th and 20th centuries, vs the current return to environmentalism (not among the big companies, of course, but in the general psyche: Earth Day, Japan's enforced recycling programs, etc.)
"This too shall pass". And it will come back again, and it will pass, and...
And as for security, granted [Microsoft's] track record is very bad. But at least they don't ship with telnet, right?
Actually, Windows 2000 does ship with a telnet service, but it's not enabled by default.
Not dimensions, universes. The theory you speak of only postulates a small number of "extra" (n>4) dimensions, but a large number of histories. And even then, those histories aren't observable--their wave functions collapse, cancelling out the potentially infinite number and leaving us with only one, according to Feynman.
:-)
In any event, considering a history that is identical to our own except that one set of supposedly self-aware macromolecules discovered a bit of physics before another set of supposedly self-aware macromolecules is rather uninteresting, compared to, oh, say, a history in which the ambient energy was too high to allow the formation of mass.
Yes, I prefer reality to Star Trek.
It may be an urban legend, but I've heard rumors that some upscale car dealers used to do exactly that, from the registration of the car you came to the dealership in.
Unless one is captured it's stupid to try making a definate classification.
Aha... but one has been captured, or some some scientists think. According to the NPR report yesterday there is a small squid in a jar in (IIRC) the Smithsonian. The gent who wrote the article in Science this month is hypothesizing that it may be a juvenile of the same species as the large squid that has been captured on video.
How efficient could propulsion by rounded tentacle be[...]
It doesn't use the tentacles for swimming, according to the story on NPR yesterday. It has a pair of elephant-ear-shaped wings on top of the body, which give it both good speed and fine control, and make it to hover while it's feeding.
Current conjecture is that the tentacles are "sticky" (whether due to a substance or suction mechanisms, they didn't say). One specimen that was actually caught on video seems to be "stuck" to the submersible that was shooting the video, and coudn't easily get free. The squid appears to spread the tentacles much like a spider's web, hoping to snag smal crustaceans that bump into it.
How exactly do you get from "hydrogen detection" to "water"? Given that this stuff is at the poles, isn't it at least equally possible that it's CH4 slurry?
From the original post:
The court ruled that the online journalist was protected under the First Amendment, referring to the case NY Times v. Sullivan, the case that gave freedom of the press.
No, NYT v. Sullivan did not "give freedom of the press." That was acknowledged (NOT granted! just acknowledged) by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
NYT v. Sullivan had a much narrower scope. It stated that a journalist who, without malice, makes errors of fact regarding a public official cannot be sued for defamation.
I think that some of the ire toward PayPal is because you only hear about the bad things that happen. When a transaction goes well, no one stands up and screams.
I've been using PayPal for a long time, and I've never had a problem with it. I wish I could say the same for some of the vendor sites out there (e.g., I'll never buy again from half.com, but that's another story).
In case anyone's wondering, this isn't astroturf support. I'm a real person who just happens to like PayPal.
Tim
Nice selective reading, that.
Had you really read about this thing, you would have found out that you can use any ISP that supports a standard PPP connection (i.e., no special AOL dialer, PPP-over-ether, etc.).
I hear ya... up in Cranberry Township; set the alarm for 0430 to catch the peak, and caught nothing but dense ground cover.
Yuck.
> And you're telling me PBS is profitable?
> That it would exist without government aid?
> That it's not a socialist institution?
This is a common misperception. Most public stations no longer get the majority of their funding from governmental sources, and the funding that does come from government comes at the state and local level. For example, my home station of WITF got only 6% of its total annual funding last year from Uncle Sam (per their annual report).
Please check your facts before throwing them around.