King has published loads of novellas. Off the top of my head, Shawshank Redemption, The Body, The Mist, The Langoliers, Apt Pupil, The Long Walk, The Sun Dog, and The Breathing Method. In compilations, admittedly, but you can't say that the book wouldn't have been sold.
One bloke trying to sell you watches can only harrass a few people at once. Spam can be sent out by the million at almost no cost. If every business spammed when they felt like it, everyone would get thousands of junk emails; why should a few companies be allowed to abuse the system at the expense of everyone else?
Also, free speech is overrated. Remember that not all countries have the same laws concerning it. Why should my right not to receive bollocks I don't want be subservient to his right to clog my inbox up?
If every business in the world sent out a million spams every time business was a little slow, email would become useless. You'd have thousands of pieces of spam/day and you'd never be able to read any genuine messages.
Set up a UN patent-buying organisation. Each country pays a small propotion of its GDP to it. When a company/individual comes up with a patent, this organisation estimates what the patent is worth and buys it from the inventor. The patent is then licensed to everyone for free. If this hypothetical organisation decides that the patent is not worth buying, or is very specific, the firm can patent it privately (but the UN body has first refusal). OK, there would be a variety of issues to overcome, but what do you think of it as a concept? Shall I patent it?:)
Everyone *is* entitled to monitor their data
on
Database Nation
·
· Score: 1
At least, in the UK.
Re: Everyone is entitled to monitor any record about themselves.
The Data Protection Act means that any firm must tell you what data they hold about you (I think a small fee may be charged). Isn't it the same in the US? You can also make them change the data if it's inaccurate and sue them if they're holding inappropriate data about you.
Unfortunately this only applies to computer records, so some companies circumvent the law. For example, to get into university you must apply through UCAS and your school gives them a reference about you. But apparently you can't get that info, because they print it out and don't store it on computer. Bastards.
I like the idea about companies being forced to reveal the source of their data though.
IANAG, but it seems to me that if we are made up of a "billion three letter words" (codons?), that means that there are (only) a billion factorial different genetic ids for humans to take? So what is the proabability of there being someone else on Earth having the same genetic makeup as me?
IANA 404 research scientist, but... Why can't my browser just open a connection to the web page, and if the heading starts with "404", not load the page and simply flash a warning that the page is not available?
A couple of years ago many filters blocked pages with reference to the town of Scunthorpe (due to substring at index 1-4). I don't know why the software couldn't check for spaces around the blocked words, but Scunthorpe council got quite annoyed. They complained to one of the firms producing the software and the reply was that they ought to change the name of the town to Sconthorpe. Caused quite a stir...
It seems to be ages since I saw a film or read a book and couldn't guess the twist at the end. Call it arrogance if you like (I'm sure some of you will:) but they all seem obvious to me. Even the last few Iain Banks novels I've read seem linear. The only tv show that does it for me now is Jonathan Creek. Can any/.ers recommend some books/films with incredibly twisty plots? Does scream3 have as cunning an ending as JK says?
Hey, *I* know where to get it. But why not let people decide for themselves whether they want to mess with development kernels? I don't think/. is exactly the place where people come to be protected from themselves.
It's annoying the way Taco says "if you don't know where to get it, then I'm not telling you". How does anyone know if no-one tells them? Everyone's got to start somewhere.
I'd say it was a very Microsoft-esque phrase, except that would probably get me instant "flamebait" moderation:)
Communism doesn't have respect for private ownership. The GPL doesn't respect anyone owning the copyright of a piece of code under the license. Sound similar? I suspect you're an American, brought up to be biased against alternative political systems.
It's not meant to be a flame. Well, actually it is:) but it's true.
The ZX Spectrum had BASIC keywords bound to it's keys (eg J had Load, T Randomize etc) It improved typing speed for the expert, but it was a real pain in the arse for the beginner. A generation of programmers have been ruined in the UK, I suspect, because they couldn't move onto "real" keyboards.
Have a 2-level moderation system. Moderator points work like they do at the moment, but/. should also allow any logged-in user to select "agree" or "disagree" with a post. This would cut down the number of "me 2!"/"u suck" posts, but also allow/.ers to disagree with a post even though it adds to the debate.
Applets aren't exactly cross-platform compliant. I've just written a fairly complex applet, showing planes taking off and landing; IE renders the background, the threads work in Netscape, but not vice versa. Works fine in appletviewer 1.1 though, so I must be doing it right:(
Slashdot seems to be so (unintentially!) American-dominated, despite the international readership. For example, it seems like socialism and similar political topics are genetically incompatable with many Americans.
Someone to intelligently defend Windows would be nice as well to stimulate good debate. Hard as it might be to find this person.
Consciousness is not necessarily dependent on blood chemistry. The *mind* is, but it depends on how you define consciousness. I would suggest that even substances that make you lose consciousness is not affecting consciousness, but breaking the link between the mind and consciousness... just my viewpoint.
Every living thing is conscious, you think? What, even trees? How about virii?
I fail to see where the author says that apes (etc) aren't conscious. I agree with what the author says to a certain extent, but I can't see why it shouldn't apply to apes up to a point.
I'd like to read this book, but my student budget doesn't stretch to hardbacks:(
The concept of consciousness is something that we fundamentally do not understand. We don't even seem to have begun being able to explain it.
It doesn't matter how complex the brain is, if it's a computer then it could be emulated on a 486 (or whatever) with a lot of magnetic tape (er.. revise Turing Machines). Of course, it might take aeons for anything to happen, but it would be conscious. Simultaneous processes could be time-sliced or run on multiple processors.
Or, the program could be run through by someone with pen and paper - but how would that system be self-aware?
The conclusion of many physicists is that some fundamental physical thing(s) is going on. Hence electron tunneling etc.
I'm not an atheist as such. I'm an agnostic (though I do sort of like some of the budhist philosophies...)
However, even if you do believe in God or whatever, I fail to understand what purpose religion serves in your life. Why should you submit to religious dogma rather than considering things for yourself? What makes the priest of your religion qualified (ie better than you) to instruct you in morality? Strange that the higher up you go in religeous hierarchies, the better the practitioners get paid - if they were true adherents, it would be the other way around. Another thing is that most religions are mutually exclusive.
Why am I not religeous? When I was a kid, I did believe in God. But gradually I saw the contradictions in the bible (and between different religions). Actually, I remember the moment when I stopped believing in God - it was in a religous studies lesson, ironically. We were learning about different faiths and I realised that there were far more non-Christians in the world than Christians.
Also, old questions like "we don't know what happened before the big bang" was answered a long time ago - there was no "before". Time began at the big bang. If religeous slashdotters wanted to point to religion they'd be better off debating things like the way consciousness is related to the structure of the universe (yeah, I read you're not an atheist; this is an "open letter")
The anarchists and the socialists were on the same side... for much of the time. I think you're right though, he was fighting against the fascists. His book, Homage to Catalonia describes his experiences.
Animal Farm and 1984 were written against Totalitarianism. There's a famous quote of his: "Everything I have written has been in support of Democratic Socialism, and against Totalitarianism.
Slashdot Mirror
King has published loads of novellas. Off the top of my head, Shawshank Redemption, The Body, The Mist, The Langoliers, Apt Pupil, The Long Walk, The Sun Dog, and The Breathing Method. In compilations, admittedly, but you can't say that the book wouldn't have been sold.
One bloke trying to sell you watches can only harrass a few people at once. Spam can be sent out by the million at almost no cost. If every business spammed when they felt like it, everyone would get thousands of junk emails; why should a few companies be allowed to abuse the system at the expense of everyone else?
Also, free speech is overrated. Remember that not all countries have the same laws concerning it. Why should my right not to receive bollocks I don't want be subservient to his right to clog my inbox up?
If every business in the world sent out a million spams every time business was a little slow, email would become useless. You'd have thousands of pieces of spam/day and you'd never be able to read any genuine messages.
Set up a UN patent-buying organisation. Each country pays a small propotion of its GDP to it. When a company/individual comes up with a patent, this organisation estimates what the patent is worth and buys it from the inventor. The patent is then licensed to everyone for free. If this hypothetical organisation decides that the patent is not worth buying, or is very specific, the firm can patent it privately (but the UN body has first refusal). OK, there would be a variety of issues to overcome, but what do you think of it as a concept? Shall I patent it? :)
At least, in the UK.
Re: Everyone is entitled to monitor any record about themselves.
The Data Protection Act means that any firm must tell you what data they hold about you (I think a small fee may be charged). Isn't it the same in the US? You can also make them change the data if it's inaccurate and sue them if they're holding inappropriate data about you.
Unfortunately this only applies to computer records, so some companies circumvent the law. For example, to get into university you must apply through UCAS and your school gives them a reference about you. But apparently you can't get that info, because they print it out and don't store it on computer. Bastards.
I like the idea about companies being forced to reveal the source of their data though.
IANAG, but it seems to me that if we are made up of a "billion three letter words" (codons?), that means that there are (only) a billion factorial different genetic ids for humans to take? So what is the proabability of there being someone else on Earth having the same genetic makeup as me?
I checked up the story. It was AOL's filtering software.
IANA 404 research scientist, but... Why can't my browser just open a connection to the web page, and if the heading starts with "404", not load the page and simply flash a warning that the page is not available?
A couple of years ago many filters blocked pages with reference to the town of Scunthorpe (due to substring at index 1-4). I don't know why the software couldn't check for spaces around the blocked words, but Scunthorpe council got quite annoyed. They complained to one of the firms producing the software and the reply was that they ought to change the name of the town to Sconthorpe. Caused quite a stir...
It seems to be ages since I saw a film or read a book and couldn't guess the twist at the end. Call it arrogance if you like (I'm sure some of you will :) but they all seem obvious to me. Even the last few Iain Banks novels I've read seem linear. The only tv show that does it for me now is Jonathan Creek. Can any /.ers recommend some books/films with incredibly twisty plots? Does scream3 have as cunning an ending as JK says?
Hey, *I* know where to get it. But why not let people decide for themselves whether they want to mess with development kernels? I don't think /. is exactly the place where people come to be protected from themselves.
It's annoying the way Taco says "if you don't know where to get it, then I'm not telling you". How does anyone know if no-one tells them? Everyone's got to start somewhere.
:)
I'd say it was a very Microsoft-esque phrase, except that would probably get me instant "flamebait" moderation
Communism doesn't have respect for private ownership. The GPL doesn't respect anyone owning the copyright of a piece of code under the license. Sound similar? I suspect you're an American, brought up to be biased against alternative political systems.
:) but it's true.
It's not meant to be a flame. Well, actually it is
The ZX Spectrum had BASIC keywords bound to it's keys (eg J had Load, T Randomize etc) It improved typing speed for the expert, but it was a real pain in the arse for the beginner. A generation of programmers have been ruined in the UK, I suspect, because they couldn't move onto "real" keyboards.
I didn't know that so many candidates were actually standing in the US.
;-)
I'm surprised the commies weren't hung, drawn and quatered
Doesn't it require a lot of cash to stand in a US election? How many votes do the minority parties get?
So what were the results? COuldn't you have posted a URL or something?
Have a 2-level moderation system. Moderator points work like they do at the moment, but /. should also allow any logged-in user to select "agree" or "disagree" with a post. This would cut down the number of "me 2!"/"u suck" posts, but also allow /.ers to disagree with a post even though it adds to the debate.
Applets aren't exactly cross-platform compliant. I've just written a fairly complex applet, showing planes taking off and landing; IE renders the background, the threads work in Netscape, but not vice versa. Works fine in appletviewer 1.1 though, so I must be doing it right :(
That's the first time I've ever heard "Pah!" on slashdot! In fact, I didn't think anyone ever said it until now...
Slashdot seems to be so (unintentially!) American-dominated, despite the international readership. For example, it seems like socialism and similar political topics are genetically incompatable with many Americans.
Someone to intelligently defend Windows would be nice as well to stimulate good debate. Hard as it might be to find this person.
Consciousness is not necessarily dependent on blood chemistry. The *mind* is, but it depends on how you define consciousness. I would suggest that even substances that make you lose consciousness is not affecting consciousness, but breaking the link between the mind and consciousness... just my viewpoint.
Every living thing is conscious, you think? What, even trees? How about virii?
I fail to see where the author says that apes (etc) aren't conscious. I agree with what the author says to a certain extent, but I can't see why it shouldn't apply to apes up to a point.
:(
I'd like to read this book, but my student budget doesn't stretch to hardbacks
The concept of consciousness is something that we fundamentally do not understand. We don't even seem to have begun being able to explain it.
It doesn't matter how complex the brain is, if it's a computer then it could be emulated on a 486 (or whatever) with a lot of magnetic tape (er.. revise Turing Machines). Of course, it might take aeons for anything to happen, but it would be conscious. Simultaneous processes could be time-sliced or run on multiple processors.
Or, the program could be run through by someone with pen and paper - but how would that system be self-aware?
The conclusion of many physicists is that some fundamental physical thing(s) is going on. Hence electron tunneling etc.
I'm not an atheist as such. I'm an agnostic (though I do sort of like some of the budhist philosophies...)
However, even if you do believe in God or whatever, I fail to understand what purpose religion serves in your life. Why should you submit to religious dogma rather than considering things for yourself? What makes the priest of your religion qualified (ie better than you) to instruct you in morality? Strange that the higher up you go in religeous hierarchies, the better the practitioners get paid - if they were true adherents, it would be the other way around. Another thing is that most religions are mutually exclusive.
Why am I not religeous? When I was a kid, I did believe in God. But gradually I saw the contradictions in the bible (and between different religions). Actually, I remember the moment when I stopped believing in God - it was in a religous studies lesson, ironically. We were learning about different faiths and I realised that there were far more non-Christians in the world than Christians.
Also, old questions like "we don't know what happened before the big bang" was answered a long time ago - there was no "before". Time began at the big bang. If religeous slashdotters wanted to point to religion they'd be better off debating things like the way consciousness is related to the structure of the universe (yeah, I read you're not an atheist; this is an "open letter")
The anarchists and the socialists were on the same side... for much of the time. I think you're right though, he was fighting against the fascists. His book, Homage to Catalonia describes his experiences.
Animal Farm and 1984 were written against Totalitarianism. There's a famous quote of his: "Everything I have written has been in support of Democratic Socialism, and against Totalitarianism.