Your own brain already simulates the outside world. What? You thought what you saw was really what's out there? Your brain is only showing you part of the story.
Most people don't realize that the brain gives them a description of the outside world, not a picture of it. Try drawing a still life. What? Too difficult? Why? If you actually saw the world as it is, it wouldn't be too difficult, the only problem would be making the brush strokes. But instead, you need knowledge of the technique of perspective, you need knowledge of shading, etc. Why do we need knowledge to draw a world we're seeing with out own eyes?
Furthermore, what our brain presents is not the whole truth, even if it is a partial truth, which this article presents an article against. We see three dimensions of a world that could have many more, according to some theories. Some people only see two dimensions of this world. Some people don't see any dimensions of this world. Why do we assume that other important things, like specifics about the very way things are, are not modified by are brain? They are, at least indirectly, by our evolved emotions, but we assume that there's no modification at the sensory level. When it seems so easy to introduce noticeable differences at the sensory level by hallucinogens, why can't we believe the brain is already doing it to an extent?
In a proper simulation, there is no way out. Perhaps there is in a quantum mechanical simulation, however, since all the operations are not contained on a chip, just in a bunch of separate universes...
It turns out it was my fault...i did --enable-proxy-httpd but not --enable-proxy. Perhaps there should be some configure check to stop me from doing this?
Derivative works of public domain works are still elligible for copyright protection. West Side Story was a derivative work of Romeo and Julliet, does that make it any less copyright-able? What about the new translations of older books (Beowulf, etc.)?
I suspect that Tasman 0.9 is newer than the version in IE 5.2.1. According to CodeBitch's latest article, she's already seen a new version of IE in the logs, and the version in MSN Explorer for Mac is the same as the version that will be in the next IE.
This software is definitely developed exclusively for UPS. Who would sell a XML server for package tracking that only connects to UPS's system? Anyway, even if someone else did develop the software, why would the vendor put any restrictions on which end users could use it? It's not like it's a chunk of code; it's an XML API that requires an account to connect.
UPS does not like OSS. I can say that for certain.
A few months ago, I developed a package tracking application for Mac OS X. Since I had just done this in my free time, and I didn't really feel like selling it, I decided to make this application open source. My original plug-ins communicated to the package trackers via HTML, but it soon became apparent that the websites changed quickly enough to make this more difficult than I had first imagined.
Since this was an application, and not a package tracker, I couldn't use a regular e-commerce account. I emailed FedEx and they gave me the proper key and information necessary to use their XML service. UPS, however, was not so nice. I got an email that stated:
Our current license agreement does not support open source, and we are only able to authorize the use of the tools if the product cannot be altered in any way by subsequent users, including resellers.
So, UPS is certainly not a fan of open source. My current UPS plug-in breaks rather often, but there's not much I can do about it, given UPS's stance on this issue.
It's possible to apply the definition of terrorism to George W. Bush, Al Gore, or any other elected official if you can prove that they sped on the highway, because it's a violation of state law attempting to coerce the civilian population.
Indeed, if you write all 1s to both sides, or all 0s to both sides, or any other data arrangement for that matter, the drive will eventually fail also.
There was a Wired article about bacteria doing this...don't have a link offhand. Viruses are just a few proteins and DNA and/or RNA though, not even technically living, so this is unlikely.
SiMac proposes that we eliminate all pronouns. That way, the citizens of the world will not have to worry about mistakes like these. SiMac certainly wouldn't make a mistake like this. Would Anonymous Coward?
Slashdot Mirror
Your own brain already simulates the outside world. What? You thought what you saw was really what's out there? Your brain is only showing you part of the story.
Most people don't realize that the brain gives them a description of the outside world, not a picture of it. Try drawing a still life. What? Too difficult? Why? If you actually saw the world as it is, it wouldn't be too difficult, the only problem would be making the brush strokes. But instead, you need knowledge of the technique of perspective, you need knowledge of shading, etc. Why do we need knowledge to draw a world we're seeing with out own eyes?
Furthermore, what our brain presents is not the whole truth, even if it is a partial truth, which this article presents an article against. We see three dimensions of a world that could have many more, according to some theories. Some people only see two dimensions of this world. Some people don't see any dimensions of this world. Why do we assume that other important things, like specifics about the very way things are, are not modified by are brain? They are, at least indirectly, by our evolved emotions, but we assume that there's no modification at the sensory level. When it seems so easy to introduce noticeable differences at the sensory level by hallucinogens, why can't we believe the brain is already doing it to an extent?
In a proper simulation, there is no way out. Perhaps there is in a quantum mechanical simulation, however, since all the operations are not contained on a chip, just in a bunch of separate universes...
I think he means with the slashdotting.
Yeah, because AltaVista's translator won't do anything with it, since it's Latin.
It turns out it was my fault...i did --enable-proxy-httpd but not --enable-proxy. Perhaps there should be some configure check to stop me from doing this?
Sorry to waste your time.
Okay, here's another problem, i'm not sure if it's Apache or me. Earlier today, when I looked on my server, I saw this:
16330 root 15 0 6244 6244 2848 S 99.5 1.2 1425m 0 httpd
It used 1425 minutes of processor time, so I guess it's been running for a while. Any ideas what it could be doing?
The HTTP proxy and several experimental modules don't compile. They're not essential modules for me, but it would be nice if they would work.
Simon
Derivative works of public domain works are still elligible for copyright protection. West Side Story was a derivative work of Romeo and Julliet, does that make it any less copyright-able? What about the new translations of older books (Beowulf, etc.)?
Or you could just use an encrypting proxy, or tunnel your outgoing connections under ipsec. Then you'd get full speed and full security.
There is. It's called iMove. Just import the AAC and get the AIFF out of the project clips folder, then encode it to MP3 with LAME or iTunes.
Will you have two HDTVs in your house before the cable companies figure out a way to speed up the cable lines?
I suspect that Tasman 0.9 is newer than the version in IE 5.2.1. According to CodeBitch's latest article, she's already seen a new version of IE in the logs, and the version in MSN Explorer for Mac is the same as the version that will be in the next IE.
This software is definitely developed exclusively for UPS. Who would sell a XML server for package tracking that only connects to UPS's system? Anyway, even if someone else did develop the software, why would the vendor put any restrictions on which end users could use it? It's not like it's a chunk of code; it's an XML API that requires an account to connect.
A few months ago, I developed a package tracking application for Mac OS X. Since I had just done this in my free time, and I didn't really feel like selling it, I decided to make this application open source. My original plug-ins communicated to the package trackers via HTML, but it soon became apparent that the websites changed quickly enough to make this more difficult than I had first imagined.
Since this was an application, and not a package tracker, I couldn't use a regular e-commerce account. I emailed FedEx and they gave me the proper key and information necessary to use their XML service. UPS, however, was not so nice. I got an email that stated:
So, UPS is certainly not a fan of open source. My current UPS plug-in breaks rather often, but there's not much I can do about it, given UPS's stance on this issue.
It's possible to apply the definition of terrorism to George W. Bush, Al Gore, or any other elected official if you can prove that they sped on the highway, because it's a violation of state law attempting to coerce the civilian population.
I hope you used a scan you can't detect...It's never good to nmap the government.
Indeed, if you write all 1s to both sides, or all 0s to both sides, or any other data arrangement for that matter, the drive will eventually fail also.
Damn April Fools day...is this a joke or not!?
Use DVI; it's the standard digital interface between an LCD and the computer. All Apple's LCDs come DVI-only, and I'm sure other LCDs do as well.
I think it's an animated gif...at least that's what it says on the page...
Hurricane Electric also provides free IPv6 tunnels...I used one to play around with IPv6, but tunnels seem to have fairly high latency.
My printer cost $13. Its cartridges cost $20. It came with 2 cartridges. Anyone see a problem here?
There was a Wired article about bacteria doing this...don't have a link offhand. Viruses are just a few proteins and DNA and/or RNA though, not even technically living, so this is unlikely.
SiMac proposes that we eliminate all pronouns. That way, the citizens of the world will not have to worry about mistakes like these. SiMac certainly wouldn't make a mistake like this. Would Anonymous Coward?
And everyone who's ever tried to use it knows Windows' drag and drop support is sooooo consistent between applications!