Wait, no they aren't. Whether your computation is done with electrons, metal, and gates or chemicals, neurons, and massively parallel signals in a semi-chaotic system of interconnected brain tissues, these two facts exist: Computers are turing complete. Brains are turing complete. You can hide your head in the sand and talk about "free will" all you like, but the fact that you have wetwear does not define youer thinking as better in any way. Any other way of looking at it is mindless faith in religion.
Where did I use the term "better" when qualifying thought as opposed to mechanical processes? Never even implied it. Just different.
Also, until you can claim to solve the halting problem in real life (as opposed to a "theoretical device"), don't go around claiming that the brain is turing-complete. It isn't, and cannot be - not in this universe, anyway.
Exactly. You can already get an external 1.5 TB hd for $130.00 - between hard drives and solid-state devices, conventional rotating optical media are caught between a rock and a hard place. Time to switch to 3D encoding, or forget about it entirely.
You can get the exact date from the shadows - every day the sun passes through a slightly different arc, and the shadows are slightly different than they were the day before or will be the day after. As I said, it provides validation of other intel sources, to the day and time.
subs make a better launch platform than surface ships - you can move them into the asrea without alerting your target,
This is really grasping for straws. Afghanistan is 400 miles from the nearest ocean
... it's not grasping at straws when it's what the UK did - launched cruise missiles from nuclear subs into targets in Afghanistan. Can't ignore the facts...
If you were going to modify something to shoot Chinese or Russian missiles, it'd be a hell of a lot easier to do it with a surface ship
... except that surface ships can be visually ID'd - no false flag opportunity...
Now, before you come up with a new claim, please answer this: If the UK government cared about hostile people seeing these subs, why didn't they build a roof over the dock, or put up walls blocking the view from publicly accessible roads? If you aren't afraid of nations that can afford satellites, buy imagery, or from nations that can get a spy to drive down a public road, then clearly you don't value protecting something all that much.
Turn it on its' head -
If they didn't care about them being visible in satellite images, why are they so concerned about wanting them to be blurred?
It's the UK that is demanding the images be blurred, not me. Go ask them what they're so worried about. Maybe they see the same "verification of intel sources" opportunities that I mentioned? Or perhaps you can come up with a better reason to explain their actions?
They want the pictures blurred. I've given some reasons why they might want this, as well as some facts about previous uses of the subs against Afghanistan... which you conveniently poh-poohed instead of addressing; and you still haven't offered any alternative reason to explain their actions. And this all still ignores the bullshit claim earlier in this thread (which I shot down earlier) about how every country that the UK has to worry about already has satellite intel.
So, since you don't like any of MY explanations, what explanation do YOU propose to why the UK wants these pictures blurred?
Once it starts to go, it goes FAST. We're talking just a couple of seconds. Once a disk starts to fragment into pieces, by the time you hit the big red power button it's probably already taken out the laser. The first one had a chunk out of one side missing, and lots of stress fractures radiating from the center hole. $100 later, new CD burner... a year later, another disk from the same batch went while I was out of the room. Scratch another burner. Fortunately, by then DVD drives had dropped in price, so it was a good excuse to upgrade.
It doesn't matter if the data is months behind - its usefulness in this case is to confirm what ground-based assets have already told you. If they told you that, at that date, 2 subs were there, and you now know there were 4, you have some housecleaning to do. If, on the other hand, they were accurate with their intel, you have one more data point in terms of their reliability.
In this game, NO information is useless in the right hands.
here are plenty of surface ships much more capable of supporting a conventional attack.
And as I pointed out (with links elsewhere in this thread), the UK has already used their nuclear subs to launch cruise missle attacks against targets in Afghanistan. Please don't confuse "primary purpose" with "only purpose." Subs make a better launch platform than surface ships - you can move them into the area without alerting your target, you have to send a sub in to support the surface fleet anyway, and your target hopefully won't be able to positively identify just who is launching the attack, so they don't know who to attack in return. You could even do false flag attacks, allowing some "duds" to fall into their hands implicating a 3rd party, since they have no surface sightings to put the lie to it...
The "thinking" can be reduced to a computing machine made out of tinkertoys, or punch-card readers. It requires no understanding, no "learning", no insight - just rote mechanical responses to inputs. That's not "thinking" any more than instinct is - it's just hard-wired responses.
The real question is "what is sufficient for thinking", and I believe the answer is pretty easy - free will. To those who argue against free will, then all thought is predetermined, and therefore mechanistic. But of course, they're free to think that, though they would argue otherwise:-)
Or we can try this (modified from the supreme's definition of pornography) - "I may not be able to define thought, but I know it when I see it!" - which under the circumstances, is actually quite appropriate - it means that discerning whether actual "thinking" is taking place requires - wait for it - THOUGHT!
Or do I throw in the now-obligatory bad car analogy?:-)
Installing the OS isn't the problem with linux, it's all the updates, which isn't so trivial.
Also, you forgot to back up/etc,/srv, and/var, as well as/usr/local. Hope you weren't running any databases, local copies of web apps, an svn repository, etc.
Don't sweat it... these are the same people who believe that a computer can "think" about chess, instead of just searching through N number of plies in T time, then offering the best solution it has found in those constraints, without ever having to "understand" chess on any level.
This can be applied to ANY problem, provided you want to invest the design and testing time.
This whole question was answered decades ago (1970s) with the "foreigner in a sealed room" turing thought experiment. It showed that the person in the sealed room doesn't have to understand english, or even know the answer to questions, provided they are given some simple rules to link words together in a response depending on what words are in the original statement.
DVDs have enough storage for just about everything
They're obsolete. If a stack of DVDs are good enough to back up your full hard drive, your hard drive is either also obsolete, almost empty, or it's a flash drive.
Nobody's going to burn almost dvds to back up a $90 1 TB hard drive.
I've had a couple of CDs "explode" in 52x CD burners - one started to fail, so I forcibly ejected it w. a paperclip while it was still rotating - then quickly wished I hadn't. The next time one failed, I let it take the drive with it. Sounded like a mutant hamster running their exercise wheel to death.
If you paid $150 for your xbox, + $18 for the cable, you got fucked. New xbox 360s system bundoes with Sega Superstars Tennis, Feeding Frenzy, Luxor 2, Pac-Man, Boom Boom Rocket, UNO, are $199 at Target, no special favors.
I'd rathe pay the $30 extra, and get everything new, unopened, nothing missing, and a store that I can actually return to if I have a complaint.
The *are* terrible, but every once in a while (once in a blue moon) you might (if you're extremely lucky) find something useful or interesting.
I once found some self-contained karaoke mikes (the microphone is it's own karaoke machine, just plug it into the TV - on sale for $29.99 - they were on sale , but not at that price - a pricing error. Bought both, and had them get 2 more from other stores at the true sale price of, IIRC, $49.99. Made great Christmas gifts 5 months later...
Have I seen anything since? On the one or 2 occasions per year that I go there, no. Just a store with too much junk merchandise (it's only "eclectic" if your store is making enough money to be called "eccentric", and not "crazy stoopid") crammed into too small a floor footage.
I don't see how they stay in business... oops, they don't.
And the practices they carried over from the Radio Shack days - always asking for your name and phone number so they could sell it to marketers - always pissed me off.
If you hate it now, you're gonna get to hate it even more in the future... Bell wants to buy 'The Source by Circuit City' so they can pimp their crappy sympatico and bell mobility brands, screwing their franchisees in the process.
Sounds like a marriage made in heaven. After all, there's no love lost for BCE either.
Found 12 sites
Site Site Report First seen Netblock OS 1. www.circuitcity.com Site Report march 1996 adsl endpoints nat conections only linux 2. entertainment.circuitcity.com Site Report june 2004 alliance entertainment corp. f5 big-ip 3. email.circuitcity.com Site Report june 2006 epsilon interactive f5 big-ip 4. investor.circuitcity.com Site Report november 2002 nasdaq stock market windows server 2003 5. circuitcity.com Site Report january 1998 akamai technologies linux 6. weeklyad.circuitcity.com Site Report november 2003 westwood vista shopping center linux 7. newsroom.circuitcity.com Site Report may 2004 nasdaq stock market unknown 8. media.circuitcity.com Site Report august 2008 trueffect, inc. linux 9. ssl.circuitcity.com Site Report august 2004 akamai technologies linux 10. answers.circuitcity.com Site Report january 2009 adsl endpoints nat conections only linux 11. internalforum.circuitcity.com Site Report september 2007 ibm f5 big-ip 12. business.circuitcity.com Site Report december 2004 ibm unknown
I suspect 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 will be dead soon, and wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall for 11:-)
Recently I noticed just how much the Bluetooth headset has changed the way we perceive people.
I rode a tram, and heard a girl near me giggle. She was looking outside, speaking softly, giggling from time to time. Naturally, I'd assumed she was talking to someone via Bluetooth.
Boy, was I wrong. I don't know what was making her giggle, and who she was talking to, but there was no mobile phone or any of its possible accessories in sight.
Let's see... you didn't see a phone. Could it have been in her purse? School bag? Pocket?
You can also get a bluetooth earbud that's so small that a bit of hair, or the edge of a hat, will hide it.
You don't even need to be within 30 feet for it to work - I've had plenty of conversations where I've gone from room to room w/o my cell, or outside, without dropping the conversation (don't try this with a bargain-basement bluetooth). I've even left my cell in the car, gone to the ATM, and back w/o dropping the call - a good 50 feet or more. She may even have dropped her phone and not even realized it, and only found out when she gets off the tram. Or hse's a hackeer using bluetooth snarfing and eavesdropping on YOUR phone calls.
The people walking down the street talking via bluetooth seem odd to you because they prefer the conversation with a distant person to dealing with you. If your need for attention weren't so acute this wouldn't bother you at all.
That is quite an assumption.
Perhaps it is because you can't tell if they are talking or a person or to themselves unless you see the headset. You know, crazy people talk to themselves. And other people tend to stay away from them, since they are relatively unpredictable.
Sorry to disappoint you, but that was me, and I was just pretending to talk to someone on my bluetooth so I could avoid talking to you.
Afghanistan is currently in no danger of a strategic nuclear attack, which is obviously the main reason countries which have them go to some lengths to make sure their nuclear sub fleet is concealed
Wrong. The day you have to actually launch a strategic nuclear attack is the day that your nuclear submarine fleets' actual purpose - which is to be enough of a threat to retaliate in the event of such an attack (see Mutually Assured Destruction) - is over. The submarine fleet will have failed in its' primary goal, which is to be a credible enough threat to PREVENT a nuclear attack.
The nuclear submarine fleet's second purpose is to protect the rest of the naval fleet, allies, and shipping, both by being the "joker in the hole" against other forces, and against other subs.
The third purpose is, as I've mentioned elsewhere, to do stand-off attacks via cruise missiles, which they (UK submarines) HAVE launched against targets in Afghanistan.
By "havng an interest in the information" I meant "having the capacity to do something with it". Not just "wanting" to strike back. I haven't heard of any Taliban or Serbian expeditionary forces invading the UK.
Having an interest is more than just wanting the information so you can strike back. If they have 4 nuclear subs, and all 4 are docked, then you know that you don't have to worry about their submarine-launched cruise missiles for a certain period of time. Also, if they're in dock more often than in the past, it could indicate either a refitting program, which means lengthy trials afterwards (meaning - not a threat except in the direst of emergencies) or that the military stance has changed - both of which are valuable pieces of info, and which could be used by someone wanting to manipulate opinion among supporters, or for planning. "Look - the infidels resolve is crumbling! Allah has turned their mighty weapons in their hands!" - or, to western media - "The UK is no longer committed to the campaign against the Taliban - all their submarines, which were used to launch cruise missile attacks - are out of service for a lengthy refitting."
Propaganda is a weapon - ask Karl Rove and George Bush - they used it often enough against their own people, whether it was the "War on Terror - they have WMDs" or "We must shovel still more money to our friends - I meant bail out Wall Street - or the whole world economy will collapse!"
"This device is tiny and fits into the ear and measures movements inside the ear due to changes in facial expression and then uses that as input triggers. So [tongue out] starts or stops your iPod Touch; [Wink] rewinds to the last song; and [smile] replays the same song."
Sneeze a few times, and you just sent an email to your boss calling him a fat ignorant pig
Get the hiccups, and your car repeated accelerates and brakes, causing multiple accidents..
And the world ends when the president, grimacing while trying to keep from passing gas at a public function, activates the nuclear launch codes.
UK nuclear subs have launched cruise missiles against both Kosovo and Afghanistan. If these countries have satellite surveillance, it's got to be one of the best-kept secrets in the world. Citizen, it is your duty to report this new Afghani satellite capability.
What the gov't is pissed off about is that you can see 2 nuclear subs docked... scroll up to the top of the bay, zoom in.
Sure, foreign governments probably already have assets on the ground keeping watch of the ebb and flow of traffic, but it's nice to have visible confirmation (you can confirm the date of the pictures by using shadows - every day, the shadows will be slightly different as the sun appears to trace a slightly different arc in the sky).
Re:Nope. I can tell you why TV lost in 7 words.
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 1
"Software evolves faster and cheaper than hardware."
Really? Only if you're talking about bug counts - the faster and cheaper, the quicker those bugs evolve!
Slashdot Mirror
Where did I use the term "better" when qualifying thought as opposed to mechanical processes? Never even implied it. Just different.
Also, until you can claim to solve the halting problem in real life (as opposed to a "theoretical device"), don't go around claiming that the brain is turing-complete. It isn't, and cannot be - not in this universe, anyway.
Exactly. You can already get an external 1.5 TB hd for $130.00 - between hard drives and solid-state devices, conventional rotating optical media are caught between a rock and a hard place. Time to switch to 3D encoding, or forget about it entirely.
You can get the exact date from the shadows - every day the sun passes through a slightly different arc, and the shadows are slightly different than they were the day before or will be the day after. As I said, it provides validation of other intel sources, to the day and time.
Turn it on its' head - If they didn't care about them being visible in satellite images, why are they so concerned about wanting them to be blurred?
It's the UK that is demanding the images be blurred, not me. Go ask them what they're so worried about. Maybe they see the same "verification of intel sources" opportunities that I mentioned? Or perhaps you can come up with a better reason to explain their actions?
They want the pictures blurred. I've given some reasons why they might want this, as well as some facts about previous uses of the subs against Afghanistan ... which you conveniently poh-poohed instead of addressing; and you still haven't offered any alternative reason to explain their actions. And this all still ignores the bullshit claim earlier in this thread (which I shot down earlier) about how every country that the UK has to worry about already has satellite intel.
So, since you don't like any of MY explanations, what explanation do YOU propose to why the UK wants these pictures blurred?
Once it starts to go, it goes FAST. We're talking just a couple of seconds. Once a disk starts to fragment into pieces, by the time you hit the big red power button it's probably already taken out the laser. The first one had a chunk out of one side missing, and lots of stress fractures radiating from the center hole. $100 later, new CD burner ... a year later, another disk from the same batch went while I was out of the room. Scratch another burner. Fortunately, by then DVD drives had dropped in price, so it was a good excuse to upgrade.
In this game, NO information is useless in the right hands.
And as I pointed out (with links elsewhere in this thread), the UK has already used their nuclear subs to launch cruise missle attacks against targets in Afghanistan. Please don't confuse "primary purpose" with "only purpose." Subs make a better launch platform than surface ships - you can move them into the area without alerting your target, you have to send a sub in to support the surface fleet anyway, and your target hopefully won't be able to positively identify just who is launching the attack, so they don't know who to attack in return. You could even do false flag attacks, allowing some "duds" to fall into their hands implicating a 3rd party, since they have no surface sightings to put the lie to it ...
The "thinking" can be reduced to a computing machine made out of tinkertoys, or punch-card readers. It requires no understanding, no "learning", no insight - just rote mechanical responses to inputs. That's not "thinking" any more than instinct is - it's just hard-wired responses.
The real question is "what is sufficient for thinking", and I believe the answer is pretty easy - free will. To those who argue against free will, then all thought is predetermined, and therefore mechanistic. But of course, they're free to think that, though they would argue otherwise :-)
Or we can try this (modified from the supreme's definition of pornography) - "I may not be able to define thought, but I know it when I see it!" - which under the circumstances, is actually quite appropriate - it means that discerning whether actual "thinking" is taking place requires - wait for it - THOUGHT!
Or do I throw in the now-obligatory bad car analogy? :-)
Installing the OS isn't the problem with linux, it's all the updates, which isn't so trivial.
Also, you forgot to back up /etc, /srv, and /var, as well as /usr/local. Hope you weren't running any databases, local copies of web apps, an svn repository, etc.
Don't sweat it ... these are the same people who believe that a computer can "think" about chess, instead of just searching through N number of plies in T time, then offering the best solution it has found in those constraints, without ever having to "understand" chess on any level.
This can be applied to ANY problem, provided you want to invest the design and testing time.
This whole question was answered decades ago (1970s) with the "foreigner in a sealed room" turing thought experiment. It showed that the person in the sealed room doesn't have to understand english, or even know the answer to questions, provided they are given some simple rules to link words together in a response depending on what words are in the original statement.
They're obsolete. If a stack of DVDs are good enough to back up your full hard drive, your hard drive is either also obsolete, almost empty, or it's a flash drive.
Nobody's going to burn almost dvds to back up a $90 1 TB hard drive.
I've had a couple of CDs "explode" in 52x CD burners - one started to fail, so I forcibly ejected it w. a paperclip while it was still rotating - then quickly wished I hadn't. The next time one failed, I let it take the drive with it. Sounded like a mutant hamster running their exercise wheel to death.
We'll see the same thing we saw with CDs ... price goes through the floor, speed goes up and up, and then they simply become obsolete.
Same happened with zip drives ..
Same happened with floppy drives ...
Same is happening with DVD drives and, to a certain extent, with hard drives ...
If you paid $150 for your xbox, + $18 for the cable, you got fucked. New xbox 360s system bundoes with Sega Superstars Tennis, Feeding Frenzy, Luxor 2, Pac-Man, Boom Boom Rocket, UNO, are $199 at Target, no special favors.
I'd rathe pay the $30 extra, and get everything new, unopened, nothing missing, and a store that I can actually return to if I have a complaint.
The *are* terrible, but every once in a while (once in a blue moon) you might (if you're extremely lucky) find something useful or interesting.
I once found some self-contained karaoke mikes (the microphone is it's own karaoke machine, just plug it into the TV - on sale for $29.99 - they were on sale , but not at that price - a pricing error. Bought both, and had them get 2 more from other stores at the true sale price of, IIRC, $49.99. Made great Christmas gifts 5 months later ...
Have I seen anything since? On the one or 2 occasions per year that I go there, no. Just a store with too much junk merchandise (it's only "eclectic" if your store is making enough money to be called "eccentric", and not "crazy stoopid") crammed into too small a floor footage.
I don't see how they stay in business ... oops, they don't.
And the practices they carried over from the Radio Shack days - always asking for your name and phone number so they could sell it to marketers - always pissed me off.
If you hate it now, you're gonna get to hate it even more in the future ... Bell wants to buy 'The Source by Circuit City' so they can pimp their crappy sympatico and bell mobility brands, screwing their franchisees in the process.
Sounds like a marriage made in heaven. After all, there's no love lost for BCE either.
Results for circuitcity.com
Found 12 sites
Site Site Report First seen Netblock OS
1. www.circuitcity.com Site Report march 1996 adsl endpoints nat conections only linux
2. entertainment.circuitcity.com Site Report june 2004 alliance entertainment corp. f5 big-ip
3. email.circuitcity.com Site Report june 2006 epsilon interactive f5 big-ip
4. investor.circuitcity.com Site Report november 2002 nasdaq stock market windows server 2003
5. circuitcity.com Site Report january 1998 akamai technologies linux
6. weeklyad.circuitcity.com Site Report november 2003 westwood vista shopping center linux
7. newsroom.circuitcity.com Site Report may 2004 nasdaq stock market unknown
8. media.circuitcity.com Site Report august 2008 trueffect, inc. linux
9. ssl.circuitcity.com Site Report august 2004 akamai technologies linux
10. answers.circuitcity.com Site Report january 2009 adsl endpoints nat conections only linux
11. internalforum.circuitcity.com Site Report september 2007 ibm f5 big-ip
12. business.circuitcity.com Site Report december 2004 ibm unknown
I suspect 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 will be dead soon, and wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall for 11 :-)
Let's see ... you didn't see a phone. Could it have been in her purse? School bag? Pocket?
You can also get a bluetooth earbud that's so small that a bit of hair, or the edge of a hat, will hide it.
You don't even need to be within 30 feet for it to work - I've had plenty of conversations where I've gone from room to room w/o my cell, or outside, without dropping the conversation (don't try this with a bargain-basement bluetooth). I've even left my cell in the car, gone to the ATM, and back w/o dropping the call - a good 50 feet or more. She may even have dropped her phone and not even realized it, and only found out when she gets off the tram. Or hse's a hackeer using bluetooth snarfing and eavesdropping on YOUR phone calls.
Sorry to disappoint you, but that was me, and I was just pretending to talk to someone on my bluetooth so I could avoid talking to you.
Let me guess - you're posting this on slashdot because you've nick-named your "tool" as "CowboyNeal".
Wrong. The day you have to actually launch a strategic nuclear attack is the day that your nuclear submarine fleets' actual purpose - which is to be enough of a threat to retaliate in the event of such an attack (see Mutually Assured Destruction) - is over. The submarine fleet will have failed in its' primary goal, which is to be a credible enough threat to PREVENT a nuclear attack.
The nuclear submarine fleet's second purpose is to protect the rest of the naval fleet, allies, and shipping, both by being the "joker in the hole" against other forces, and against other subs.
The third purpose is, as I've mentioned elsewhere, to do stand-off attacks via cruise missiles, which they (UK submarines) HAVE launched against targets in Afghanistan.
Having an interest is more than just wanting the information so you can strike back. If they have 4 nuclear subs, and all 4 are docked, then you know that you don't have to worry about their submarine-launched cruise missiles for a certain period of time. Also, if they're in dock more often than in the past, it could indicate either a refitting program, which means lengthy trials afterwards (meaning - not a threat except in the direst of emergencies) or that the military stance has changed - both of which are valuable pieces of info, and which could be used by someone wanting to manipulate opinion among supporters, or for planning. "Look - the infidels resolve is crumbling! Allah has turned their mighty weapons in their hands!" - or, to western media - "The UK is no longer committed to the campaign against the Taliban - all their submarines, which were used to launch cruise missile attacks - are out of service for a lengthy refitting."
Propaganda is a weapon - ask Karl Rove and George Bush - they used it often enough against their own people, whether it was the "War on Terror - they have WMDs" or "We must shovel still more money to our friends - I meant bail out Wall Street - or the whole world economy will collapse!"
Sneeze a few times, and you just sent an email to your boss calling him a fat ignorant pig
Get the hiccups, and your car repeated accelerates and brakes, causing multiple accidents..
And the world ends when the president, grimacing while trying to keep from passing gas at a public function, activates the nuclear launch codes.
Not true.
UK nuclear subs have launched cruise missiles against both Kosovo and Afghanistan. If these countries have satellite surveillance, it's got to be one of the best-kept secrets in the world. Citizen, it is your duty to report this new Afghani satellite capability.
Really? Afghanistan has satellites? Where'd they get them from - in a box of Girl Guide Cookies?
UK nuclear subs are equipped with BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles. And they HAVE been used by the UK Navy against Afghanistan ... and Kosovo
What the gov't is pissed off about is that you can see 2 nuclear subs docked ... scroll up to the top of the bay, zoom in.
Sure, foreign governments probably already have assets on the ground keeping watch of the ebb and flow of traffic, but it's nice to have visible confirmation (you can confirm the date of the pictures by using shadows - every day, the shadows will be slightly different as the sun appears to trace a slightly different arc in the sky).
Really? Only if you're talking about bug counts - the faster and cheaper, the quicker those bugs evolve!