We had always called it a partnership
but I found in the contracts that I was reduced to work for hire. I told the
lawyer this wasn't the case but they insisted. It was obvious we couldn't
work together so I agreed to the conditions to facilitate the finishing of the
film but I retained half the profits and a cut of merchandising and sequels
Don't b*tch if you signed. Nobody held a gun to your head. You can always walk, and take what's yours with you. If you spent your own coin (as you claim you did), then you were stupid to sign.
asking
people to contact Peter directly and tell him what they thought. At first
Peter sent me a cease and desist order to remove my artwork from the
web site. I couldn't aford a lawyer so I removed it but left the rest. Finally
he agreed to buy out my character rights and eventually for the film itself.
The amount he offered was roughly one cent on the dollar of what I would
have seen from the theatrical release but I was starving and desperate so
I agreed.
Amateur. NOBODY obeys a C&D.
Also, the "corporate lawyer" story is also BS. If you fell for it, you deserve to fail.
The frying of the 6809 is definitely within it's universe. When I fried mine, it was a REAL event that happened to a REAL cpu.
The universe we know could indeed be just a program, and you and I just a portion of that program.
In which case you might as well stop arguing now, because by definition your argument is totally meaningless, and can therefore be ignored.
You might as well argue that I am God. After all, that's much more likely, based on available evidence. Unlike your hypothetical program, there is some evidence that *I* exist.
The data is the important thing, not how it's manipulated. This point needs to be beaten into people.
FTFA:
To ensure the privacy of state government data, BPOS applications for the State of Minnesota will be housed in a dedicated Microsoft environment and delivered online
Am I the only one who sees a basic incompatibility here?
Also, the original poster is wrong - if you can't manipulate the data, it's pretty much useless except to historians. You might as well store it on microfiche and lock it in a vault.
It would take a decent botnet. My calculations show that a million bots doing 10 simultaneous requests a second would take 8 months to use up all the 62-char combos between 1 and 8 digits.
On the other hand, a Mariposa-style botnet could do it in under 11 days. Imagine "owning" all the links an being able to change where the server redirects each one...
They just failed to find a copy of the bomb^Wmovie that they accused people of downloading. This bomb (title: "Cornered!") was a direct-to-dvd turkey that was already shown on TV in Hungary. It's not nearly as highly rated as the 1945 film Cornered.
And even then, your argument is false. Information is NOT the thing being described.
To take your 6809 example (a great cpu to program for - I learned assembler on it on a coco with 64k) - a 6809 emulator running on an i86 is NOT the same thing. Sure, to the program running inside the simulator it might appear to be, but it's not - the reality is that it's being simulated - the 6809 doesn't exist.
You can't for example, fry the 6809 with a voltage spike, unsolder it, and solder in another (been there, done that). If you tried to, you'd be mistaking information for the thing being described.
What the program thinks is irrelevant. We can also posit ghosts, and "explain" misplacing our keys that way. Doesn't make it real, even though, for the person who wants to cling to that believe, for them it *is* "real" (for values of real that diverge sharply from reality).
Again, information, or a description of a thing, no matter how complete, is not the thing being described. There's a fundamental difference between equality and identity, which is why we have bot the "==" and the "===" notations.
But you START with the assumption that there is in fact a program running a simulation. You cannot use an assumption to prove that assumption, which is the logical fail that you're engaging in.
Just because A is possible doesn't mean that it's necessary.
This is irrelevant drivel. When I say "you can't prove a negative", I mean a negative assertion such as "there is no god" or "the universe is not a program."
Negative assertions that are easily disproved. The police are looking for a person of the male gender and african heritage with brown eyes in their late 70s or more, who totaled their black car at a certain location on September 30th at 4pm, who fled the scene leaving behind a severed finger, and a wallet identifying them as so-and-so.
10 negative assertions that are easily proven:
I am not dark-skinned.(Proof: Use your eyes.)
I am not male. (Proof: see above)
I am not brown-eyed. (Proof: see above)
I am not that old.(Proof: see above)
My car is not black.(Proof: It's parked in my garage - go and look)
It is not totaled.(Proof: see above)
I was not at that location at that time. (Proof: 6 witnesses that I was in a meeting between 3pm and 5pm)
I did not lose a finger. (Proof: Here, look at my hands)
I did not leave behind a wallet (Proof: It's in my purse)
My name is not so-and-so (Proof: here's some photo ID)
All these are negative assertions, and all are easily proven, so your statement "You can't prove a negative" is just silly. If you gave it any thought, you would have already realized that, instead of just parroting it.
But an even more basic example: 1 minus 1 is not not zero.
We prove negative assertions all the time in our lives.
Re:JavaScript is ok, DOM is a train wreck
on
JavaScript Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
So what can we do?
I don't know about you, but I've still got a couple hundred blank dvds hanging around (dvds are so last decade:-) - if I became aware of a problem in my area (library or school), I'd be happy to make a bunch of bootable browser-centric dvds.
And libraries *are* supposed to be where people learn things.
And working off of read-only media reduces maintenance, saves money, etc. For personal data storage, pretty much anyone can afford a $5 for a one gig thumb drive, or $7 for 4 gigs, or the library can lend them out, same as books, and let people grab stuff from their local mirror of Project Gutenberg. It's a cheaper way to increase the amount of reading material available than buying new books, and returns are easy - just erase the files. No need to return the books to their proper places in the stacks.
This way, anyone who can afford a netbook, or inherits a lower-end pc (hey, you can find p4s in the dumpster nowaydays) but not the ongoing costs of connectivity still has options.
The postulated condition was, if the program were the universe.
You know that's a major logic fail - using an assumption to "prove" that same assumption. You assume that there's a program running the universe, then say "see, they're equivalent".
That's like saying "Assume that 1+1 = 3" and then at the end saying "See, I proved 1 + 1 = 3".
...a representation of something is not that something. This is something that programmers forget all the time... At a higher level, ordering a pizza online, and them sending you a fax of that pizza, is not going to work either.
Whether the emulation can determine it's an emulation or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of reality. It's an emulation, not reality. It might be equal to a real 6809, but it's NOT a 6809. Again, == (equality) is not === (identity), which is why we have the two separate concepts in the first place.
Your statement "You can't prove a negative" must either itself be unprovable, or false. It turns out that it's false.
"You can't prove that there are no positive integer solutions to an + bn = cn for n > 2." has in fact been proven, and it only takes one example.
Re:JavaScript is ok, DOM is a train wreck
on
JavaScript Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
It's not elitist to demand that they fulfill their mandate to serve the public properly.
Ban the use of sirens in radio commercials to get attention. I don't know how many times I heard one in a commercial and the natural reaction is to start looking for the ambulance or fire truck or police car.
And no, the Universe enforces one direction and one direction only to displacement on that dimension.
The universe does no such thing.
First, the universe is not a sentient being - it cannot "forbid" anything. It is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. I know this might seem nit-picky, but we often make anthropomorphism that tend to get ingrained, and then we overlook the consequences.
Which brings us to one of those "consequences" -
Second, there is no evidence that time only goes in one direction. Here's one paper that proposes differently.
But let's take a simple thought experiment. We all "know" that entropy increases in any system over time, and that eventually there will be no energy differential - all matter will be at the same temperature, so no "work" can be done. This is the "heat death" - though what that uniform temperature could be is irrelevant for the current discussion.
So at that point, all we have is particles moving in random directions with exactly the same amount of energy.
So we wait.. and wait... and wait.
Eventually, any random distribution will give rise to patterns. For example, instead of the air molecules in a room being distributed completely evenly, if we wait billions of years, there will, just by random chance, arise a distribution where many more are on one side than the other. We now have a pressure differential - and a temperature differential. Some small amount of work could be done.
Sure, it would tend to degrade immediately, but the point is that past a certain level of randomness, with enough time, you can generate a pattern that is not random. Like a million million monkeys typing out the complete works of Shakespeare.
Normally, creating a reduction of entropy locally requires that the entropy of the entire system increase, since no process is 100% efficient. In this case, however, the overall entropy of the universe has decreased - and all physicists agree that in a universe with decreasing over-all entropy, time runs backwards, or at least seems to.
Given enough time (and in a universe at heat death, time becomes meaningless, so that "heat death" will never be more than an ill-defined instant that we can approach but never actually reach), time will flow backwards by the simple reduction of entropy in the overall universe. Most of the time, no really significant reduction will occur, but just like those million million monkeys can eventually get Shakespeare right, given enough time, even the universe can reach a state that is not distinguishable from today, or even a parallel one where almost everything is the same. Also note that there is now no need for a mysterious "superposition of states" - they're just a natural part of the universe doing the random walk.
Think of it as the "conservation of entropy and time" law.
Long URL: apps.facebook.com/sororitylife/?ref_id=1648128969&send_timestamp=1281092236&track=invite-IGGiftAccept-4017-20100304-0&action=claimGift&from=1648128969&target=4017&gift_hash=95dbe118dbdb9f0dce93124f621afcb5&gift_timestamp=1281092236000
Short URL: goo.gl/tOmH
Created: Aug 6, 2010
Definitely some tester at google, since there appear to be MANY that point to the same account.
Just because someone says something doesn't mean that I'm going to buy into their reasoning as to how they got there. For example, I'll agree that there's day and night, but I won't agree that that's because the sun and the stars revolve around the earth.
Just one quick comment - it's trivially solvable by allowing the reversal of time, and that's a valid postulate, since it's certainly easier to envision a change of direction in time (time is a dimension, after all) than it is to envision an infinitely long tape.
If you can have your infinitely long tape, and infinite time in which to work with it, and infinite space to store it in, and an infinite power supply to run it (even the first movement of the tape would require infinite energy since it's... well... infinite), then I can certainly have my reversal of time each second.
Re:JavaScript is ok, DOM is a train wreck
on
JavaScript Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
Let the libraries install Firefox or Opera or Safari (they could even switch to Macs).
It's not like a library with public computers needs to have ONLY IE6 on it. Next you'll be saying that they should have ONLY one book one each topic!
I have nothing to do with the creation of the url - it was created on September 11th, as you can see from the info. http://goo.gl/info/cr4p#week
In fact, until I found it 4 hours ago, it only had 5 hits. The other 800 are from my posts - and I only found it by trying some obvious combinations, like sh1t which gives a whale.
But the link title really says it all - Failbook is a security risk to begin with, and combining it with goo.gl is NOT a good idea. The only real reason for url shorteners is twitter and it's stupid 140-character limit.
Individual sites can offer their own url shorteners, and edit/monitor them to make sure that they make sense. Google claimed this would be safe and permanent - you obviously can't have both, as http://goo.gl/cr4p proves - even better than http://goo.gl/lLIm
Slashdot Mirror
Don't b*tch if you signed. Nobody held a gun to your head. You can always walk, and take what's yours with you. If you spent your own coin (as you claim you did), then you were stupid to sign.
Amateur. NOBODY obeys a C&D.
Also, the "corporate lawyer" story is also BS. If you fell for it, you deserve to fail.
In which case you might as well stop arguing now, because by definition your argument is totally meaningless, and can therefore be ignored.
You might as well argue that I am God. After all, that's much more likely, based on available evidence. Unlike your hypothetical program, there is some evidence that *I* exist.
FTFA:
Am I the only one who sees a basic incompatibility here?
Also, the original poster is wrong - if you can't manipulate the data, it's pretty much useless except to historians. You might as well store it on microfiche and lock it in a vault.
If they were trying to say "this is the future of movies" they failed. It looked like a game trailer.
Star Wreck - In the Pirkinning was WAY better.
Absolutely not true. If you have control over the file it points to (for example, it points to http://example.com/news/20101001_lindsey_lohan_hooks_up_with_brad_pitt.php), you can replace the contents of that file with <?php header(location:http://goatse.fr);
You can even make it so that it does it at random times, or only when the user agent isn't googlebot.
So, the steps are:
On the other hand, a Mariposa-style botnet could do it in under 11 days. Imagine "owning" all the links an being able to change where the server redirects each one ...
They just failed to find a copy of the bomb^Wmovie that they accused people of downloading. This bomb (title: "Cornered!") was a direct-to-dvd turkey that was already shown on TV in Hungary. It's not nearly as highly rated as the 1945 film Cornered.
And even then, your argument is false. Information is NOT the thing being described.
To take your 6809 example (a great cpu to program for - I learned assembler on it on a coco with 64k) - a 6809 emulator running on an i86 is NOT the same thing. Sure, to the program running inside the simulator it might appear to be, but it's not - the reality is that it's being simulated - the 6809 doesn't exist.
You can't for example, fry the 6809 with a voltage spike, unsolder it, and solder in another (been there, done that). If you tried to, you'd be mistaking information for the thing being described.
What the program thinks is irrelevant. We can also posit ghosts, and "explain" misplacing our keys that way. Doesn't make it real, even though, for the person who wants to cling to that believe, for them it *is* "real" (for values of real that diverge sharply from reality).
Again, information, or a description of a thing, no matter how complete, is not the thing being described. There's a fundamental difference between equality and identity, which is why we have bot the "==" and the "===" notations.
Just because A is possible doesn't mean that it's necessary.
Negative assertions that are easily disproved. The police are looking for a person of the male gender and african heritage with brown eyes in their late 70s or more, who totaled their black car at a certain location on September 30th at 4pm, who fled the scene leaving behind a severed finger, and a wallet identifying them as so-and-so.
10 negative assertions that are easily proven:
All these are negative assertions, and all are easily proven, so your statement "You can't prove a negative" is just silly. If you gave it any thought, you would have already realized that, instead of just parroting it.
But an even more basic example: 1 minus 1 is not not zero.
We prove negative assertions all the time in our lives.
I don't know about you, but I've still got a couple hundred blank dvds hanging around (dvds are so last decade :-) - if I became aware of a problem in my area (library or school), I'd be happy to make a bunch of bootable browser-centric dvds.
And libraries *are* supposed to be where people learn things.
And working off of read-only media reduces maintenance, saves money, etc. For personal data storage, pretty much anyone can afford a $5 for a one gig thumb drive, or $7 for 4 gigs, or the library can lend them out, same as books, and let people grab stuff from their local mirror of Project Gutenberg. It's a cheaper way to increase the amount of reading material available than buying new books, and returns are easy - just erase the files. No need to return the books to their proper places in the stacks.
This way, anyone who can afford a netbook, or inherits a lower-end pc (hey, you can find p4s in the dumpster nowaydays) but not the ongoing costs of connectivity still has options.
You know that's a major logic fail - using an assumption to "prove" that same assumption. You assume that there's a program running the universe, then say "see, they're equivalent".
That's like saying "Assume that 1+1 = 3" and then at the end saying "See, I proved 1 + 1 = 3".
Nice one!
It's either "one of the few" or "the only".
Your statement "You can't prove a negative" must either itself be unprovable, or false. It turns out that it's false.
"You can't prove that there are no positive integer solutions to an + bn = cn for n > 2." has in fact been proven, and it only takes one example.
It's not elitist to demand that they fulfill their mandate to serve the public properly.
Call me when it says otherwise.
Ban the use of sirens in radio commercials to get attention. I don't know how many times I heard one in a commercial and the natural reaction is to start looking for the ambulance or fire truck or police car.
The universe does no such thing.
First, the universe is not a sentient being - it cannot "forbid" anything. It is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. I know this might seem nit-picky, but we often make anthropomorphism that tend to get ingrained, and then we overlook the consequences.
Which brings us to one of those "consequences" -
Second, there is no evidence that time only goes in one direction. Here's one paper that proposes differently.
But let's take a simple thought experiment. We all "know" that entropy increases in any system over time, and that eventually there will be no energy differential - all matter will be at the same temperature, so no "work" can be done. This is the "heat death" - though what that uniform temperature could be is irrelevant for the current discussion.
So at that point, all we have is particles moving in random directions with exactly the same amount of energy.
So we wait .. and wait ... and wait.
Eventually, any random distribution will give rise to patterns. For example, instead of the air molecules in a room being distributed completely evenly, if we wait billions of years, there will, just by random chance, arise a distribution where many more are on one side than the other. We now have a pressure differential - and a temperature differential. Some small amount of work could be done.
Sure, it would tend to degrade immediately, but the point is that past a certain level of randomness, with enough time, you can generate a pattern that is not random. Like a million million monkeys typing out the complete works of Shakespeare.
Normally, creating a reduction of entropy locally requires that the entropy of the entire system increase, since no process is 100% efficient. In this case, however, the overall entropy of the universe has decreased - and all physicists agree that in a universe with decreasing over-all entropy, time runs backwards, or at least seems to.
Given enough time (and in a universe at heat death, time becomes meaningless, so that "heat death" will never be more than an ill-defined instant that we can approach but never actually reach), time will flow backwards by the simple reduction of entropy in the overall universe. Most of the time, no really significant reduction will occur, but just like those million million monkeys can eventually get Shakespeare right, given enough time, even the universe can reach a state that is not distinguishable from today, or even a parallel one where almost everything is the same. Also note that there is now no need for a mysterious "superposition of states" - they're just a natural part of the universe doing the random walk.
Think of it as the "conservation of entropy and time" law.
Definitely some tester at google, since there appear to be MANY that point to the same account.
Just because someone says something doesn't mean that I'm going to buy into their reasoning as to how they got there. For example, I'll agree that there's day and night, but I won't agree that that's because the sun and the stars revolve around the earth.
If you can have your infinitely long tape, and infinite time in which to work with it, and infinite space to store it in, and an infinite power supply to run it (even the first movement of the tape would require infinite energy since it's ... well ... infinite), then I can certainly have my reversal of time each second.
It's not like a library with public computers needs to have ONLY IE6 on it. Next you'll be saying that they should have ONLY one book one each topic!
created April 13th, 2010 - and only 2 clicks. One of them was mine, and the other one was ...?
Long URL: www.facebook.com/pages/I-Support-Death-by-Sandwich/114394155245805?v=wall
I guess a lot of the testers use Failbook.
In fact, until I found it 4 hours ago, it only had 5 hits. The other 800 are from my posts - and I only found it by trying some obvious combinations, like sh1t which gives a whale.
But the link title really says it all - Failbook is a security risk to begin with, and combining it with goo.gl is NOT a good idea. The only real reason for url shorteners is twitter and it's stupid 140-character limit.
Individual sites can offer their own url shorteners, and edit/monitor them to make sure that they make sense. Google claimed this would be safe and permanent - you obviously can't have both, as http://goo.gl/cr4p proves - even better than http://goo.gl/lLIm