she's also a turkish muslim (obviously westernized to an extent) so i doubt most guys would even get a 'hi' (although i don't know why a white american atheist such as myself is so lucky) let alone a 20-dolla-sucky-sucky --
Re:The "Joy Of Sex" pun will be lost of most of us
on
Joy of Linux
·
· Score: 1
Ok. Peep my sexiness here and hers here. then take into account the fact that i just got hired last night as senior network architect for a new ISP. then tell me geeks don't have good-looks, hot girls, lives, etc:D --
Re:The "Joy Of Sex" pun will be lost of most of us
on
Joy of Linux
·
· Score: 1
Yeah... actually, i'm a little SICK of the stereotype. I'm a good-looking guy, or so my beautiful girlfriend claims, and I've rarely been single since the age of 14 - yet i'm as big a geek as most here, bigger, in fact, now that/. has degraded (the same way RHPS's culture degraded). I think back in teh day the stereotype was largely correct - look at John Draper and his buddies, they're all socially inept ugly malfunctional individuals - thus having time to get into the deep deep deep stuff. but these days the deep and hard work has been done, mostly, the wheel has been invented - and we simply read a few books and then go do the things people have already figured out - so those of us with a life to live can still become 'gurus' and 'geeks'. --
'Socialist' is a dirty word to me. It is more dirty than almost any other I can imagine. It is a denial of mankind itself, it is a willful ignorance of the nature of each (wo)man.
And yes, if someone invents a cure for a disease, they should be allowed to charge whatever they want. But that does not mean the poor will die - the inventor has MUCH economic incentive to lower the price to something that most people can afford. A few sales at a high price earn him less money than millions of sales at a reasonable price. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics can see that a situation like the one you proposed tends to manage itself.
Who said anything about the 'needs' of the few? Need does not equal right. The rights of a single individual trump the needs of the entire earth. We are all individual, fallible human beings - and as such, none of us can decide what is best for another (children and the mentally ill are a special case, as they have not the capacity to choose for themselves, of course).
Yes, 'fair use' laws are intended to provide for free speech - which is why you may quote an author, you may read her work aloud to a friend, you may reference her work in a work of your own. But you may not, without the copyright holder's permission, initiate mass distribution of unlicensed copies of her work, copies of her work that she is not being compensated for, in accordance with some mutual agreement between yourself and the author. --
We the People - yes. The People. Thing is, 'people' is just a word to refer to a group of individuals. In the case of the founding of America, the 'people' was a reference to the fact that the majority of individuals in the colonies had a vested interest in the goals outlined by the document containing the phrase 'We the People'.
Please note that government is only an institution of people, that it is not some uber-entity, and that it derives its right to govern and its methods of governance from the people. If the interests of the people who produce are in conflict with the interests of those who don't, the producers should win.
Also, making copies is labor, and you own the copies - but not the content. The content was the work of others. Big difference. Again, also, note that building on someone else's work is NECESSARY - it is the nature of human progress. Someone invents the wheel, someone else the car. And the fact that you seem to view 'property' as something the state allows you to hold, as if it were a privileged stewardship, shows your anti-individualist mentality. --
Sorry if this is redundant, don't have time to skim through the other 90+ posts... but it's something important that should be said:
the idea that a person is not the sole owner of, and controlling authority regarding the product of their work is as socialist as can be. 'public interest' superceding individual rights when it comes to one's labor is common practice in places like Turkey and China - NOT the U.S. Or so it would *seem*. This country is slowly sliding down the path toward a democratic people's republic in which you are free unless/until the state has a vested interest, or as the supreme court calls it, a 'controlling interest', in making you un-free. That is exactly what China is modelled around - the supremecy of the state, state defined of course as 'the people' or 'society'. in fact, there is a specific clause in the chinese constitution stating that the freedoms of the people shall not override the interest of the state. do a google search for 'china constitution' and hit the first link it offers - you'll quickly see what i mean. 'public interest' being more important than individual rights is the primary flaw in democracy - voting is the same as the old 'my gang is bigger than yours' or the newer 'my guns are bigger than yours' way of doing things.
I do believe that 'fair use' laws, as a general concept, are good - the freedom to lend a copy of some form of communication to a friend, or even record a copy for them. but to say that because you create something and publish it, that it becomes fair game, is a counter-incentive to creative work. what's more, it's a total disrespect for the effort of the author. one of the key reasons for america's unparalleled success in most arenas is that people are rewarded for their work, they are recognized and they benefit from their effort. this encourages them to continue to produce.
free software is great, guys. but come on. just because you are willing to release your effort to the world doesn't mean everyone else has to. in fact, it's probably extremely healthy that there are both commercial and free software - it's an added dimension to competition. think about it: company X produces a graphics package which is very good - so hackers Y and Z produce a workalike with many of the popular features, and release it for free. some people will choose to pay for the commercial software in order to get extra features, support, documentation, etc - it's worth the money. but others will take the free package, because it does what they want already. now, if this free package is high quality, it poses a threat to the commercial package, which causes the commercial package to be even better next version - which in turn causes an advance in the free package, and so on. now - that said, i am highly disturbed that us geeks in general are so extremely socialist when it comes to the product of the mind - we are some of the smartest alive, we produce such wonderful useful things... then we reject, as a group and in general, the value of identity, self-determination, and productively utilized intellect. we reject the value of our biggest *value*. why?! if you wish to give away your brain, you're free to do so, and i will gladly take a heaping platter of it - this post is being created on almost entirely free code, and i love every minute of it. but don't expect others to do the same, and don't look for legal loopholes with which to force your practices on others. treat well the individuals, appreciate their effort, and respect their right to choose their own directions and for their own reasons. --
uhm. k.
btw, is your Pole aggressive, etc... like, sexually? like, biting/bleeding etc? mine was... so was my friend's ex who was Polish... i'm wondering.. --
Uh, actually - my ex is Russian/Polish and I taught myself a large part of both languages so I could be part of her family (6 years with a girl is a long long time, especially when you split up with her a year ago and you're not quite 22 now)... I prefer Polish to English usually, it sounds so much better, so I have a habit of jabbering in Polish and a tad bit of Russian when I'm particularly interested/excited/etc. So, as for that, *BAH*:)
kthx. Zaebis = Russian for 'fuckin cool', while Jest bardzo fajnie = Polish for 'it is very cool'. Kthx. Your bitter attitude is duely noted, sir.
And to the one who defended me (if that is what you intended) - thanks. I'm glad to see there are other people out there who are as excited by our advancements and perhaps as star-struck by our potential as I am. --
...COOL! ZAEBIS! JEST BARDZO FAJNIE! Err, back to English now... (Russian and Polish slang aren't very well-known on/. I bet) Very good stuff. Seems like the pace of technology is increasing at an ever more amazing rate... Now, when they figure out how to lance cancerous cells and HIV-infected cells... then we'll be on to something:D. Let's see here... in the last few weeks, we've discovered ever-increasing amounts of evidence, damn-near proof in fact, of simple life outside our planet... we've gotten better and better at DNA stuff, with the new sequencing techniques... we've punctured bacteria with man-made microscopic 'robots', we've attached simple animal brains to computers/motors, we've made supernovae in containment fields in laboratories... we've made advances in chip-based and quantum-based computing... jeezus, I'm proud to be a member of this species. Yes, we have our problems... but the overwhelming majority of our acts, on the whole, are positive, advancement-oriented... and some are simply amazing. I suspect that when I die (if I do... stem cell research is advancing!), my biggest regret just might be that I won't be around to see how much further still we can reach --
good point. that was then. this is now. we, in general, lean much more toward classical liberalism, aka 'libertarianism'. these days we dislike gov't and all other controlling bodies much more. notice our screeches about icann, the u.n., etc
Self-replication is an interesting problem, but one that can be overcome a number of ways. Human beings have certain instinctual, deep-brain behaviors - and we also have deeply-embedded routines for avoiding certain behaviors. Nature provided them, and while not perfect (suicide still happens, etc), I like to think we could build similar rulesets into our machines - and since we have the added benefit of conscious, rational, structured means->ends thinking, we can make them much more rigid and reliable. We could say, for instance, 'Sure, go ahead and make more, better copies of yourself, but these certain rules are to be built in, as well'. Tricky, but one possible solution to an odd and dangerous problem.
As for integration being a stage of evolution, I completely agree that it is a very real, and very probable concept. Humans don't have big muscles or sharp teeth, so we used what we did have - the brain - to produce artificial versions to enhance our abilities. From hammers and knives to shoes, eyeglasses, and automobiles, on up to space shuttles and automated HelpDesks - we have always enhanced ourselves. Integration doesn't seem so weird when you place it alongside dentures, deodorant, or any of the other things we've created and use daily to extend ourselves and/or fix our flaws.
Yes, these 'thinking machines' will develop quickly. Yes we will rely on them for many many things. The new IBM HelpDesk system is evidence of that. Yes, many dark futures may await us.
But in the end, it will be us who make the choice of retaining superiority or handing it over to machines. They are still our products, they will still only have the abilities and functions that we give them. Some may say that the essence of AI is learning by experience, thus enhancing the subject's own abilities - but we still, at this point, and will for some time to come, retain ultimate control over what these things are capable of. We have to make a choice. They will not exceed our own abilities unless we make the choice to either give them skills or give them skills without limits which would have prevented them from developing past a certain point. Of course, no vote of humanity could be taken and no laws could be passed that would be effective - it is a choice the engineers themselves must make every time they sit down to some code or some circuitry.
I'm not anywhere near skilled enough to do that kind of work, but I can say this with some fair amount of certainty: geeks love pushing technology, but are generally fiercely protective of their freedoms and liberties. I don't see many of them choosing to invalidate their own existence.
i agree that science is good, that even stupid questions should be explored. for two reasons: 1) because it might lead to an unexpected answer that provides new information in other fields; and 2) because i'm inquisitive, as you said.
but i wonder how much government money, money out of my pocket, goes to stuff like this? like the 400,000$ or whatever it was that was aimed at finding out how fast ketchup flows! i disagree with my tax dollars going toward any research actually, since i disagree with current forms of government and all forms of taxation - but this kind of stuff is blatantly abusive and insulting.:)
the thermal stuff was my first guess (and my repeated one, after the couple dozen showers i've taken in my lifetime) but i guess not. i do agree with all the folks who said 'so what?' - this is rather useless information.
K well it's simple - as well as unimportant. Hemos is a geek, us geeks type 'site' and think 'site' much more than the alternate spelling/meaning. Human beings learn by repetition, the act which is most repeated will dominate, thus it was a very understandable and none-too-harmful mistake. I personally have typed 'site' instead of 'sight', as well as other mixups like (yes this is odd) 'tilde' instead of 'tilled'. It's simply a reflection of the dominant area of thought for each individual.:)
The word 'speech' as used by the U.S. Constitution, has been viewed as really meaning 'expression'. Code is expression, just like flag-burning and protest signs and religious ceremonies. Yes, hacking tools are used by criminals - but they're also used legitimately. This is the same situation as gun-control - the good folks are losing their rights because of the bad ones. Sickening, if you ask me. That the good be punished under the same umbrella as the bad... *sigh*
Less control over my own personal information! Human beings have several methods of identification, and the face is one of the most valuable, personal, and important. My face is mine, as is my DNA, and to hell with anyone who wants a copy. This is bad news, guys.
This is good stuff. Or so it seems on the surface. Faster cheaper access to space! Who in their right mind wouldn't want that?
But here's the catch: if we had another Challenger, the environmental costs could be very huge. The quick answer is that we could modify existing radiation containment technologies, such as supermagnets, and send them along for the ride. The problem with that is the weight of the craft goes up, eating away a good portion of the initial benefit gained from leaving the heavy chemical rockets - and the cost goes back up too. I seem to remember an article in AIAA's mag (expensive subscription, but fascinating) about these issues, and it seemed hopeful - but only over a long stretch of time.
Now here's my question: If, decades ago, we could develop planes like the U2 and the SR-71... why can't we now? The SR-71 is, to put it simply, the most advanced, highest-flying (officially 80,000 feet, more like 120-130k), fastest (mach 3.2 officially, more like 3.9) non-spacefaring thing we've ever taken off the ground. If we could afford it back then (yes yes I know, cold war funding was to all intents and purposes unlimited), if we could design it back then, if we could test it and actually RUN it back then... why the hell aren't we doing bigger and better things now? Why has our aerospace technology, as far as launch and flight are concerned, practically stagnated? There's the old list, including money, time, etc.... then there's the real answer: Aerospace technology is tied to politics, and politics is tied to pleasing most of the people most of the time, and your average citizen these days has no vision, no daring, no courage, no balls. No one will take a chance, no one will stand up (because these days, the one who stands up is the one who is attacked)... everyone is under some don't rock the boat mentality, everyone is terrified of taking charge, taking the lead, moving forward, taking risks. Why? Well, look at NASA: their recent mission failures (the various Mars probes) have drawn a lot of criticism. People forget that the first permanent settlement in America failed (Roanoke Island), people forget the countless sailors who lost their lives or were forced to turn back in centuries past... people want results, and now. As the ET told her, in Contact, 'Small steps, Ellie.. small steps' - but that does not mean to drag your feet, evade the necessities of the day, and pretend that we can afford, and what's more, be satisified with, the methods and results of today. We can't. We're an ever-changing, ever-growing species of curious, intelligent, driven creatures - and today will never be as good as tomorrow might be.
I must be boring too. I've never felt the desire to fiddle with command prompts or any of that. Yes, I run Enlightenment, but not because of themes - instead, I use it for the simple fact that its functionality is exactly what I want/need and am comfortable with. No, I don't use any theme other than the default, and no, I don't change anything except the background (to none, black).. My website is pure text/images with no fancy formatting or frames or anything, too. The only changes I ever make are functional ones. Same with Windows, when I set up a winbox for someone I set a black wallpaper, turn off all the event sounds, and make it as simple, clean, and fast as possible. I also don't have sound on my linux/bsd machines.
Function is what's important, which is why I don't bother replacing my 640x480 15" monitor. Nor do I bother replacing my p200 64mb machine. The only thing I've upgraded is the connection, now cable. I don't understand these people who get fancy cases and E themes and mp3 players and games and all of that. What's the fun in that? I have working sound cards etc, I just don't install them. I have no desire to. Yes, we're both boring, but we both probably get more done than most others.
Smart guy. This was, in fact, explained to me by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors employees, their junior economists, during my short contract there. It's all run through the Treasury Department and the CIA, who have legal authority to track usage of funds.
And 4444444 is right, there are a lot of small businesses that never let a bank touch a lot of their money. They claim to be closed on random days, or the same day every week, to avoid paying taxes on the transactions that day, that's how they stay afloat - that and not claiming much of their sales, keeping cold cash sitting somewhere.
As for this new chip... bad. very very bad. This is the start of real-time GPS tracking of money. Sounds like a good thing for crime etc... but think about it. Your money, if stolen, isn't going to be found with this - the local cops won't have it. Mom can't see which one of the kids stole 20$ from her purse - she won't have it. The higher-ups will, and we know that's never a good thing. My high-rise apartment building has key-on-chip cards, white for the doors, yellow for the underground parking, blue for community access to pools, basketball courts, etc. They themselves make me queasy, because every place you go in the complex is recorded for 'our residents' safety'. So instead there's a broken card reader on the back ground-floor door that will usually pop with any card or folded stiff piece of paper, and I only have to climb a few flights of stairs. If this money comes out, I'll have to find another backdoor to financial activity. I already stay away from banks and major corporations most of the time. Will bands of us in large metro areas work out a barter system to get away from these chips? Have barter markets, and small businesses paying employees in bartering items, to avoid the IRS and every other 3-letter-acronym? This, along with some almost-believable claims that the United Nations has already printed its own blue semi-global currency.
I totally agree that they have the most effective product, hence their success. But I submit that their market is dying out, people are more and more used to computers, a whole generation now has grown up with them in various forms - people are aware now, and the ease of use is not going to be as important in the future. My little brother is 7, he sat on my lap for hours when I was learning BSD, he runs slack 7.1 on the pII-350 I helped him build for his birthday. This is an extreme example, but our lil brothers and sisters are much better at younger ages than we were, and they're far from stupid. The short of it is this: Microsoft provided an easy entry point for computers to help them become so widespread. Then, the children grow up with computers, know much more about them, and many of them choose the superior product, because it's not as scary as it is to the older crowd. Over another generation computers are so ingrained and so fine-tuned that we use them without thinking about them, like a dishwasher, and there's never any reason to pay for software or even much service.
So you're accepting the law without questioning it? Drug dealers are bad? Yes, most are - for the simple fact that drugs are illegal, mkay? But a drug is something you own - and it is something you should be allowed to sell. Notice what I said far far above, at the beginning of this thread, about government controlling what products and services we have available - and notice that if drugs were legal, there wouldn't be any gang warfare, no one trying to get your 12 year old hooked. It would be like cigarettes and alcohol, there would be kids who got their hands on it but overall things would be much more peaceful.
I believe in the people first,
everything else second, thats why I opject to software patents (and to some degree
patents and IP as a whole, excluding copyright for artistic work). What do you believe in?
You say you believe in people, then you claim the desire to strip them of the fruits of their labor. If a man's work produces nothing that he owns, then his work is worthless to him and so are those who leeched the value from him.
I'll tell you what I believe in. I believe in individual human beings - and I disbelieve in any group mentality such as 'society' except as an abstract concept, to be taken in context, and not as an absolute or a concrete. I believe that a man or woman owns the product of their work, I believe they have a right to it, that it is a right that is theirs, possessed at birth, and not delegated to them as some form of favor from a government or a society or a 'god'. I believe that the only form of 'society' that is less than objectionable is full-out 100% pure Capitalism. What may surprise you is that as far as software goes, I believe a person has a choice to keep their code to themselves, but I myself would/do not. In the real world, one potato feeds one person. With software, one program feeds everyone. Socialism actually works - look at the internet routing, everyone randomly using everyone else's computer, etc. It makes sense here, because of the nature of the world it exists in. The fact is, Capitalism in the real world makes the Socialism of the internet possible. But it is a voluntary Socialism, one may retain all rights to one's product and do what he/she pleases.
Face it. They may be cash-starved, but they know how to make things happen. They have a beautiful space record, and are making the capitalistic transition very well. They're ahead of NASA as far as thinking goes - space is for everyone, let the rich pave the road for the common folk. The rich, in return, get the benefit of being the first, taking those first famous civilian steps. The more people go up, the cheaper it becomes as the money is used to fund research into better propulsion and safer, more comfortable environments. I am a lover of space, of physics, of all the heights man has reached, and reaches further daily. Perhaps in my lifetime I will get to take a very expensive but very pleasurable ride on a rocket or a flying wing or some X-prize winner's machine. In fact, I'm foregoing vacations for 1-2 years to save the 15k for my trip to Russian Cosmonaut training in Star City. To leave your planet is to take part in a massive jump in the intellectual and practical prowess of your species, and the Russians are looking to be the ones to provide those first points of access.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL she's tall, thin, flat sexy stomach, NICE rack and backside...
she's also a turkish muslim (obviously westernized to an extent) so i doubt most guys would even get a 'hi' (although i don't know why a white american atheist such as myself is so lucky) let alone a 20-dolla-sucky-sucky
--
Ok. Peep my sexiness here and hers here. then take into account the fact that i just got hired last night as senior network architect for a new ISP. then tell me geeks don't have good-looks, hot girls, lives, etc :D
--
Yeah... actually, i'm a little SICK of the stereotype. I'm a good-looking guy, or so my beautiful girlfriend claims, and I've rarely been single since the age of 14 - yet i'm as big a geek as most here, bigger, in fact, now that /. has degraded (the same way RHPS's culture degraded). I think back in teh day the stereotype was largely correct - look at John Draper and his buddies, they're all socially inept ugly malfunctional individuals - thus having time to get into the deep deep deep stuff. but these days the deep and hard work has been done, mostly, the wheel has been invented - and we simply read a few books and then go do the things people have already figured out - so those of us with a life to live can still become 'gurus' and 'geeks'.
--
'Socialist' is a dirty word to me. It is more dirty than almost any other I can imagine. It is a denial of mankind itself, it is a willful ignorance of the nature of each (wo)man.
And yes, if someone invents a cure for a disease, they should be allowed to charge whatever they want. But that does not mean the poor will die - the inventor has MUCH economic incentive to lower the price to something that most people can afford. A few sales at a high price earn him less money than millions of sales at a reasonable price. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics can see that a situation like the one you proposed tends to manage itself.
Who said anything about the 'needs' of the few? Need does not equal right. The rights of a single individual trump the needs of the entire earth. We are all individual, fallible human beings - and as such, none of us can decide what is best for another (children and the mentally ill are a special case, as they have not the capacity to choose for themselves, of course).
Yes, 'fair use' laws are intended to provide for free speech - which is why you may quote an author, you may read her work aloud to a friend, you may reference her work in a work of your own. But you may not, without the copyright holder's permission, initiate mass distribution of unlicensed copies of her work, copies of her work that she is not being compensated for, in accordance with some mutual agreement between yourself and the author.
--
We the People - yes. The People. Thing is, 'people' is just a word to refer to a group of individuals. In the case of the founding of America, the 'people' was a reference to the fact that the majority of individuals in the colonies had a vested interest in the goals outlined by the document containing the phrase 'We the People'.
Please note that government is only an institution of people, that it is not some uber-entity, and that it derives its right to govern and its methods of governance from the people. If the interests of the people who produce are in conflict with the interests of those who don't, the producers should win.
Also, making copies is labor, and you own the copies - but not the content. The content was the work of others. Big difference. Again, also, note that building on someone else's work is NECESSARY - it is the nature of human progress. Someone invents the wheel, someone else the car. And the fact that you seem to view 'property' as something the state allows you to hold, as if it were a privileged stewardship, shows your anti-individualist mentality.
--
Sorry if this is redundant, don't have time to skim through the other 90+ posts... but it's something important that should be said:
the idea that a person is not the sole owner of, and controlling authority regarding the product of their work is as socialist as can be. 'public interest' superceding individual rights when it comes to one's labor is common practice in places like Turkey and China - NOT the U.S. Or so it would *seem*. This country is slowly sliding down the path toward a democratic people's republic in which you are free unless/until the state has a vested interest, or as the supreme court calls it, a 'controlling interest', in making you un-free. That is exactly what China is modelled around - the supremecy of the state, state defined of course as 'the people' or 'society'. in fact, there is a specific clause in the chinese constitution stating that the freedoms of the people shall not override the interest of the state. do a google search for 'china constitution' and hit the first link it offers - you'll quickly see what i mean. 'public interest' being more important than individual rights is the primary flaw in democracy - voting is the same as the old 'my gang is bigger than yours' or the newer 'my guns are bigger than yours' way of doing things.
I do believe that 'fair use' laws, as a general concept, are good - the freedom to lend a copy of some form of communication to a friend, or even record a copy for them. but to say that because you create something and publish it, that it becomes fair game, is a counter-incentive to creative work. what's more, it's a total disrespect for the effort of the author. one of the key reasons for america's unparalleled success in most arenas is that people are rewarded for their work, they are recognized and they benefit from their effort. this encourages them to continue to produce.
free software is great, guys. but come on. just because you are willing to release your effort to the world doesn't mean everyone else has to. in fact, it's probably extremely healthy that there are both commercial and free software - it's an added dimension to competition. think about it: company X produces a graphics package which is very good - so hackers Y and Z produce a workalike with many of the popular features, and release it for free. some people will choose to pay for the commercial software in order to get extra features, support, documentation, etc - it's worth the money. but others will take the free package, because it does what they want already. now, if this free package is high quality, it poses a threat to the commercial package, which causes the commercial package to be even better next version - which in turn causes an advance in the free package, and so on. now - that said, i am highly disturbed that us geeks in general are so extremely socialist when it comes to the product of the mind - we are some of the smartest alive, we produce such wonderful useful things... then we reject, as a group and in general, the value of identity, self-determination, and productively utilized intellect. we reject the value of our biggest *value*. why?! if you wish to give away your brain, you're free to do so, and i will gladly take a heaping platter of it - this post is being created on almost entirely free code, and i love every minute of it. but don't expect others to do the same, and don't look for legal loopholes with which to force your practices on others. treat well the individuals, appreciate their effort, and respect their right to choose their own directions and for their own reasons.
--
uhm. k. btw, is your Pole aggressive, etc... like, sexually? like, biting/bleeding etc? mine was... so was my friend's ex who was Polish... i'm wondering..
--
Uh, actually - my ex is Russian/Polish and I taught myself a large part of both languages so I could be part of her family (6 years with a girl is a long long time, especially when you split up with her a year ago and you're not quite 22 now)... I prefer Polish to English usually, it sounds so much better, so I have a habit of jabbering in Polish and a tad bit of Russian when I'm particularly interested/excited/etc. So, as for that, *BAH* :)
kthx. Zaebis = Russian for 'fuckin cool', while Jest bardzo fajnie = Polish for 'it is very cool'. Kthx. Your bitter attitude is duely noted, sir.
And to the one who defended me (if that is what you intended) - thanks. I'm glad to see there are other people out there who are as excited by our advancements and perhaps as star-struck by our potential as I am.
--
...COOL! ZAEBIS! JEST BARDZO FAJNIE! Err, back to English now... (Russian and Polish slang aren't very well-known on /. I bet) Very good stuff. Seems like the pace of technology is increasing at an ever more amazing rate... Now, when they figure out how to lance cancerous cells and HIV-infected cells... then we'll be on to something :D. Let's see here... in the last few weeks, we've discovered ever-increasing amounts of evidence, damn-near proof in fact, of simple life outside our planet... we've gotten better and better at DNA stuff, with the new sequencing techniques... we've punctured bacteria with man-made microscopic 'robots', we've attached simple animal brains to computers/motors, we've made supernovae in containment fields in laboratories... we've made advances in chip-based and quantum-based computing... jeezus, I'm proud to be a member of this species. Yes, we have our problems... but the overwhelming majority of our acts, on the whole, are positive, advancement-oriented... and some are simply amazing. I suspect that when I die (if I do... stem cell research is advancing!), my biggest regret just might be that I won't be around to see how much further still we can reach
--
good point. that was then. this is now. we, in general, lean much more toward classical liberalism, aka 'libertarianism'. these days we dislike gov't and all other controlling bodies much more. notice our screeches about icann, the u.n., etc
Self-replication is an interesting problem, but one that can be overcome a number of ways. Human beings have certain instinctual, deep-brain behaviors - and we also have deeply-embedded routines for avoiding certain behaviors. Nature provided them, and while not perfect (suicide still happens, etc), I like to think we could build similar rulesets into our machines - and since we have the added benefit of conscious, rational, structured means->ends thinking, we can make them much more rigid and reliable. We could say, for instance, 'Sure, go ahead and make more, better copies of yourself, but these certain rules are to be built in, as well'. Tricky, but one possible solution to an odd and dangerous problem.
As for integration being a stage of evolution, I completely agree that it is a very real, and very probable concept. Humans don't have big muscles or sharp teeth, so we used what we did have - the brain - to produce artificial versions to enhance our abilities. From hammers and knives to shoes, eyeglasses, and automobiles, on up to space shuttles and automated HelpDesks - we have always enhanced ourselves. Integration doesn't seem so weird when you place it alongside dentures, deodorant, or any of the other things we've created and use daily to extend ourselves and/or fix our flaws.
Yes, these 'thinking machines' will develop quickly. Yes we will rely on them for many many things. The new IBM HelpDesk system is evidence of that. Yes, many dark futures may await us.
But in the end, it will be us who make the choice of retaining superiority or handing it over to machines. They are still our products, they will still only have the abilities and functions that we give them. Some may say that the essence of AI is learning by experience, thus enhancing the subject's own abilities - but we still, at this point, and will for some time to come, retain ultimate control over what these things are capable of. We have to make a choice. They will not exceed our own abilities unless we make the choice to either give them skills or give them skills without limits which would have prevented them from developing past a certain point. Of course, no vote of humanity could be taken and no laws could be passed that would be effective - it is a choice the engineers themselves must make every time they sit down to some code or some circuitry.
I'm not anywhere near skilled enough to do that kind of work, but I can say this with some fair amount of certainty: geeks love pushing technology, but are generally fiercely protective of their freedoms and liberties. I don't see many of them choosing to invalidate their own existence.
i agree that science is good, that even stupid questions should be explored. for two reasons: 1) because it might lead to an unexpected answer that provides new information in other fields; and 2) because i'm inquisitive, as you said.
:)
but i wonder how much government money, money out of my pocket, goes to stuff like this? like the 400,000$ or whatever it was that was aimed at finding out how fast ketchup flows! i disagree with my tax dollars going toward any research actually, since i disagree with current forms of government and all forms of taxation - but this kind of stuff is blatantly abusive and insulting.
the thermal stuff was my first guess (and my repeated one, after the couple dozen showers i've taken in my lifetime) but i guess not. i do agree with all the folks who said 'so what?' - this is rather useless information.
K well it's simple - as well as unimportant. Hemos is a geek, us geeks type 'site' and think 'site' much more than the alternate spelling/meaning. Human beings learn by repetition, the act which is most repeated will dominate, thus it was a very understandable and none-too-harmful mistake. I personally have typed 'site' instead of 'sight', as well as other mixups like (yes this is odd) 'tilde' instead of 'tilled'. It's simply a reflection of the dominant area of thought for each individual. :)
That's not the point. The point is the lack of progress, the failure to accelerate.
The word 'speech' as used by the U.S. Constitution, has been viewed as really meaning 'expression'. Code is expression, just like flag-burning and protest signs and religious ceremonies. Yes, hacking tools are used by criminals - but they're also used legitimately. This is the same situation as gun-control - the good folks are losing their rights because of the bad ones. Sickening, if you ask me. That the good be punished under the same umbrella as the bad... *sigh*
Less control over my own personal information! Human beings have several methods of identification, and the face is one of the most valuable, personal, and important. My face is mine, as is my DNA, and to hell with anyone who wants a copy. This is bad news, guys.
This is good stuff. Or so it seems on the surface. Faster cheaper access to space! Who in their right mind wouldn't want that?
But here's the catch: if we had another Challenger, the environmental costs could be very huge. The quick answer is that we could modify existing radiation containment technologies, such as supermagnets, and send them along for the ride. The problem with that is the weight of the craft goes up, eating away a good portion of the initial benefit gained from leaving the heavy chemical rockets - and the cost goes back up too. I seem to remember an article in AIAA's mag (expensive subscription, but fascinating) about these issues, and it seemed hopeful - but only over a long stretch of time.
Now here's my question: If, decades ago, we could develop planes like the U2 and the SR-71... why can't we now? The SR-71 is, to put it simply, the most advanced, highest-flying (officially 80,000 feet, more like 120-130k), fastest (mach 3.2 officially, more like 3.9) non-spacefaring thing we've ever taken off the ground. If we could afford it back then (yes yes I know, cold war funding was to all intents and purposes unlimited), if we could design it back then, if we could test it and actually RUN it back then... why the hell aren't we doing bigger and better things now? Why has our aerospace technology, as far as launch and flight are concerned, practically stagnated? There's the old list, including money, time, etc.... then there's the real answer: Aerospace technology is tied to politics, and politics is tied to pleasing most of the people most of the time, and your average citizen these days has no vision, no daring, no courage, no balls. No one will take a chance, no one will stand up (because these days, the one who stands up is the one who is attacked)... everyone is under some don't rock the boat mentality, everyone is terrified of taking charge, taking the lead, moving forward, taking risks. Why? Well, look at NASA: their recent mission failures (the various Mars probes) have drawn a lot of criticism. People forget that the first permanent settlement in America failed (Roanoke Island), people forget the countless sailors who lost their lives or were forced to turn back in centuries past... people want results, and now. As the ET told her, in Contact, 'Small steps, Ellie.. small steps' - but that does not mean to drag your feet, evade the necessities of the day, and pretend that we can afford, and what's more, be satisified with, the methods and results of today. We can't. We're an ever-changing, ever-growing species of curious, intelligent, driven creatures - and today will never be as good as tomorrow might be.
I must be boring too. I've never felt the desire to fiddle with command prompts or any of that. Yes, I run Enlightenment, but not because of themes - instead, I use it for the simple fact that its functionality is exactly what I want/need and am comfortable with. No, I don't use any theme other than the default, and no, I don't change anything except the background (to none, black).. My website is pure text/images with no fancy formatting or frames or anything, too. The only changes I ever make are functional ones. Same with Windows, when I set up a winbox for someone I set a black wallpaper, turn off all the event sounds, and make it as simple, clean, and fast as possible. I also don't have sound on my linux/bsd machines.
Function is what's important, which is why I don't bother replacing my 640x480 15" monitor. Nor do I bother replacing my p200 64mb machine. The only thing I've upgraded is the connection, now cable. I don't understand these people who get fancy cases and E themes and mp3 players and games and all of that. What's the fun in that? I have working sound cards etc, I just don't install them. I have no desire to. Yes, we're both boring, but we both probably get more done than most others.
Smart guy. This was, in fact, explained to me by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors employees, their junior economists, during my short contract there. It's all run through the Treasury Department and the CIA, who have legal authority to track usage of funds.
And 4444444 is right, there are a lot of small businesses that never let a bank touch a lot of their money. They claim to be closed on random days, or the same day every week, to avoid paying taxes on the transactions that day, that's how they stay afloat - that and not claiming much of their sales, keeping cold cash sitting somewhere.
As for this new chip... bad. very very bad. This is the start of real-time GPS tracking of money. Sounds like a good thing for crime etc... but think about it. Your money, if stolen, isn't going to be found with this - the local cops won't have it. Mom can't see which one of the kids stole 20$ from her purse - she won't have it. The higher-ups will, and we know that's never a good thing. My high-rise apartment building has key-on-chip cards, white for the doors, yellow for the underground parking, blue for community access to pools, basketball courts, etc. They themselves make me queasy, because every place you go in the complex is recorded for 'our residents' safety'. So instead there's a broken card reader on the back ground-floor door that will usually pop with any card or folded stiff piece of paper, and I only have to climb a few flights of stairs. If this money comes out, I'll have to find another backdoor to financial activity. I already stay away from banks and major corporations most of the time. Will bands of us in large metro areas work out a barter system to get away from these chips? Have barter markets, and small businesses paying employees in bartering items, to avoid the IRS and every other 3-letter-acronym? This, along with some almost-believable claims that the United Nations has already printed its own blue semi-global currency.
I totally agree that they have the most effective product, hence their success. But I submit that their market is dying out, people are more and more used to computers, a whole generation now has grown up with them in various forms - people are aware now, and the ease of use is not going to be as important in the future. My little brother is 7, he sat on my lap for hours when I was learning BSD, he runs slack 7.1 on the pII-350 I helped him build for his birthday. This is an extreme example, but our lil brothers and sisters are much better at younger ages than we were, and they're far from stupid. The short of it is this: Microsoft provided an easy entry point for computers to help them become so widespread. Then, the children grow up with computers, know much more about them, and many of them choose the superior product, because it's not as scary as it is to the older crowd. Over another generation computers are so ingrained and so fine-tuned that we use them without thinking about them, like a dishwasher, and there's never any reason to pay for software or even much service.
So you're accepting the law without questioning it? Drug dealers are bad? Yes, most are - for the simple fact that drugs are illegal, mkay? But a drug is something you own - and it is something you should be allowed to sell. Notice what I said far far above, at the beginning of this thread, about government controlling what products and services we have available - and notice that if drugs were legal, there wouldn't be any gang warfare, no one trying to get your 12 year old hooked. It would be like cigarettes and alcohol, there would be kids who got their hands on it but overall things would be much more peaceful.
I believe in the people first, everything else second, thats why I opject to software patents (and to some degree patents and IP as a whole, excluding copyright for artistic work). What do you believe in?
You say you believe in people, then you claim the desire to strip them of the fruits of their labor. If a man's work produces nothing that he owns, then his work is worthless to him and so are those who leeched the value from him.
I'll tell you what I believe in. I believe in individual human beings - and I disbelieve in any group mentality such as 'society' except as an abstract concept, to be taken in context, and not as an absolute or a concrete. I believe that a man or woman owns the product of their work, I believe they have a right to it, that it is a right that is theirs, possessed at birth, and not delegated to them as some form of favor from a government or a society or a 'god'. I believe that the only form of 'society' that is less than objectionable is full-out 100% pure Capitalism. What may surprise you is that as far as software goes, I believe a person has a choice to keep their code to themselves, but I myself would/do not. In the real world, one potato feeds one person. With software, one program feeds everyone. Socialism actually works - look at the internet routing, everyone randomly using everyone else's computer, etc. It makes sense here, because of the nature of the world it exists in. The fact is, Capitalism in the real world makes the Socialism of the internet possible. But it is a voluntary Socialism, one may retain all rights to one's product and do what he/she pleases.
Face it. They may be cash-starved, but they know how to make things happen. They have a beautiful space record, and are making the capitalistic transition very well. They're ahead of NASA as far as thinking goes - space is for everyone, let the rich pave the road for the common folk. The rich, in return, get the benefit of being the first, taking those first famous civilian steps. The more people go up, the cheaper it becomes as the money is used to fund research into better propulsion and safer, more comfortable environments. I am a lover of space, of physics, of all the heights man has reached, and reaches further daily. Perhaps in my lifetime I will get to take a very expensive but very pleasurable ride on a rocket or a flying wing or some X-prize winner's machine. In fact, I'm foregoing vacations for 1-2 years to save the 15k for my trip to Russian Cosmonaut training in Star City. To leave your planet is to take part in a massive jump in the intellectual and practical prowess of your species, and the Russians are looking to be the ones to provide those first points of access.