As an "expatriate" living in another country to that I grew up in, one thing that has really struck me is how strongly stereotypes affect people.
Basically, people try to fit new information into the stereotype they already have, rather than realising the stereotype is wrong or at least altering it in their minds. Things that don't fit into the stereotype will be dismissed, forgotten or twisted back to fit the stereotype.
This is sad and infuriating, but unfortunately it is the case with the majority of people, in my experience. Read up on physcology - things like "confirmation bias" - it will make you see things in a new way.
the recipient checks that the sender has authoritiy to send out email for the domain, i.e. if you send an email from whatever.com via SMTP server 123.123.123.123, the recipient checks that 123.123.123.123 has the authority to send email for whatever.com by checking it's SPF record (which similar to an ordinary DNS record).
So, we all have to set up SPF records for our domains or our emails will get rejected by some ISPs. Is my understanding right?
I wonder if they will allow you to make VOIP calls over the WiFi link using this handset. That would be really neat, but unfortunately VOIP is a threat the the profits of companies like T-mobile. So they will probably do something to prevent this. Unless of course they charge for the WiFi connection by usage, which of course removes the principal benefit of VOIP for the user.
Shouldn't have this been in the control of at least some kind of Iraqi authority in the first place?
In the Neocon world, the.iq being held by a private American company is perfectly logical. They've been busy privatizing Iraq - selling off previously government owned industries, mostly to their friends and family.
Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
for the most part, i like banksy's work.
I am not criticising his "art" - a lot of it is very clever and powerful. However, what I do really object to is the way he feels to need to do it on property and locations he doesn't own. A lot of it would be just as clever and powerful if it was in the form of posters, or if he used water-based paints that could be washed off, or if he got the permission of the building owners before doing it.
But he is deliberately destructive. He was said himself that he has experimented with using acid to etch stuff into limestone buildings so that they could never be removed. That kind of behaviour is extremely irresponsible in my view, and from that perspective, he is a complete wanker.
Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 2, Informative
They didn't have to clean it up at all
No? Here's a picture of part of the vandalism, from Banksy's own web site:
They didn't have to clear it up, you say? You think it looks good, do you? Something the people of the city of Barcelona should be proud of?
I fail to see how they can justify spending that kind of money on it.
Did you see it? It was the whole of the facade of a listed building - not just all the statues and stonework but the woodwork of the door as well.
Give me a couple of hundred euros for a job well done and everyone's happy.
You have no idea, do you? If you think it is a job that could be done by one person in a couple of days then you're a fool.
Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Damnit he's even got a photograph of it on his web site:
http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/vandalism.html
Note that the photo only shows a small part of this act of vandalism - the whole of the front of a building was vandalised.
The building was recently cleaned, and the council has put iron railings in front of it to prevent further acts of vandalism like this. Well done Banksy! You're so clever!
Wanker.
Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
That's clever. What town was it? Is there anything on-line about this? If so I will pass the info on to my local council.
Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Take Banksy
"Banksy" poored tins of coloured paint all over statues outside a lovely building near where I live here in Barcelona. The council have had to spend tens of thousands of tax payers (my!) euros to clean it up.
Inspired execution? Genius artistic vision? Give me a break. The guy is an antisocial wanker.
Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You're absolutely right that there are two types of graffiti. I live in Barcelona, Spain, a city that is know for it's graffiti.
Here the two types of graffiti are distinctly marked. I love the stuff that you're calling "artcrime" - some of the artists here are superb. And they are nearly always respectful - here it is very common to build temporary walls around building sites, and it is often these that the better artists use to create some create thier work.
Then there are the taggers. These anti-social little bastards spray on everything, usually just scrawling their tags and often just spraying to vandalise. There are lots of beautiful old buildings, fountains and statues here and there is a big effort at the moment to clean the city up. It makes me really mad when an old building has been carefully (and expensively) restored and some little antisocial w*nkers have sprayed their tags all over it.
One good thing - the cleanup teams here carry digital cameras and take photos of all the tags, so when they do finally catch the tossers they have enough evidence for a very serious penalty.
Can someone remind we - what makes a valid patent?
I mean, is it enough just to have an idea? If that's the case, I have lots of ideas how, for instance, nanotechnology might be used, and I'm sure I could write up some fancy papers about it. And I'm sure one day, some of them might come to fruition. Could I patent those ideas?
If I can then the patent system should be abolished, or at least completely revised. Guessing how people are going to use technology in the future and then patenting those ideas should not be the basis of the patent system.
The thing you have to bear in mind about the services that the telcos provide is that the price you pay doesn't actually have much relation to the cost to the telco. So just because an X bps connection costs Y today, doesn't mean that 10xX bps connection will cost 10xY tomorrow. At least where I am, the streets are full of dark fiber (fiber optic cable that is not being used).
And, for the record, I think DNS for VoIP is a cool idea. Only question is whether or not it'll use the same DNS namespace as the rest of the Internet, or if it'll use its own.
I think it needs a new one. Currently a lot of people don't have email addresses, even in those countries where internet use is widespread. What happens when everyone in the world needs one? I believe the current system couldn't cope with that.
Fortunately, most people don't move that much, so probably location based is enough. Something like
bob.thompson@brixton.london.uk
of course there might be more than two people called bob thompson in brixton, so the system would need to be able to cope with that somehow. Also of course it would be much better to have an identifier you didn't have to change everytime you moved location - that's what I'm really after, but it's a difficult problem.
I think what he meant was using a cellular modem combined with wireless networks to connect your laptop to the internet...
Well in that case it is hardly a new idea then, is it? Some of my clients have been doing this for ages. There are a number of big operators that offer this service in Europe. Is this a new thing in the USA?
Now we're getting mobile wireless (which of course means we can do mobile VOIP) can we please get rid of telephone numbers? They feel increasingly primitive to me. It's much easier to remember name.surname@company.com than 023633463453.
Of course the problem is with personal numbers, rather than office-based ones. Of course your work is one thing that defines you (bob.thompson@company.com), as does your physical location bob.thompson@london.uk. But not everyone has a job, and location based identifiers don't make much sense for mobile numbers. Any solutions?
Europe and the USA acting together could do this world a hell of a lot of good. Shame things have been so negative of late.
What I'd really like to see is co-operation on reducing arms sales globally. The USA and Europe are currently the world's biggest arms merchants. And the mad thing is, we're selling them to countries that could easily turn around and bite us on the ass. Saudi Arabia for instance. If they turn against us - which isn't outside the realms of possibility at the moment - they will be able to put up one hell of a battle because we've been selling them advanced weaponary for decades. Madness.
He asked us to imagine an aeroplane where different components were made by different companies.
That is a truely idiotic thing to say. There is hardly any manufactured product you can buy today that isn't made from components from supplied by other companies. Even the simplest products - like a pair of shoes for instance - will often be made up with leather from one company, rubber from another, laces from a third, metal components from a fourth, thread from another. And that's just a pair of shoes. I bet Boeing has thousands of suppliers.
So you're saying that the methods we use to do evolution on computers isn't good. I agree. That's why we need more research. But you seem to say "it's no good, so we can discount it as an option". I say "evolution is a powerful force which we don't really know how to harness yet."
if I read your post correctly, you are basically saying that evolution is often not a good method to use because humans can do better without it.
I say, take a look at a whale, a swallow, a spider, a virus. Can human engineers do better than these self-replicating, self-healing machines that are perfectly optimised to their environments?
Slashdot Mirror
As an "expatriate" living in another country to that I grew up in, one thing that has really struck me is how strongly stereotypes affect people.
Basically, people try to fit new information into the stereotype they already have, rather than realising the stereotype is wrong or at least altering it in their minds. Things that don't fit into the stereotype will be dismissed, forgotten or twisted back to fit the stereotype.
This is sad and infuriating, but unfortunately it is the case with the majority of people, in my experience. Read up on physcology - things like "confirmation bias" - it will make you see things in a new way.
Sorry, no results were found containing "blue screen of death"
My understanding of SPF is this:
the recipient checks that the sender has authoritiy to send out email for the domain, i.e. if you send an email from whatever.com via SMTP server 123.123.123.123, the recipient checks that 123.123.123.123 has the authority to send email for whatever.com by checking it's SPF record (which similar to an ordinary DNS record).
So, we all have to set up SPF records for our domains or our emails will get rejected by some ISPs. Is my understanding right?
I wonder if they will allow you to make VOIP calls over the WiFi link using this handset. That would be really neat, but unfortunately VOIP is a threat the the profits of companies like T-mobile. So they will probably do something to prevent this. Unless of course they charge for the WiFi connection by usage, which of course removes the principal benefit of VOIP for the user.
Shouldn't have this been in the control of at least some kind of Iraqi authority in the first place?
.iq being held by a private American company is perfectly logical. They've been busy privatizing Iraq - selling off previously government owned industries, mostly to their friends and family.
In the Neocon world, the
for the most part, i like banksy's work.
I am not criticising his "art" - a lot of it is very clever and powerful. However, what I do really object to is the way he feels to need to do it on property and locations he doesn't own. A lot of it would be just as clever and powerful if it was in the form of posters, or if he used water-based paints that could be washed off, or if he got the permission of the building owners before doing it.
But he is deliberately destructive. He was said himself that he has experimented with using acid to etch stuff into limestone buildings so that they could never be removed. That kind of behaviour is extremely irresponsible in my view, and from that perspective, he is a complete wanker.
They didn't have to clean it up at all
s m/ vandalism.jpg
No? Here's a picture of part of the vandalism, from Banksy's own web site:
http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/images/vandali
They didn't have to clear it up, you say? You think it looks good, do you? Something the people of the city of Barcelona should be proud of?
I fail to see how they can justify spending that kind of money on it.
Did you see it? It was the whole of the facade of a listed building - not just all the statues and stonework but the woodwork of the door as well.
Give me a couple of hundred euros for a job well done and everyone's happy.
You have no idea, do you? If you think it is a job that could be done by one person in a couple of days then you're a fool.
Damnit he's even got a photograph of it on his web site:
http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/vandalism.html
Note that the photo only shows a small part of this act of vandalism - the whole of the front of a building was vandalised.
The building was recently cleaned, and the council has put iron railings in front of it to prevent further acts of vandalism like this. Well done Banksy! You're so clever!
Wanker.
That's clever. What town was it? Is there anything on-line about this? If so I will pass the info on to my local council.
Take Banksy
"Banksy" poored tins of coloured paint all over statues outside a lovely building near where I live here in Barcelona. The council have had to spend tens of thousands of tax payers (my!) euros to clean it up.
Inspired execution? Genius artistic vision? Give me a break. The guy is an antisocial wanker.
You're absolutely right that there are two types of graffiti. I live in Barcelona, Spain, a city that is know for it's graffiti.
Here the two types of graffiti are distinctly marked. I love the stuff that you're calling "artcrime" - some of the artists here are superb. And they are nearly always respectful - here it is very common to build temporary walls around building sites, and it is often these that the better artists use to create some create thier work.
Then there are the taggers. These anti-social little bastards spray on everything, usually just scrawling their tags and often just spraying to vandalise. There are lots of beautiful old buildings, fountains and statues here and there is a big effort at the moment to clean the city up. It makes me really mad when an old building has been carefully (and expensively) restored and some little antisocial w*nkers have sprayed their tags all over it.
One good thing - the cleanup teams here carry digital cameras and take photos of all the tags, so when they do finally catch the tossers they have enough evidence for a very serious penalty.
Can someone remind we - what makes a valid patent?
I mean, is it enough just to have an idea? If that's the case, I have lots of ideas how, for instance, nanotechnology might be used, and I'm sure I could write up some fancy papers about it. And I'm sure one day, some of them might come to fruition. Could I patent those ideas?
If I can then the patent system should be abolished, or at least completely revised. Guessing how people are going to use technology in the future and then patenting those ideas should not be the basis of the patent system.
and COST
The thing you have to bear in mind about the services that the telcos provide is that the price you pay doesn't actually have much relation to the cost to the telco. So just because an X bps connection costs Y today, doesn't mean that 10xX bps connection will cost 10xY tomorrow. At least where I am, the streets are full of dark fiber (fiber optic cable that is not being used).
And, for the record, I think DNS for VoIP is a cool idea. Only question is whether or not it'll use the same DNS namespace as the rest of the Internet, or if it'll use its own.
I think it needs a new one. Currently a lot of people don't have email addresses, even in those countries where internet use is widespread. What happens when everyone in the world needs one? I believe the current system couldn't cope with that.
Fortunately, most people don't move that much, so probably location based is enough. Something like
bob.thompson@brixton.london.uk
of course there might be more than two people called bob thompson in brixton, so the system would need to be able to cope with that somehow. Also of course it would be much better to have an identifier you didn't have to change everytime you moved location - that's what I'm really after, but it's a difficult problem.
Yes, but it would be much better to have one that is permanent for you and you can switch between providers. A personal, life-long, global identifier.
I think what he meant was using a cellular modem combined with wireless networks to connect your laptop to the internet...
Well in that case it is hardly a new idea then, is it? Some of my clients have been doing this for ages. There are a number of big operators that offer this service in Europe. Is this a new thing in the USA?
A laptop on the internet?
Sorry I'm confused. What is insightful about this? How is this thinking outside the box?
Now we're getting mobile wireless (which of course means we can do mobile VOIP) can we please get rid of telephone numbers? They feel increasingly primitive to me. It's much easier to remember name.surname@company.com than 023633463453.
Of course the problem is with personal numbers, rather than office-based ones. Of course your work is one thing that defines you (bob.thompson@company.com), as does your physical location bob.thompson@london.uk. But not everyone has a job, and location based identifiers don't make much sense for mobile numbers. Any solutions?
Europe and the USA acting together could do this world a hell of a lot of good. Shame things have been so negative of late.
What I'd really like to see is co-operation on reducing arms sales globally. The USA and Europe are currently the world's biggest arms merchants. And the mad thing is, we're selling them to countries that could easily turn around and bite us on the ass. Saudi Arabia for instance. If they turn against us - which isn't outside the realms of possibility at the moment - they will be able to put up one hell of a battle because we've been selling them advanced weaponary for decades. Madness.
We can do WAY better.
Have we ever made a self replicating machine? Have we even made a truely self repairing machine?
No and no.
In theory, we might be able to do better. But we haven't done yet, nor could we make such a machine today.
Don't get me wrong, I think humans are great. But nature is fricking fantastic, and it will be a long time before we can better it.
He asked us to imagine an aeroplane where different components were made by different companies.
That is a truely idiotic thing to say. There is hardly any manufactured product you can buy today that isn't made from components from supplied by other companies. Even the simplest products - like a pair of shoes for instance - will often be made up with leather from one company, rubber from another, laces from a third, metal components from a fourth, thread from another. And that's just a pair of shoes. I bet Boeing has thousands of suppliers.
So you're saying that the methods we use to do evolution on computers isn't good. I agree. That's why we need more research. But you seem to say "it's no good, so we can discount it as an option". I say "evolution is a powerful force which we don't really know how to harness yet."
I think the point was that evolution is quite a slow process
On a computer it can be done much quicker, and of course the speed at which it can be done depend on how you do it.
Mr Anonymous
if I read your post correctly, you are basically saying that evolution is often not a good method to use because humans can do better without it.
I say, take a look at a whale, a swallow, a spider, a virus. Can human engineers do better than these self-replicating, self-healing machines that are perfectly optimised to their environments?
There is a large difference in evolved behaviour between physical things and models of those same things.
Surely that just means your physical model of the real world is not correct?