HTTP authentication would require the server to track session state.
How? I don't follow. Maybe I wasn't clear.
Some sites use a simple cookie for login without any other session state tracking. Seems to me that the HTTP crafters provided a mechanism to do that. Why does everyone re-invent the wheel?
When the snooze bar is pressed, Clocky rolls off the table and finds a hiding spot, a new one every day.
I really don't get the idea behind that. When I need to get up, I set a second alarm on the other side of the room (these days it's "at x:yyam\n xmms -p" on the command line, but same idea). I have to get up to turn it off, regardless of whether it "hides" or not.
First one wakes me up, I turn it off and snooze for ten, second one fires off and I have to get up to turn it off. Very simple.
Re:Not that bold, ask a creationist!
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
Any effort, gesture, event, etc is meaningful at some levels of abstraction but not others. Once you accept and wrap your mind around that, and understand that there are levels of abstraction on which our conciousness is not only meaningless but does not exist it becomes easier to move beyond philosophy to practical reality.
I wouldn't use the term "levels of abstraction", as it misleadingly suggests a hierarchical one-dimensional relationship. But yes, there are points of view or perspectives in which consciousness is meaningless or non-existant.
This is not a realization to "move beyond", it is the foundation of liberation. Though yes, another part of liberation is not getting stuck there, getting back to "chopping wood and carrying water". (So the Zen master should come hit me with his stick right about now, eh?:-) )
At the levels of abstraction where it is meaningful, focus is not subjective. Focus IS a chemical state.
If focus is not subjective, not an experience that you are having, why do you care about it? Are you just making your brain chemistry fit a certain pattern as a party trick to show your friends?
Somewhere in there is presumably a subjective experience you're trying to alter. Whether you call that "focus" or "recognition of focus" or "recognition of recognition of focus" doesn't much matter. Though when most of us say "I'm focused on this" we're refering to our subjective mental state, not looking at EEG output, so I have to say your semantics are rather odd.
I'm reminded of a Raymond Smullyan piece, An Epistemological Nightmare, where an "experimental epistemologist" is unable to state his own beliefs without checking his brain-reading machine...
The alternative standard (for those of us with purdy graphical terminals on our UltraSparcs) of using Bold and Italics is much easier on the eyes and conveys just as much information.
Colors? Fonts? Feh. You kids and your fancy terminals.
The "standard" is to alias ls to 'ls -F'. This appends * to executables, / to directories, @ to symlinks, = for sockets, and | for FIFOs. Works on any terminal.
Long answer: I don't think most tcsh users use it for its programming ability. Instead, it tends to be useful as a solid interactive shell.
Right. tcsh as the login shell, bash for scripting.
Of course, I was a csh guy back when the only opitions were csh and sh, so I found it a natural upgrade path to go to tcsh.
Of course, once you're used to being able to double tab for a directory listing, it's kind of hard to give up.
The tcsh answer is Control-D. That goes back to csh, which is a big reason why some of us used csh over sh. (Actually I think csh was the default user shell on those Ultrix boxes on which I cut my teeth.)
Presuming you're just ignorant and not trolling...
Veganism is, in the broadest sense, a lifestyle which attempts to minimize suffering caused to sentient beings. It therefore includes finding alternatives to leather in clothing (list is in dire need of updating), as well as using consumer products that are not tested on animals and that do not contain animal-derived ingredients.
I don't know many people that know about neopaganism
You probably know more Pagans than you think. Many are in the "broom closet", since in less cosmopolitan areas of the US, admiting to being Pagan or displaying a pentacle makes people think you worship Satan.
However, they should be held well clear of the others' events. Let each side have their say.
Say to whom? The people have a Constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievences - i.e., yell at them. You can't do that from the Orwellianly-nameed "Free Speech" zones that are blocks away from the officeholders in question.
Re:Not that bold, ask a creationist!
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
Since I find myself rambling a bit, I'm going to first address a later point from your post, where I have something more coherent to say.:-)
Focus is not subjective. Either your brain is in a focused state (mostly giving off 20hz beta waves) or not.
Your mind being "focused" is indeed a subjective experience. It may (or may not, I dunno) correlate with the objective phenomenon of your brain mostly giving off 20hz beta waves.
Nothing against using biofeedback (or psychedelic drugs, or whatever other tools) as a means to aid the process. It's something I'd like to play around with one of these days (in my copius free time:-) ).
But control of brain states is still a far cry from understanding yourself - or understanding if there really is a "self" to understand in the first place.
Focusing on the EEG also tends to re-enforce the mistake that only the brain is important, as if it weren't intimately connected with the rest of the nervous system, which is entwined with every fiber of the body. Disregarding the somatic aspects of consciousness is part of the reason that our current clincal psychology is so horrid.
Taking that further and understanding that every fiber of the body is inimately connected with the rest of the Universe...anatman is where Zen and the other paths of mysticism go, though they inevitably view it through different colored filters.
Reality is that the mind is more like software. And like software you CAN reverse engineer it's function by watching the physical level because LIKE SOFTWARE it is merely an abrastraction of those physical parts (in software it's electrons, in the brain it is neurons and chemical states).
No, the mind is not merely an abstraction of the brain. The mind is a subjective experience, something of a whole different order of existence.
Yes, that subjective experience is correlated with an objective physical state. What is that correlation like?
Consider a less controversial relationship, between numbers and physical reality. I have three pens on the desk in front of me. Is "three" an abstraction of the pens? Does "three" cause the pens, do the pens cause "three"? "Three" exists independently of the pens, so how can there be causality either way?
Can mind exist indepenently of brain? Many reductionists believe that a suitably powerful computer could simulate the brain exactly enough to copy or transfer mind/consciousness. If so, if mind can be implemented in software, then given Turing showed us software is just a number, and numbers already and always exist, then are we immortal, like the "Boppers" of Rudy Rucker's "Hardware" series believe?
Any statement about the Universe more precise than "the Universe is doing what the Universe is doing" is a statement about a model or concept, not the Universe itself. "Three" and a physical description of the plastic molecules are both concepts, models.
When we talk about the plastic molecules - or about the molecules in my brain - we have to make simplifications. We don't consider that every particle in the cosmos is entangled with every other particle, not just to make it easier but because we simply couldn't consider that without a computer the size of the Universe.
There's also the issue that a truly reductionist model of consciousness must eventually get down to quantum theory, which must get down to the question of "what does it mean to make a observation", which brings consciousness into it again...
I thought the third level was essentially handled at the web server, is that not true?...Is that not the case?
Not quite the case. foo.net and bar.foo.net are both legitimate hostnames, handled by your DNS server. In DNS,you may have foo.net be the CNAME for bar.foo.net (i.e., they're the same IP).
You could also have DNS wildcarding, where *.foo.net all map to the same IP.
You might have your webserver set up such that it's doing name-based virtual hosting, but that's an application level thing. It's the DNS that makes hostnames.
the fuck? Or are you not familiar with the neopagan movement? (Which would be odd, since it has a hugely disproportionate presence in the tech sector.)
Next is a vegan meetup group with a whole 3 members. I see no interest in meeting with people based on what I eat. What's next? A steak eaters group?
I like to meet other vegans: swap recipies, talk about retaurants, where to find good non-leather shoes, etcetera. But more importantly, I prefer to date vegetarian women.:-)
I'd rather just hang with normal people, TY.
How boring. I prefer the company of interesting people, stimulates the brain.
Re:Not that bold, ask a creationist!
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
No but we have slapped neurons harvested from the brains of multiple rats on a dish of sensors wired to a flight simulator and watched the simple pieces interact in a complex manner and determine they should level out the plane and keep it level. I guess the rat souls came along for the ride eh?
One does not have to beleive in immortal souls, or be in any way non-materialistic, to believe that reductionism cannot lead to a full understanding of the human mind.
My brain is a material object, part of the objective world, available to all observers. My mind, however, is a subjective experience, available only to me.
Of course, the two are correlated; when a change happens in one, a change happens in the other. That doesn't mean that understanding one means understanding the other, any more than one can understand number theory by taking apart an abacus, or debug software by looking at the movements of electrons in circuits. (Less so, in fact, since numbers and software are also available to all observers equally.)
If you want to understand your mind, I suggest looking at it yourself. Zen is a good place to start
People think they have it so hard these days. How about back when your food easily could kill you (mammoth trample), you had to run and struggle to catch your food, you had to walk miles everyday to get food, or move to a place with food or water, etc.
The difference is, those stresses your body/mind is adapted to.
About to get trampled by a mastodon? Bam! Adrenaline surge, you run, condition resolved and a few hours later your body chemistry is completely normal.
But we've created a world of constant low-level stressors, where our fight, flight, or freeze reactions won't help. Stressors are unresolved, so the alert mechanism is always on at a low level, diverting resources away from the immune system and the restorative mechanism.
You had someone ask you to not work on any outside code for a CONTRACT position?
Not just no outside code, but according to a strict reading pretty much no outside anything, as I was supposed to direct my "full productive effort" to my corporate masters. As I read that, I couldn't even teach my karate classes in the evenings. It was the contracting company's standard wording.
This was in Annapolis MD, which would generally be part of the D.C. Metro area, in 2000. So neither a backwater nor a bust time, just a stupid contract. (Which I told them wasn't going to fly, and made them change it.)
As far as "shitty contract job[s]", I found contract work to be generally less shitty than "permanent" positions - better pay, less politics and more flexibility. YMMV.
Ask anybody who has to hop to IE to visit certain sites.
There are clueless developers who create sites that can only be viewed in IE, yes. That's rather like a garment maker only making pants that fit overweight people, on the theory that most people are overweight.
I would be very surprised if any developer has not worked on some project that snippets of code they developed would not be available for outside review.
I would be very surprised if any developer who hasn't worked for a company that released someting open source would have code legitimately available for outside review.
The code I write for employers is "for hire". When I leave the company I have no legal rights to it. None. Zero. I can't take copies with me when I leave, I can't distribute copies to other employers, regardless of whether the code went into production or not.
If - hypothetically speaking - I might have some old code on my hard drive somewhere that I keep around for memorabilia or for reference, as far as the copyright cops are concerned I'd better keep my mouth shut about it.
Not saying that's how it should be, but that's how it is.
Also, if somebody doesn't have any of their own personal code laying around, or some open-source stuff they've released, I probably wouldn't hire them, either unless there was some other clear sign that they really loved their work.
I've had contracts that (if I hadn't insisted on altering them) would have prohibited me from working on outside code, because I was supposed to direct my "full productive effort" to my corporate masters.
I have never been asked for "work samples." I seriously doubt they are even asking for examples of work done at previous companies.
Yes, it does happen. I've had two or three potential employers ask for such a thing. Usually my response is "sorry, don't have the rights to do that"...though last time it came up, I was at least able to give them a few hundred line Perl script I'd hacked up for my own purposes.
I've now got piles of "wheat pennies" that have the two stalks of wheat on the back instead of the building, a few of them made of silver or whatever the non-copper material was
That's the Lincoln Memorial, you know, not just some random building. (Sorry, but if you've never been, IMHO it's a place of such aesthetic power and beauty that it comes close to violating the separation of church and state.)
And the non-copper pennies are steel, produced during or around WWII.
Cops don't need a warrant to respond to a complaint. Imagine the chaos if they did!
No, but for an arrest they need specific and articulable facts indicating a substantial possibility that criminal conduct has occurred. "I had a hunch" is not sufficient grounds to an arrest.
I recall that when a housemate of mine was being stalked by a deranged ex-boyfriend, it took weeks for the BCPD to get around to arresting the guy. But make politically incorrect photocopies, or defy a large corporation by paying with inconvenient currency, and bam! they're right on top of it.
The linked article makes no mention of paying money.
The issue is about distributing software changes, not about paying anyone money.
In the Old Days, it was largely true that to use software you or your organization had to have a copy of it. The GPL mandated that if someone gave you a copy, they had to give you source; therefore other then a few outlying cases, if you used GPLed software you had access to source. It's proved to be a smashingly good idea.
But in this brave new world of the internets, it is becoming much more common to use GPLed software without having a copy yourself.
Fifty years ago everyone was a potential communist.
You missed the other half: 50 years ago, surveillance was expensive. And as bad as the Red Scare was, it was peanuts compared to the War on (some) Drugs.
The benefits of catching the child pornographers, terrorists, and anti-globalization activists (yes, I said it) far outweigh any discomfort incurred by you or me.
A government engaged in ceaseless surveillance of its citizens - especially political activists - is a terrorist regime.
Are you afraid that someone is going to track down your Super-Private online goings-on and share your secret with others? For example... is Safeway (grocery chain) going to track down all your online purchases of ass ailment treatments, and then, in their store, announce over the loud speaker, John Doe, We're currently featuring 10 cents off Assinol Plus with the purchase of Roidwipes2000?
Also, the cornerstone of paranoia is the mistaken belief that others actually care. They just don't. You're not that interesting (nor am I), nobody really cares, so relax.
That was true fifty years ago. Now everyone is a potential drug user or anti-globalization activist or copyright violator or terrorist or something the state doesn't like; and data surveillance is cheap and easy. The easier it gets, the more the question moves from "Why should we bother watching this guy?" to "Why not?"
Surveillance is moving to an opt-out model, rather than an opt-in.
Slashdot Mirror
How? I don't follow. Maybe I wasn't clear.
Some sites use a simple cookie for login without any other session state tracking. Seems to me that the HTTP crafters provided a mechanism to do that. Why does everyone re-invent the wheel?
Why is it that no one uses the HTTP authentication mechanism for logins, and instead makes cookies do the job?
I really don't get the idea behind that. When I need to get up, I set a second alarm on the other side of the room (these days it's "at x:yyam\n xmms -p" on the command line, but same idea). I have to get up to turn it off, regardless of whether it "hides" or not.
First one wakes me up, I turn it off and snooze for ten, second one fires off and I have to get up to turn it off. Very simple.
I wouldn't use the term "levels of abstraction", as it misleadingly suggests a hierarchical one-dimensional relationship. But yes, there are points of view or perspectives in which consciousness is meaningless or non-existant.
As the Discordians put it, "All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense."
This is not a realization to "move beyond", it is the foundation of liberation. Though yes, another part of liberation is not getting stuck there, getting back to "chopping wood and carrying water". (So the Zen master should come hit me with his stick right about now, eh? :-) )
If focus is not subjective, not an experience that you are having, why do you care about it? Are you just making your brain chemistry fit a certain pattern as a party trick to show your friends?
Somewhere in there is presumably a subjective experience you're trying to alter. Whether you call that "focus" or "recognition of focus" or "recognition of recognition of focus" doesn't much matter. Though when most of us say "I'm focused on this" we're refering to our subjective mental state, not looking at EEG output, so I have to say your semantics are rather odd.
I'm reminded of a Raymond Smullyan piece, An Epistemological Nightmare, where an "experimental epistemologist" is unable to state his own beliefs without checking his brain-reading machine...
Colors? Fonts? Feh. You kids and your fancy terminals.
The "standard" is to alias ls to 'ls -F'. This appends * to executables, / to directories, @ to symlinks, = for sockets, and | for FIFOs. Works on any terminal.
Right. tcsh as the login shell, bash for scripting.
Of course, I was a csh guy back when the only opitions were csh and sh, so I found it a natural upgrade path to go to tcsh.
The tcsh answer is Control-D. That goes back to csh, which is a big reason why some of us used csh over sh. (Actually I think csh was the default user shell on those Ultrix boxes on which I cut my teeth.)
Presuming you're just ignorant and not trolling...
Veganism is, in the broadest sense, a lifestyle which attempts to minimize suffering caused to sentient beings. It therefore includes finding alternatives to leather in clothing (list is in dire need of updating), as well as using consumer products that are not tested on animals and that do not contain animal-derived ingredients.
You probably know more Pagans than you think. Many are in the "broom closet", since in less cosmopolitan areas of the US, admiting to being Pagan or displaying a pentacle makes people think you worship Satan.
Say to whom? The people have a Constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievences - i.e., yell at them. You can't do that from the Orwellianly-nameed "Free Speech" zones that are blocks away from the officeholders in question.
Since I find myself rambling a bit, I'm going to first address a later point from your post, where I have something more coherent to say. :-)
Your mind being "focused" is indeed a subjective experience. It may (or may not, I dunno) correlate with the objective phenomenon of your brain mostly giving off 20hz beta waves.
Nothing against using biofeedback (or psychedelic drugs, or whatever other tools) as a means to aid the process. It's something I'd like to play around with one of these days (in my copius free time :-) ).
But control of brain states is still a far cry from understanding yourself - or understanding if there really is a "self" to understand in the first place.
Focusing on the EEG also tends to re-enforce the mistake that only the brain is important, as if it weren't intimately connected with the rest of the nervous system, which is entwined with every fiber of the body. Disregarding the somatic aspects of consciousness is part of the reason that our current clincal psychology is so horrid.
Taking that further and understanding that every fiber of the body is inimately connected with the rest of the Universe...anatman is where Zen and the other paths of mysticism go, though they inevitably view it through different colored filters.
No, the mind is not merely an abstraction of the brain. The mind is a subjective experience, something of a whole different order of existence.
Yes, that subjective experience is correlated with an objective physical state. What is that correlation like?
Consider a less controversial relationship, between numbers and physical reality. I have three pens on the desk in front of me. Is "three" an abstraction of the pens? Does "three" cause the pens, do the pens cause "three"? "Three" exists independently of the pens, so how can there be causality either way?
Can mind exist indepenently of brain? Many reductionists believe that a suitably powerful computer could simulate the brain exactly enough to copy or transfer mind/consciousness. If so, if mind can be implemented in software, then given Turing showed us software is just a number, and numbers already and always exist, then are we immortal, like the "Boppers" of Rudy Rucker's "Hardware" series believe?
Any statement about the Universe more precise than "the Universe is doing what the Universe is doing" is a statement about a model or concept, not the Universe itself. "Three" and a physical description of the plastic molecules are both concepts, models.
When we talk about the plastic molecules - or about the molecules in my brain - we have to make simplifications. We don't consider that every particle in the cosmos is entangled with every other particle, not just to make it easier but because we simply couldn't consider that without a computer the size of the Universe.
There's also the issue that a truly reductionist model of consciousness must eventually get down to quantum theory, which must get down to the question of "what does it mean to make a observation", which brings consciousness into it again...
Not quite the case. foo.net and bar.foo.net are both legitimate hostnames, handled by your DNS server. In DNS ,you may have foo.net be the CNAME for bar.foo.net (i.e., they're the same IP).
You could also have DNS wildcarding, where *.foo.net all map to the same IP.
You might have your webserver set up such that it's doing name-based virtual hosting, but that's an application level thing. It's the DNS that makes hostnames.
Uhhh...
- this,
- this,
- this, and
- this
the fuck? Or are you not familiar with the neopagan movement? (Which would be odd, since it has a hugely disproportionate presence in the tech sector.)I like to meet other vegans: swap recipies, talk about retaurants, where to find good non-leather shoes, etcetera. But more importantly, I prefer to date vegetarian women. :-)
How boring. I prefer the company of interesting people, stimulates the brain.
One does not have to beleive in immortal souls, or be in any way non-materialistic, to believe that reductionism cannot lead to a full understanding of the human mind.
My brain is a material object, part of the objective world, available to all observers. My mind, however, is a subjective experience, available only to me.
Of course, the two are correlated; when a change happens in one, a change happens in the other. That doesn't mean that understanding one means understanding the other, any more than one can understand number theory by taking apart an abacus, or debug software by looking at the movements of electrons in circuits. (Less so, in fact, since numbers and software are also available to all observers equally.)
If you want to understand your mind, I suggest looking at it yourself. Zen is a good place to start
No, stress kills.
The difference is, those stresses your body/mind is adapted to.
About to get trampled by a mastodon? Bam! Adrenaline surge, you run, condition resolved and a few hours later your body chemistry is completely normal.
But we've created a world of constant low-level stressors, where our fight, flight, or freeze reactions won't help. Stressors are unresolved, so the alert mechanism is always on at a low level, diverting resources away from the immune system and the restorative mechanism.
Not just no outside code, but according to a strict reading pretty much no outside anything, as I was supposed to direct my "full productive effort" to my corporate masters. As I read that, I couldn't even teach my karate classes in the evenings. It was the contracting company's standard wording.
This was in Annapolis MD, which would generally be part of the D.C. Metro area, in 2000. So neither a backwater nor a bust time, just a stupid contract. (Which I told them wasn't going to fly, and made them change it.)
As far as "shitty contract job[s]", I found contract work to be generally less shitty than "permanent" positions - better pay, less politics and more flexibility. YMMV.
There are clueless developers who create sites that can only be viewed in IE, yes. That's rather like a garment maker only making pants that fit overweight people, on the theory that most people are overweight.
I would be very surprised if any developer who hasn't worked for a company that released someting open source would have code legitimately available for outside review.
The code I write for employers is "for hire". When I leave the company I have no legal rights to it. None. Zero. I can't take copies with me when I leave, I can't distribute copies to other employers, regardless of whether the code went into production or not.
If - hypothetically speaking - I might have some old code on my hard drive somewhere that I keep around for memorabilia or for reference, as far as the copyright cops are concerned I'd better keep my mouth shut about it.
Not saying that's how it should be, but that's how it is.
I've had contracts that (if I hadn't insisted on altering them) would have prohibited me from working on outside code, because I was supposed to direct my "full productive effort" to my corporate masters.
Yes, it does happen. I've had two or three potential employers ask for such a thing. Usually my response is "sorry, don't have the rights to do that"...though last time it came up, I was at least able to give them a few hundred line Perl script I'd hacked up for my own purposes.
That's the Lincoln Memorial, you know, not just some random building. (Sorry, but if you've never been, IMHO it's a place of such aesthetic power and beauty that it comes close to violating the separation of church and state.)
And the non-copper pennies are steel, produced during or around WWII.
No, but for an arrest they need specific and articulable facts indicating a substantial possibility that criminal conduct has occurred. "I had a hunch" is not sufficient grounds to an arrest.
A few months ago, a friend of mine was detained by B'more County's finest for four hours for photocopying a satirical newletter (and because the cops thought his washtub bass might be a WMD). Now this. I can only conclude that IQ's at the BCPD are dropping sharply. Hope it's not contageous.
I recall that when a housemate of mine was being stalked by a deranged ex-boyfriend, it took weeks for the BCPD to get around to arresting the guy. But make politically incorrect photocopies, or defy a large corporation by paying with inconvenient currency, and bam! they're right on top of it.
Sure makes me feel secure...
The linked article makes no mention of paying money.
The issue is about distributing software changes, not about paying anyone money.
In the Old Days, it was largely true that to use software you or your organization had to have a copy of it. The GPL mandated that if someone gave you a copy, they had to give you source; therefore other then a few outlying cases, if you used GPLed software you had access to source. It's proved to be a smashingly good idea.
But in this brave new world of the internets, it is becoming much more common to use GPLed software without having a copy yourself.
The question is therefore how to update the GPL to promote and preserve people's right to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
Consider: how do we preserve your right to keep running the software if the remote service provider can change it, or stop offering the service?
You missed the other half: 50 years ago, surveillance was expensive. And as bad as the Red Scare was, it was peanuts compared to the War on (some) Drugs.
A government engaged in ceaseless surveillance of its citizens - especially political activists - is a terrorist regime.
No, they've already done much worse than that. Like turning those records over to federal law-enforcement.
That was true fifty years ago. Now everyone is a potential drug user or anti-globalization activist or copyright violator or terrorist or something the state doesn't like; and data surveillance is cheap and easy. The easier it gets, the more the question moves from "Why should we bother watching this guy?" to "Why not?"
Surveillance is moving to an opt-out model, rather than an opt-in.