Well, of course it is! Do you really need to ask? Could there be any doubt? Come on!
(It's been pointed out that the obvious solution to these conflicts would be to figure out a way to breed a man with a woman, creating a super-being capable of both reason and intuition.)
People have been mindlessly referring to "the RIAA" for so long that they think it's interchangeable with the music industry and any and all record labels.
It's even worse than that: depressingly many people around here seem to think it's interchangeable with the movie industry too. Sigh.
trying to do your job and get your research into EXPO format, your first entry into Google is not going to be "expo king soldatova ontology". Trust me on this one.
True, but it's also true that most real scientists have research skills that exceed typing one word into Google. It may be an issue, but probably not that much of one.
It can be dozens of people. I've seen posts get modded up and down so much it's like sex.
Really, it can be hundreds -- it does make sense to count all the people with points who read a post but don't decide to mod it. With so many people getting mod points, but the number of points per person still so limited, the Laws of large Numbers kick in, so the number of mods who decide to actually spend a point on a given post really should be a pretty decent indicator of the number of others who felt the same way but decided to spend their points elsewhere. So in that sense, I think the mod system actually works pretty well. The part of it that I can't be so charitable about, though, is the way it favors early posts.
It's somewhat exciting to have something down at -1 come back from the dead to hit +5 despite being 30% overrated.
I tend to get more excited when my posts trigger big sub-threads than when they get modded a lot. But then, like most of the old farts, I'm usually a late / low-volume poster. And I do see what you mean: the feeling of having said something controversial enough to draw conflicting mods is kinda nice.
Funny, I read TFA as being (at least mostly) a confirmation that human-produced pollution does make a significant difference, and that the Montreal Protocol may very well have literally "saved the world". Whew!
The good news: In the upper stratosphere (above roughly 18 km), ozone recovery can be explained almost entirely by CFC reductions. "Up there, the Montreal Protocol seems to be working," says co-author Mike Newchurch of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
Which part of that did you find confusing?
Yes, it goes on to say that the lower-stratosphere results were better than expected, which suggests that either our understanding of the mechanisms involved is incomplete (which nobody was denying, but note that they also have some pretty promising hypotheses), or that there's another factor at work that we haven't taken into account at all yet. But that hardly invalidates the rest of it. Especially since one hypothesis is that CFC reduction made even more difference than expected due to wind patterns affecting the distribution.
Perhaps a better solution would be to simply tattoo a serial number on everybody's arm -- it'd be functionally equivalent, but much cheaper to implement.
ultranova: since it is a bird, whose ancestors were propably capable of flight in the near past Criterion: I'm just hoping you do know that chickens are quite capable of flight. ultranova: I know they're capable of getting into the air, but I was under the impression that they aren't very good at it.
The beauty of it is that you didn't even need to concede that much: your original statement is perfectly correct, since nowhere did you say that chickens can't fly; you only said that their ancestors [probably] could. An eagle is also "a bird, whose ancestors were [probably] capable of flight in the near past".
Heh. I had my "Holy maturity, Batman" moment two years ago (to the day, actually). I turn 30 in 6 days, but that was when I saw it coming: 26 and 27 didn't feel any different from 25, but with 28 less than a week away, I suddenly noticed "Hey, there's not a lot of 20s left; how'd that happen!?"
Therein lies the problem -- roaches can't "count" in any normal sense of the word.
It's not even just that -- the GP omitted the all-important Step 0: Determine an appropriate value for X. I.e., how do they decide how many should go to each shelter?
Was it always 25, or was it sometimes a 27/23 split?
It doesn't matter if they formed exactly equal groups, because that would not even necessarily be the optimal solution unless the shelters are assumed to be exactly equal in capacity. They were, in this experiment, but this would be unlikely in a real-world setting. So if I were grading the roaches' performance, I wouldn't deduct any points if their estimate was only precise enough to support a decision like: "These shelters have approximately equal capacity, so we should divide into approximately equal groups."
In fact, I'd be more impressed by evidence that their "reasoning" was as above, because that indicates greater adaptability and a more dynamic decision process. By contrast, the closer they get to always exactly equal groups, the more I'd suspect that the decision process was something "hard-coded", like "Hmm, this shelter's not big enough for all of us... Ooh, there's another one over there -- half of us should go there." (Less impressive, since the solution doesn't account for the relative sizes of the shelters)
The next experiment I'd like to see is, what if there were two shelters with capacities of 30 and 40? Would the split be (on average close to) 21/29 (the closest integer solution to reflect the 3:4 proportion, so the shelters would be equally crowded)? Is that really the "best" solution, or would it be better for them to balance the benefit of (near-)equal crowdedness against that of (near-)equal group size, and split the difference to get 23/27? If so, could they be so smart as to actually do that? Or would they still go for 25/25?
Wow, now I want to try this experiment myself. Anyone know where I can find some cockroaches?
Yes, the "analog hole" is real, in the sense that it prevents any DRM scheme from ever being able to completely eliminate any possibility of copying, but it's very deceptive, for all the reasons mentioned already (real pirates don't use it anyway, it's all about control, etc.) Another reason, which I haven't seen mentioned yet on this thread, is more subtle: it's psychological manipulation, hiding the fact that they're asking for new rights.
By referring to the possibility of analog copying as a "loophole", they create the impression that it's something new, and that it's not a situation that has previously been considered acceptable. But of course, before we had digital content [*1], all copying, legal and illegal, was analog. Their whole argument for justifying laws like the DMCA was that with digital content came the possibility of digital copying, and that, since this removed the generational-loss problem, copying became more practical (shifting the balance against them), making such laws necessary just to restore the previous balance. But since analog copying was already part of the previous balance, adding laws to block it would be shifting the balance toward them, more than it ever was in the pre-digital days.
In short, they're rewriting history: reinforcing the false impression that the rules established in the DMCA have always been part of traditional copyright law, and that to leave the "analog hole" open would be to take away something that they've always had, when in fact, closing it would be to give them something that they've never had.
-- [1] if anyone can remember a time sooo far back as the early nineties -- Gods, I'm old (29).
I'm not saying this as a rocket scientist (because I'm not), or even as someone who knows anything at all about the details or pros&cons of the rocket technologies that you guys are talking about (because I don't -- well, a little, but not enough to contribute much to the discussion at that level). But I often like to point out that, to the scientific/inquisitive mindset, sometimes there can be value in "repeating the mistakes of the past".
For one thing, it's always possible that one of those mistakes was not really as big a mistake as it seemed in the first place -- you might find that unequal advances in various supporting technologies have changed the weights of the various pros and cons, such that some particular approach turns out to be more practical now than it was the last time anybody tried it. That could represent an opportunity that nobody would notice, because nobody is considering that approach anymore, because "everybody knows" that it's no good.
But an even better reason is that going through such an exercise can give you a deeper understanding of the field than you would get by just following the established literature. Which of these is more intellectually satisfying?
This: "What about doing it this way?" "Oh, that's no good." "How do you know that?" "Because the textbook gives such-and-such reasons why it wouldn't work out."
Or this: "What about doing it this way?" "Oh, that's no good." "How do you know that?" "Because I tried it and found that it didn't work out, for such-and-such reasons."
Standing on the shoulders of giants is great, and I don't mean to knock it overall, but don't forget that those giants learned a lot of things along the way that you don't get if you just use their results. It's one of those "the journey is the destination" things.
You're thinking of this kind of backdoor? You're right: in order to be able to really (i.e., to a level adequate for an organization like the US or UK military) "trust" any software, of course the org would have to bootstrap their entire computing platform, including writing their own compilers. [*1] It's not really that hard (again, for that sort of org). I'd be surprised and alarmed if I were to learn that they haven't been doing so as a matter of course.
As for the JSF software, if US refuses to turn over the code (sort of understandable why they'd want to), I suppose they could knock a bit off the price and sell the planes with blank computers, leaving UK to write their own software from scratch/specs.
-- [1] Yes, in assembly (or some intermediate language whose compiler they've written in assembly), with an assembler they've written in machine code, on hardware they've designed and built themselves (or audited the design and fabrication closely enough), etc., etc.
because he insisted many evolution lessons contradict religious instruction.
My question is: in order to become a Legislator, don't you have to have at least heard of the Bill of Rights? I mean, if he's going to come right out and say that it's because of "religious instruction", he can't possibly make a case that his bill would be anything less than "an establishment of religion". They're not allowed to do that.
It's so obvious, to anyone who respects the Constitution, regardless of how they feel about evolution -- how can he get away with so blatantly violating the Supreme Law of the Land? I've always felt that for a Legislator to introduce a blatantly Unconstitutional bill is a crime, and should carry a stiff penalty. Senator Buttars, in my book, you are a criminal and a Traitor.
And, Slashdot crowd -- something's wrong when I see so few people making this point. The arguments here seem to be almost totally centered around the relative merits of the positions (science vs. religion, evolution vs. Creationism/ID, etc.) And of course, that's the main topic at hand, but the Freedom of Religion issue is regardless of the merits of those arguments. You'd think that, here of all places, there'd be more people decrying this as a direct assault on our Freedom.
If not, then maybe that's why Theocrats like Senator Buttars can get away with stuff like this. Maybe it seems too obvious to need mentioning, but I have a theory that there are a lot of people who wouldn't think to see it this way on their own, but who would, if presented with it, say "Hmmm... hey, that's right!" Maybe even some people who personally believe in Creationism/ID, but also respect Freedom of Religion enough to see my point. It's a point that should be made, loudly, every time somebody presents a religious argument for a public-policy position, and especially when it's so blatant.
Besides, the bread and circuses are better now. The problem with counting on the wrath of the people as a deterrent to tyranny is that all they (the tyrants) need to do to avoid a popular uprising is to keep (most of) the people just happy enough that they'll stay in line voluntarily -- which often just means keeping them fed and entertained. The Romans had "Bread and Circuses"; we have SUVs, big-screen TVs, and sports.
Keep that in mind while contemplating this/. story from a few months back: Congress Pays You $3 Billion to Keep Watching TV. Why is subsidizing the television industry so important to the government? Because keeping Americans' TVs working smoothly is critical to National Security... where "National Security" is defined as "protecting the present power structure from any real reform".
Mass is conserved. You're removing about 75,000 lb of matter (perhaps 80% of it carbon) from each acre of this system (per year). This has to come from somewhere. Where's that?
Oh yeah, he forgot to mention that the system also removes huge amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping to mitigate that other big problem, climate change (formerly known as "global warming"). I just knew there had to be a catch! Bastard!
Seriously: yes, you've correctly pounced on a less-than-fully-technically-accurate use of the phrase "closed-loop system". You could have just invoked Thermodynamics: "Ha-ha! It's not a closed system because it's using energy from the sun!" Or even simpler: "Oh yeah, wise guy? If it's a closed system, how are you gonna get teh oil out?"
Of course the biodiesel has to be made out of something. The point is that it can be a resource-friendly system because it can be a sorta "closed-ish loop", with respect to irrigation.
And pray tell, what field of endeavour is GPL3 supposed to prevent? None!
You're kidding, right? Look, I hate the very idea of DRM and the DMCA as much as anyone else on Slashdot, but how in Muspellheim can you think it doesn't count as a "field of endeavor"?
If I were going to "endeavor" to develop a DRM scheme, I would be forbidden to use your GPLv3 code in my implementation (even if I designed the scheme to use external keys in such a way that my code could be released without rendering it useless). The license discriminates against that field of endeavor. It does not qualify as Open Source.
Much as I agree with the FSF's intent, I don't see anything wrong with this logic. If you think I'm missing something, please explain.
(I never got around to posting this on the threads that were actually about GPLv3 itself, but it seems as appropriate here as anywhere.)
Ironically, doesn't GPLv3's anti-DRM restriction seem to violate Criterion #6 of The Open Source Definition?
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
And yes, of course, I understand about the whole "Free Software" / "Open Source" divide, and that RMS has never wanted GNU software to be called "Open Source" anyway, so I don't expect him to care about this. But still, it'd be pretty ironic for GNU software to technically not qualify as OSS. (Until now, it's been both, even if RMS only wants to call it "Free".)
...Open Document Format, a format agreed on by *multiple* word processor companies that is royalty free and usable by any company who wishes to implement it, no hooks. That includes MS, should they so choose.
Flash-based drives aren't even up to UDMA66 speed yet. For notebooks, my 60G Hitachi 7200rpm drive will be faster than flash in every situation.
At 16Gb (i.e., 2GB) per chip, a 60GB Flash "drive" would have to contain 30 of these chips, which could presumably be arranged in something like a RAID-0 striped array. So the question becomes... are those Flash I/O rates within a factor of thirty of UDMA66 speed yet?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you need an object lesson that illustrates the key differences between "mostly alive" and "mostly dead"?
Well, of course it is! Do you really need to ask? Could there be any doubt? Come on!
(It's been pointed out that the obvious solution to these conflicts would be to figure out a way to breed a man with a woman, creating a super-being capable of both reason and intuition.)
I tend to get more excited when my posts trigger big sub-threads than when they get modded a lot. But then, like most of the old farts, I'm usually a late / low-volume poster. And I do see what you mean: the feeling of having said something controversial enough to draw conflicting mods is kinda nice.
Yes, it is. Much.
Which part of that did you find confusing?
Yes, it goes on to say that the lower-stratosphere results were better than expected, which suggests that either our understanding of the mechanisms involved is incomplete (which nobody was denying, but note that they also have some pretty promising hypotheses), or that there's another factor at work that we haven't taken into account at all yet. But that hardly invalidates the rest of it. Especially since one hypothesis is that CFC reduction made even more difference than expected due to wind patterns affecting the distribution.
Perhaps a better solution would be to simply tattoo a serial number on everybody's arm -- it'd be functionally equivalent, but much cheaper to implement.
ultranova: since it is a bird, whose ancestors were propably capable of flight in the near past
Criterion: I'm just hoping you do know that chickens are quite capable of flight.
ultranova: I know they're capable of getting into the air, but I was under the impression that they aren't very good at it.
The beauty of it is that you didn't even need to concede that much: your original statement is perfectly correct, since nowhere did you say that chickens can't fly; you only said that their ancestors [probably] could. An eagle is also "a bird, whose ancestors were [probably] capable of flight in the near past".
No pun intended.
dgould's Fifth Law: All puns are "intended".
Corollary: No puns will be "pardoned".
Heh. I had my "Holy maturity, Batman" moment two years ago (to the day, actually). I turn 30 in 6 days, but that was when I saw it coming: 26 and 27 didn't feel any different from 25, but with 28 less than a week away, I suddenly noticed "Hey, there's not a lot of 20s left; how'd that happen!?"
Therein lies the problem -- roaches can't "count" in any normal sense of the word.
It's not even just that -- the GP omitted the all-important Step 0: Determine an appropriate value for X . I.e., how do they decide how many should go to each shelter?
Was it always 25, or was it sometimes a 27/23 split?
It doesn't matter if they formed exactly equal groups, because that would not even necessarily be the optimal solution unless the shelters are assumed to be exactly equal in capacity. They were, in this experiment, but this would be unlikely in a real-world setting. So if I were grading the roaches' performance, I wouldn't deduct any points if their estimate was only precise enough to support a decision like: "These shelters have approximately equal capacity, so we should divide into approximately equal groups."
In fact, I'd be more impressed by evidence that their "reasoning" was as above, because that indicates greater adaptability and a more dynamic decision process. By contrast, the closer they get to always exactly equal groups, the more I'd suspect that the decision process was something "hard-coded", like "Hmm, this shelter's not big enough for all of us... Ooh, there's another one over there -- half of us should go there." (Less impressive, since the solution doesn't account for the relative sizes of the shelters)
The next experiment I'd like to see is, what if there were two shelters with capacities of 30 and 40? Would the split be (on average close to) 21/29 (the closest integer solution to reflect the 3:4 proportion, so the shelters would be equally crowded)? Is that really the "best" solution, or would it be better for them to balance the benefit of (near-)equal crowdedness against that of (near-)equal group size, and split the difference to get 23/27? If so, could they be so smart as to actually do that? Or would they still go for 25/25?
Wow, now I want to try this experiment myself. Anyone know where I can find some cockroaches?
Yes, the "analog hole" is real, in the sense that it prevents any DRM scheme from ever being able to completely eliminate any possibility of copying, but it's very deceptive, for all the reasons mentioned already (real pirates don't use it anyway, it's all about control, etc.) Another reason, which I haven't seen mentioned yet on this thread, is more subtle: it's psychological manipulation, hiding the fact that they're asking for new rights.
By referring to the possibility of analog copying as a "loophole", they create the impression that it's something new, and that it's not a situation that has previously been considered acceptable. But of course, before we had digital content [*1], all copying, legal and illegal, was analog. Their whole argument for justifying laws like the DMCA was that with digital content came the possibility of digital copying, and that, since this removed the generational-loss problem, copying became more practical (shifting the balance against them), making such laws necessary just to restore the previous balance. But since analog copying was already part of the previous balance, adding laws to block it would be shifting the balance toward them, more than it ever was in the pre-digital days.
In short, they're rewriting history: reinforcing the false impression that the rules established in the DMCA have always been part of traditional copyright law, and that to leave the "analog hole" open would be to take away something that they've always had, when in fact, closing it would be to give them something that they've never had.
--
[1] if anyone can remember a time sooo far back as the early nineties -- Gods, I'm old (29).
He's repeating the mistakes of the past.
I'm not saying this as a rocket scientist (because I'm not), or even as someone who knows anything at all about the details or pros&cons of the rocket technologies that you guys are talking about (because I don't -- well, a little, but not enough to contribute much to the discussion at that level). But I often like to point out that, to the scientific/inquisitive mindset, sometimes there can be value in "repeating the mistakes of the past".
For one thing, it's always possible that one of those mistakes was not really as big a mistake as it seemed in the first place -- you might find that unequal advances in various supporting technologies have changed the weights of the various pros and cons, such that some particular approach turns out to be more practical now than it was the last time anybody tried it. That could represent an opportunity that nobody would notice, because nobody is considering that approach anymore, because "everybody knows" that it's no good.
But an even better reason is that going through such an exercise can give you a deeper understanding of the field than you would get by just following the established literature. Which of these is more intellectually satisfying?
This:
"What about doing it this way?"
"Oh, that's no good."
"How do you know that?"
"Because the textbook gives such-and-such reasons why it wouldn't work out."
Or this:
"What about doing it this way?"
"Oh, that's no good."
"How do you know that?"
"Because I tried it and found that it didn't work out, for such-and-such reasons."
Standing on the shoulders of giants is great, and I don't mean to knock it overall, but don't forget that those giants learned a lot of things along the way that you don't get if you just use their results. It's one of those "the journey is the destination" things.
while playing illegally-copied games is illegal, playing out-of-region games isn't.
Of course, the same is also true of movies (much as the MPAA may wish otherwise).
(IANAL, #include <std_disclaimer.h>, etc.)
You're thinking of this kind of backdoor? You're right: in order to be able to really (i.e., to a level adequate for an organization like the US or UK military) "trust" any software, of course the org would have to bootstrap their entire computing platform, including writing their own compilers. [*1] It's not really that hard (again, for that sort of org). I'd be surprised and alarmed if I were to learn that they haven't been doing so as a matter of course.
As for the JSF software, if US refuses to turn over the code (sort of understandable why they'd want to), I suppose they could knock a bit off the price and sell the planes with blank computers, leaving UK to write their own software from scratch/specs.
--
[1] Yes, in assembly (or some intermediate language whose compiler they've written in assembly), with an assembler they've written in machine code, on hardware they've designed and built themselves (or audited the design and fabrication closely enough), etc., etc.
because he insisted many evolution lessons contradict religious instruction.
My question is: in order to become a Legislator, don't you have to have at least heard of the Bill of Rights? I mean, if he's going to come right out and say that it's because of "religious instruction", he can't possibly make a case that his bill would be anything less than "an establishment of religion". They're not allowed to do that.
It's so obvious, to anyone who respects the Constitution, regardless of how they feel about evolution -- how can he get away with so blatantly violating the Supreme Law of the Land? I've always felt that for a Legislator to introduce a blatantly Unconstitutional bill is a crime, and should carry a stiff penalty. Senator Buttars, in my book, you are a criminal and a Traitor.
And, Slashdot crowd -- something's wrong when I see so few people making this point. The arguments here seem to be almost totally centered around the relative merits of the positions (science vs. religion, evolution vs. Creationism/ID, etc.) And of course, that's the main topic at hand, but the Freedom of Religion issue is regardless of the merits of those arguments. You'd think that, here of all places, there'd be more people decrying this as a direct assault on our Freedom.
If not, then maybe that's why Theocrats like Senator Buttars can get away with stuff like this. Maybe it seems too obvious to need mentioning, but I have a theory that there are a lot of people who wouldn't think to see it this way on their own, but who would, if presented with it, say "Hmmm... hey, that's right!" Maybe even some people who personally believe in Creationism/ID, but also respect Freedom of Religion enough to see my point. It's a point that should be made, loudly, every time somebody presents a religious argument for a public-policy position, and especially when it's so blatant.
Besides, the bread and circuses are better now. The problem with counting on the wrath of the people as a deterrent to tyranny is that all they (the tyrants) need to do to avoid a popular uprising is to keep (most of) the people just happy enough that they'll stay in line voluntarily -- which often just means keeping them fed and entertained. The Romans had "Bread and Circuses"; we have SUVs, big-screen TVs, and sports.
Keep that in mind while contemplating this
Mass is conserved. You're removing about 75,000 lb of matter (perhaps 80% of it carbon) from each acre of this system (per year). This has to come from somewhere. Where's that?
Oh yeah, he forgot to mention that the system also removes huge amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping to mitigate that other big problem, climate change (formerly known as "global warming"). I just knew there had to be a catch! Bastard!
Seriously: yes, you've correctly pounced on a less-than-fully-technically-accurate use of the phrase "closed-loop system". You could have just invoked Thermodynamics: "Ha-ha! It's not a closed system because it's using energy from the sun!" Or even simpler: "Oh yeah, wise guy? If it's a closed system, how are you gonna get teh oil out?"
Of course the biodiesel has to be made out of something. The point is that it can be a resource-friendly system because it can be a sorta "closed-ish loop", with respect to irrigation.
And pray tell, what field of endeavour is GPL3 supposed to prevent? None!
You're kidding, right? Look, I hate the very idea of DRM and the DMCA as much as anyone else on Slashdot, but how in Muspellheim can you think it doesn't count as a "field of endeavor"?
If I were going to "endeavor" to develop a DRM scheme, I would be forbidden to use your GPLv3 code in my implementation (even if I designed the scheme to use external keys in such a way that my code could be released without rendering it useless). The license discriminates against that field of endeavor. It does not qualify as Open Source.
Much as I agree with the FSF's intent, I don't see anything wrong with this logic. If you think I'm missing something, please explain.
Ironically, doesn't GPLv3's anti-DRM restriction seem to violate Criterion #6 of The Open Source Definition?
And yes, of course, I understand about the whole "Free Software" / "Open Source" divide, and that RMS has never wanted GNU software to be called "Open Source" anyway, so I don't expect him to care about this. But still, it'd be pretty ironic for GNU software to technically not qualify as OSS. (Until now, it's been both, even if RMS only wants to call it "Free".)
Now all I need is a one million ton olive and my martini will be complete!
Or Benjamin Franklin's:
Please forgive the length of this letter; I haven't the time to be brief.
I already have a flash killer. It's called Flashblock. Of course it only works in Firefox.
Hey, now -- no need to be a Firefox bigot! It works in Mozilla too.
But what if they don't feel like it?
Flash-based drives aren't even up to UDMA66 speed yet. For notebooks, my 60G Hitachi 7200rpm drive will be faster than flash in every situation.
At 16Gb (i.e., 2GB) per chip, a 60GB Flash "drive" would have to contain 30 of these chips, which could presumably be arranged in something like a RAID-0 striped array. So the question becomes... are those Flash I/O rates within a factor of thirty of UDMA66 speed yet?