The law in the United States is that in order for speech to be considered Libel or Slander, then it must not only be false, but there must be intention to harm. Otherwise, it is merely opinion, which is protected. The UK, btw, has no such provision, which is why it is much easier to sue for Libel there.
Lacking a precedence makes this harder not easier....Slash is Vanilla Ice singing ICE ICE baby to Carmack's riff. No, Queen and their Label did not win that lawsuit.
Actually, the suit never went to trial, and supposedly they settled with Vanilla Ice out of court. see: here for details. So much for your lack of precedents.
Anyone remember the M2? That was the supposed killer machine that was bounced around from company to company (Including Matsushita, where it got its name, i think). This was around the time when the Saturn and the Playstation came out, back in 96 or so. Finally, it died a lonely, unmourned death, killed by the lack of any substantitive support by anyone.
The X-box strikes me as the same thing. So far, there are no verified accounts of what the machine will do, no pictures, no demos, no anything. For a machine that is supposed to come out in a year? Right...
it's extremely doubtful that even the NSA can break a 128 bit key via brute in anything resembling a useful time frame.
I think that it's a little bit dangerous to assume one way or the other what the NSA can do. Not to be paranoid or anything, but it is always possible that they may have techniques that are currently unknown to the public, as appears to have happened in the past. (the weakness of the particular permutation blocks in DES (given to IBM by the NSA )to a certain type of cryptanalysis is an very suggestive example. See Applied Cryptography for details).
Not only that, but if the NSA did have any interest in the files, and wanted to take a look at them, it isn't as if they would announce that fact to the world. Even decrypting it for another government agency (like the FBI) might bring up questions of what the capabilities of the NSA are. For example, if some hypothetical hard drives were encrypted with 128bit encryption, and the FBI knew what was in them, then it could be assumed that 128 bit encryption was "breakable", giving unwanted information to the public (and other countries). What could happen (and I'm in no way implying that this did happen) is that the NSA would take a look at the files, see if there was anything that interested them, and if not, then just give it back to the FBI, without telling them what was on it.
I'm not trying to be paranoid, but I'm just trying to point out that one shouldn't assume, on the basis of action or inaction in one certain case, what an adversary can (or can't) do.
IF mac programmers hate taking their hands off the keyboard, and IF mac programmers are using codewarrior so much (like they have a choice), then why haven't they put shortcuts in everywhere? In fact, I even talked to some of the developers of codewarrior once, asked if they were going to put in more shortcuts in their debugger, and the response was not encouraging. It was as if the developers had not even THOUGHT about such things, so apparently they haven't been getting a lot of feedback asking for these things.
So, if the people who make the software (on macs) don't think about putting in shortcuts, and the people who use the software (on macs) don't ask for it, then I'm merely assuming that the people who use the software on macs do not wish to have shortcuts. I never said anything about the mental ability (or lack of) about anyone who uses or doesn't use a particular platform.
No kidding! I bought one copy to evaluate for our company and was astonished by how bad it is. The first problem is with the basic design of the IDE: It was hideous how many times you have to take your hands off the keyboard and go to the mouse. Now, I realize that for many Mac adherents, that isn't considered a "bad thing", but for anyone used to doing any CLE, it was such a major annoyance that I couldn't recommend it to anyone. Not to mention the cruddy way that it handled projects.
Actually, don't ask any Mexican astronomer, because most likely they won't care. May 5 doesn't signify an independence day, or anything else that would be really important to the generic Mexican. Instead, it merely celebrates a single victory, and is only really celebrated in the northern states of Mexico. Of course, Americans have picked up on it, and now it's probably much more popular in the states than in the whole of Mexico.
In fact, did you know that there have been *ZERO* studies that prove the 'theories' about Seratonin levels? This is absolutely wrong. There are many many studies that show the influence of serotonin on behaviour and mood. MDMA (ecstasy) selectively increases the amount of serotonin in the synapses (in a dramatic way), which accounts for the tremendous improvement in mood that characterizes the MDMA experience. Here's something that relates to the effects of serotonin: recently I read an interesting study about the effects of serotonin levels on social ranking in a group of monkeys. In particular, they found that the lower-status monkeys had lower levels of serotonin. However, when they increased the levels of serotonin in these monkeys, the monkeys' social status increased as well!
Take these needed genes, squish them together. From what I understand, you would have a pile of genes, not a living creature. Under what methods does a pile of molecules "come to life?" Does anyone have any resources or explanations, this is got me stumped.
"Life" is just a bunch of chemical reactions that turn a pile of molecules into more of those molecules. Nothing mystical or magical about it. All you need is to get a "pile of molecules" that will organize surrounding molecules to create copies of itself and you have "life". There is no "life energy" needed, except for the laws of physics which govern chemical reactions, hence no need to "breath life" into anything: just gather the right molecules together in the right way and let 'er rip!
emember how you felt when you traded baseball (or Magic, or Pokemon) cards as a youth? You may have got rid of your duplicates in exchange for cards you didn't have, but you may also have traded away rare and valuable cards for common ones. Trade can be beneficial, but it can also be harmful. This should be kept in mind.
In other words, "People aren't responsible enough to trade on their own, so we should have government regulate us so that we don't do anything that isn't in our best interest."
Phooey. I had enough of big brother in grade school.
In addition to the types you mentioned, you also have DNA that is not only useless to the organism, is also harmful. For example, a virus may insert itself latently inside the DNA of a germ cell, inadvertantly adding itself to the evolutionary pathway of that species. Should the DNA stay latent (or, more likely, undergo a mutation that keeps it from being expressed), it ends up being a "time bomb" waiting for the right time to be expressed.
Mice happen to have a lot of this viral DNA, which tend to act as oncogenes (cancer causing genes). Mice (just like everything else) accumulate mutations over their lifespans, and as the mouse gets older, the likelihood of a mutation activating an oncogene increases, until one day the mouse ends up with a tumor. This is a common cause of death for mice.
As you pointed out, Eukaryotes are big and complex. They are also still "works in progress". Some people seem to think that evolutionary pressures have created the lean, sleek, perfectly adapted creatures that humans are today:) But the thing to remember is that there are also evolutionary pressures for other DNA that doesn't necessarily jibe with our own interests.
I read the Natvan link. It doesn't look like racist drivel.
The whole link discusses people solely in terms of their ethnicity. It insinuates (without evidence) a media conspiracy to slander "racially conscious" white people. It uses purely pejorative terms to describe Jews, and finishes with the statement that "it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break [Jewish media control]" (italics in original).
To me, making unsubstantiated, inflammatory speech constitutes "drivel". Speaking about things in a purely racial context is (as described in the paper, "racist". Hence I would agree with the previous comment that it is, indeed, Racist Drivel.
I've almost finished reading it, and I do recommend it. While it isn't really a technical book, it's really thought-provoking about how technology is speeding everything up as time goes on. While others may get a different message from it, the book has caused me to look at how trying to do things as quickly as possible isn't always the best way. Or, for that matter, perhaps we should be concerned with always trying to do things the "best" way in the first place. At any rate, it will give a lot of food for thought.
To be completely pedantic...
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 1
I assume you claim that "13/11/1999" is good because it has the size of units in order. However, if you want that, then "1999/11/13" is actually a better representation, because in all other normal numerical methods, the larger units are to the left. However, if you wanted to represent it as "31/11/9991", then I would agree that you are at least being consistent.
On the other hand, if you want the date to be an abbreviation, then it makes sense to have the date order in the same way as the way that people normally state the date. In English, the normal method of stating the date is "November 13th, 1999", which would translate to an abbreviated "11/13/1999", which is indeed the way that Americans use. To be consistent, another abbreviation that is commonly used is "Nov. 13, 1999".
In other words, if you don't like the way Americans write the date, there is a reason that it is done that way, and at least it is consistent, as opposed to the bastardized "Larger Units to the Right" method that you seem to be proposing.
One thing that I was surprised with, when I read the "interview", was how bad the questions were. While most of the questions had a (probably) valid point, the way that some of them were asked was just asking for a negative reaction.
For example, starting with the very first question: "...it seems to me that your claims against them are generally unproven and rash." Is this the least biased way that this question could have been posed? How about question #3: "Why do you proclaim them to be 'dangerous hackers' while they do essentially the same thing you claim to do, except that they do so better, faster, and more professionally? " At this point I was expecting to see someone asking the old "When did you stop beating your wife?" question...
I understand that the people who were writing the questions possibly had their own agendas, and their own biases, but isn't that the point of having an editor? The job of an editor is not to just cut down on the size of a question (as seemed to happen with questions 8-11), but also edit for content (as apparently didn't happen with 8-11 either). Attempting to make the questions a little less pejorative would probably have resulted in a better interview, and maybe even the answering of the questions themselves. While John Vranesevich is to blame for not even making an attempt to answer any of the serious questions, it is hard to blame him for taking issue with the questions that were posed to him.
Actually, selecting for quality of mate on the basis of looks is a practice that has existed for billions of years. Anything that has lasted that long must have a pretty good evolutionary basis behind it. It really isn't that strange of an idea when you realize that appearance isn't linked to a single gene but to many different genes throughout the genome.
In other words, appearance is an easy way to get a sample of the quality of the rest of the genome.
Luciferase is an enzyme that reacts with a chemical called Luciferin to create light. The trees will have the genes to create the luciferase enzyme, but will still need a source of luciferin. The plan is to put luciferin in the water, and when a christmas tree sucks up the water into the leaves (Which it will still do after it has been cut), you can get the reaction.
Actually, pigs of either sex can be aggressive. Sometimes a pig will get mean, and you really have to be careful around it.
But the fact remains that testosterone gives a bad taste to meat, which is why they are castrated.
Oh, and about the fat content in beef... That is... bull . It is in the best interest of a meat producer to have more muscle, since muscle is denser than fat, and you can put more weight on an animal. On the other hand, you want fat in the meat because it makes the meat taste better.
Actually, the reason why mature dog is tough and stringy is not because of the eating of other animals (snake is pretty good), but because it is old. Older animals have old muscles, meaning that the muscle fibers aren't growing, and aren't as flexible as those of a younger animal. Since when you're eating meat, you're eating muscle, tougher, less flexible muscles translates to tougher, stringier meat. This is why lamb (young sheep) tastes so much different than mutton (old sheep), why we eat pullets (young chickens) and not old chickens, and why veal (young cow) tastes SO good...
Incidentally, another factor that affects how meat tastes is Testosterone. Testosterone gives a funny (bad) taste to meat, as well as affecting the texture by making it tougher and stringier. This is male meat animals, like sheep, pigs, and cows, are castrated at an early age.
Re:BIG RISK:Cassini carries a HUGE load of Plutoni
on
Cassini visits Earth
·
· Score: 1
and the reliance on Europeans for many critical components on board the craft.
But every little bit raises the rate of birth defects (or cancer, etc etc etc), so I stand by my question-- are YOU willing to have a child with a birth defect (or cancer) in order to save a few million on whatever tech project is under question? Your argument is flawed because you're setting up a false choice. If you put up a realistic description the risk vs. reward you might have something to discuss.
Okay, everyone here has heard how plutonium is "the most toxic substance known to man". That is utter and complete BS. (btw, you can thank Ralph Nader for that quote) Here's some perspective on plutonium.
If you want to see what the first flowers looked like, then all you have to do is look into the fossil record, and see what plants existed. There are even quite a few plants that have managed to last even into the present day (ferns, gingko trees).
I'm not quite sure what you're asking... The first flowers were (and are, in the case of grasses) just a specialized part of the plant, which means that the first flowers had all the same pigments as the rest of the plant. Of course, this means that they were green. Not an exciting color, but a color nonetheless. Of course, chlorophyll isn't the only pigment in a plant. Chlorophyll isn't even the only photosynthesizing pigment in a plant! (the other one, which I can't remember the name of, is purple). Not to mention a multitude of other pigments that are in a plant but are usually overwhelmed by the green.
Essentially, the answer is that flowers have always been colored, even before the advent of petals. While the colors may not be what we typically think of when we think of flowers, the fact remains that from the very start there have been a variety of pigments available to plants. Of course, once you have a pigment, mutations can occur that change the properties of the pigment, resulting in a change of color.
Slashdot Mirror
The law in the United States is that in order for speech to be considered Libel or Slander, then
it must not only be false, but there must be
intention to harm. Otherwise, it is merely opinion, which is protected. The UK, btw, has no such provision, which is why it is much easier to sue for Libel there.
Lacking a precedence makes this harder not easier....Slash is Vanilla Ice singing ICE ICE baby to Carmack's riff. No, Queen and their Label did not win that lawsuit.
Actually, the suit never went to trial, and supposedly they settled with Vanilla Ice out of court. see: here for details. So much for your lack of precedents.
Anyone remember the M2? That was the supposed killer machine that was bounced around from company to company (Including Matsushita, where it got its name, i think). This was around the time when the Saturn and the Playstation came out, back in 96 or so. Finally, it died a lonely, unmourned death, killed by the lack of any substantitive support by anyone.
The X-box strikes me as the same thing. So far, there are no verified accounts of what the machine will do, no pictures, no demos, no anything. For a machine that is supposed to come out in a year? Right...
Call me when the dev kits are released.
I think that it's a little bit dangerous to assume one way or the other what the NSA can do. Not to be paranoid or anything, but it is always possible that they may have techniques that are currently unknown to the public, as appears to have happened in the past. (the weakness of the particular permutation blocks in DES (given to IBM by the NSA )to a certain type of cryptanalysis is an very suggestive example. See Applied Cryptography for details).
Not only that, but if the NSA did have any interest in the files, and wanted to take a look at them, it isn't as if they would announce that fact to the world. Even decrypting it for another government agency (like the FBI) might bring up questions of what the capabilities of the NSA are. For example, if some hypothetical hard drives were encrypted with 128bit encryption, and the FBI knew what was in them, then it could be assumed that 128 bit encryption was "breakable", giving unwanted information to the public (and other countries). What could happen (and I'm in no way implying that this did happen) is that the NSA would take a look at the files, see if there was anything that interested them, and if not, then just give it back to the FBI, without telling them what was on it.
I'm not trying to be paranoid, but I'm just trying to point out that one shouldn't assume, on the basis of action or inaction in one certain case, what an adversary can (or can't) do.
IF mac programmers hate taking their hands off the keyboard, and IF mac programmers are using codewarrior so much (like they have a choice), then why haven't they put shortcuts in everywhere?
In fact, I even talked to some of the developers of codewarrior once, asked if they were going to put in more shortcuts in their debugger, and the response was not encouraging. It was as if the developers had not even THOUGHT about such things, so apparently they haven't been getting a lot of feedback asking for these things.
So, if the people who make the software (on macs) don't think about putting in shortcuts, and the people who use the software (on macs) don't ask for it, then I'm merely assuming that the people who use the software on macs do not wish to have shortcuts. I never said anything about the mental ability (or lack of) about anyone who uses or doesn't use a particular platform.
No kidding! I bought one copy to evaluate for our company and was astonished by how bad it is. The first problem is with the basic design of the IDE: It was hideous how many times you have to take your hands off the keyboard and go to the mouse. Now, I realize that for many Mac adherents, that isn't considered a "bad thing", but for anyone used to doing any CLE, it was such a major annoyance that I couldn't recommend it to anyone. Not to mention the cruddy way that it handled projects.
Actually, don't ask any Mexican astronomer, because most likely they won't care. May 5 doesn't signify an independence day, or anything else that would be really important to the generic Mexican. Instead, it merely celebrates a single victory, and is only really celebrated in the northern states of Mexico. Of course, Americans have picked up on it, and now it's probably much more popular in the states than in the whole of Mexico.
In fact, did you know that there have been *ZERO* studies that prove the 'theories' about Seratonin levels? This is absolutely wrong. There are many many studies that show the influence of serotonin on behaviour and mood. MDMA (ecstasy) selectively increases the amount of serotonin in the synapses (in a dramatic way), which accounts for the tremendous improvement in mood that characterizes the MDMA experience. Here's something that relates to the effects of serotonin: recently I read an interesting study about the effects of serotonin levels on social ranking in a group of monkeys. In particular, they found that the lower-status monkeys had lower levels of serotonin. However, when they increased the levels of serotonin in these monkeys, the monkeys' social status increased as well!
Take these needed genes, squish them together. From what I understand, you would have a pile of genes, not a living creature. Under what methods does a pile of molecules "come to life?" Does anyone have any resources or explanations, this is got me stumped.
"Life" is just a bunch of chemical reactions that turn a pile of molecules into more of those molecules. Nothing mystical or magical about it. All you need is to get a "pile of molecules" that will organize surrounding molecules to create copies of itself and you have "life". There is no "life energy" needed, except for the laws of physics which govern chemical reactions, hence no need to "breath life" into anything: just gather the right molecules together in the right way and let 'er rip!
emember how you felt when you traded baseball (or Magic, or Pokemon) cards as a youth? You may have got rid of your duplicates in exchange for cards you didn't have, but you may also have traded away rare and valuable cards for common ones. Trade can be beneficial, but it can also be harmful. This should be kept in mind.
In other words, "People aren't responsible enough to trade on their own, so we should have government regulate us so that we don't do anything that isn't in our best interest."
Phooey. I had enough of big brother in grade school.
In addition to the types you mentioned, you also have DNA that is not only useless to the organism, is also harmful. For example, a virus may insert itself latently inside the DNA of a germ cell, inadvertantly adding itself to the evolutionary pathway of that species. Should the DNA stay latent (or, more likely, undergo a mutation that keeps it from being expressed), it ends up being a "time bomb" waiting for the right time to be expressed.
:) But the thing to remember is that there are also evolutionary pressures for other DNA that doesn't necessarily jibe with our own interests.
Mice happen to have a lot of this viral DNA, which tend to act as oncogenes (cancer causing genes). Mice (just like everything else) accumulate mutations over their lifespans, and as the mouse gets older, the likelihood of a mutation activating an oncogene increases, until one day the mouse ends up with a tumor. This is a common cause of death for mice.
As you pointed out, Eukaryotes are big and complex. They are also still "works in progress". Some people seem to think that evolutionary pressures have created the lean, sleek, perfectly adapted creatures that humans are today
I read the Natvan link. It doesn't look like racist drivel.
The whole link discusses people solely in terms of their ethnicity. It insinuates (without evidence) a media conspiracy to slander "racially conscious" white people. It uses purely pejorative terms to describe Jews, and finishes with the statement that "it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break [Jewish media control]" (italics in original).
To me, making unsubstantiated, inflammatory speech constitutes "drivel". Speaking about things in a purely racial context is (as described in the paper, "racist". Hence I would agree with the previous comment that it is, indeed, Racist Drivel.
I've almost finished reading it, and I do recommend it. While it isn't really a technical book, it's really thought-provoking about how
technology is speeding everything up as time goes on. While others may get a different message from it, the book has caused me to look at how trying to do things as quickly as possible isn't always the best way. Or, for that matter, perhaps we should be concerned with always trying to do things the "best" way in the first place. At any rate, it will give a lot of food for thought.
I assume you claim that "13/11/1999" is good because it has the size of units in order. However, if you want that, then "1999/11/13" is actually a better representation, because in all other normal numerical methods, the larger units are to the left. However, if you wanted to represent it as "31/11/9991", then I would agree that you are at least being consistent.
On the other hand, if you want the date to be an abbreviation, then it makes sense to have the date order in the same way as the way that people normally state the date. In English, the normal method of stating the date is "November 13th, 1999", which would translate to an abbreviated "11/13/1999", which is indeed the way that Americans use. To be consistent, another abbreviation that is commonly used is "Nov. 13, 1999".
In other words, if you don't like the way Americans write the date, there is a reason that it is done that way, and at least it is consistent, as opposed to the bastardized "Larger Units to the Right" method that you seem to be proposing.
Developing a credible and scrupulous new religion is damn hard.
Even more difficult is developing a complete and consistent formal theory.
For example, starting with the very first question:
"...it seems to me that your claims against them are generally unproven and rash."
Is this the least biased way that this question could have been posed?
How about question #3:
"Why do you proclaim them to be 'dangerous hackers' while they do essentially the same thing you claim to do, except that they do so better, faster, and more professionally? "
At this point I was expecting to see someone asking the old "When did you stop beating your wife?" question...
I understand that the people who were writing the questions possibly had their own agendas, and their own biases, but isn't that the point of having an editor? The job of an editor is not to just cut down on the size of a question (as seemed to happen with questions 8-11), but also edit for content (as apparently didn't happen with 8-11 either). Attempting to make the questions a little less pejorative would probably have resulted in a better interview, and maybe even the answering of the questions themselves. While John Vranesevich is to blame for not even making an attempt to answer any of the serious questions, it is hard to blame him for taking issue with the questions that were posed to him.
Actually, selecting for quality of mate on the basis of looks is a practice that has existed for billions of years. Anything that has lasted that long must have a pretty good evolutionary basis behind it. It really isn't that strange of an idea when you realize that appearance isn't linked to a single gene but to many different genes throughout the genome.
In other words, appearance is an easy way to get a sample of the quality of the rest of the genome.
Actually, that is what they are doing.
Luciferase is an enzyme that reacts with a chemical called Luciferin to create light. The trees will have the genes to create the luciferase enzyme, but will still need a source of luciferin. The plan is to put luciferin in the water, and when a christmas tree sucks up the water into the leaves (Which it will still do after it has been cut), you can get the reaction.
Actually, pigs of either sex can be aggressive. Sometimes a pig will get mean, and you really have to be careful around it.
But the fact remains that testosterone gives a bad taste to meat, which is why they are castrated.
Oh, and about the fat content in beef... That is... bull . It is in the best interest of a meat producer to have more muscle, since muscle is denser than fat, and you can put more weight on an animal. On the other hand, you want fat in the meat because it makes the meat taste better.
Actually, the reason why mature dog is tough and stringy is not because of the eating of other animals (snake is pretty good), but because it is old. Older animals have old muscles, meaning that the muscle fibers aren't growing, and aren't as flexible as those of a younger animal. Since when you're eating meat, you're eating muscle, tougher, less flexible muscles translates to tougher, stringier meat. This is why lamb (young sheep) tastes so much different than mutton (old sheep), why we eat pullets (young chickens) and not old chickens, and why veal (young cow) tastes SO good...
Incidentally, another factor that affects how meat tastes is Testosterone. Testosterone gives a funny (bad) taste to meat, as well as affecting the texture by making it tougher and stringier. This is male meat animals, like sheep, pigs, and cows, are castrated at an early age.
and the reliance on Europeans for many critical components on board the craft.
:)
You really had me going until this part
But every little bit raises the rate of birth defects (or cancer, etc etc etc), so I stand by my question-- are YOU willing to have a child with a birth defect (or cancer) in order to save a few million on whatever tech project is under question?
Your argument is flawed because you're setting up a false choice. If you put up a realistic description the risk vs. reward you might have something to discuss.
If you want to see what the first flowers looked like, then all you have to do is look into the fossil record, and see what plants existed. There are even quite a few plants that have managed to last even into the present day (ferns, gingko trees).
Ummm... None? One?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking... The first flowers were (and are, in the case of grasses) just a specialized part of the plant, which means that the first flowers had all the same pigments as the rest of the plant. Of course, this means that they were green. Not an exciting color, but a color nonetheless. Of course, chlorophyll isn't the only pigment in a plant. Chlorophyll isn't even the only photosynthesizing pigment in a plant! (the other one, which I can't remember the name of, is purple). Not to mention a multitude of other pigments that are in a plant but are usually overwhelmed by the green.
Essentially, the answer is that flowers have always been colored, even before the advent of petals. While the colors may not be what we typically think of when we think of flowers, the fact remains that from the very start there have been a variety of pigments available to plants. Of course, once you have a pigment, mutations can occur that change the properties of the pigment, resulting in a change of color.