Hey, don't get me wrong -- I love Dover and have about 20 of their books, but the whole point is that these books are *classics* of science that Dover has brought back from out-of-print limbo -- Pauling's General Chemistry is a fine work and better written than most textbooks, but it is obviously not what is used as a textbook in chemistry classes of the 21st century.
Well, Joe Smith claimed he had found tablets of gold with holy writings -- he claimed that his "Book of Mormon" was a translation of these. Of course these tablets somehow "disappeared" before anyone but a few devotees actually had a chance to verify their existence. Perhaps that's the problem with SCO. The infringing lines of code were written on similar tablets....
Do you even know who Eisenhower was? Here's a hint: before he was a President, he was a General.
Yes. That's the point. Real generals don't love war -- notice that the only person in the Bush admin that wasn't too keen on the whole Iraq fiasco was Powell, who realized that it was going to be another Vietnam-style guerilla war. It's easy to support war when your only experience is watching CNN.
Before you try to play the history card, make sure it's in your hand
This is just too funny. Really, had you never heard of the Eisenhower's famous "cross of iron" speech? Here's a longer quote which brings in the stupidity of wasting scientists on designing weapons, thus tying it to the article we're discussing
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. - Dwight Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
Hey, the US government is also trying to ban Model Rockets so why not? If it's fun and geeky, congresscritters, who almost always were members of the Debate Team and not the Science Club in high school, will try to ban it under some BS "terrorism" excuse.
It isn't a DOS emulator -- SCUMM games are written in a cross-platform format -- that way LucasArts didn't need to write, for example, completely different versions of a game for DOS and Amiga -- they just had to write a SCUMM interpreter for each platform. It's basically the same strategy that the Infocom people did for text adventures like Zork.
This is like saying "Well, the makers of the Terminator movie have a copyright on that movie, so they can sue anyone that makes any story that even resembles a plot where robots take over the world."
That isnt how copyright works, even in copyrights current fucked up state.
Actually, it is somewhat ironic that you use the Terminator example, because the SF author Harlan Ellison sued James Cameron over copyright infringement -- the "crime"? That Cameron made a movie that involved robot killers going back in time. Apparently Ellison thought he owned that hackneyed concept. Cameron even settled with him.
How is this any different from someone talking to the passenger sitting next to them?
Well, the majority of people aren't sitting next to people they know, so they *aren't* talking. A cell phone means that people who like to chatter can always find someone they know to chatter with. More people chattering means the ambient noise level goes up, which means the people chatter even louder -- a nasty feedback loop.
As long as you never (a) reveal information you shouldn't have accessed, nor (b) base a decision on such information, it is not a problem for me. Possession of information is never wrong {claiming otherwise creates the concept of thoughtcrime}, though it can certainly be misused.
Well, every government in the world would disagree with you. Saying you photocopied those Top Secret stealth submarine plans merely for your own curiosity won't stop you from doing time.
She's just jealous because when you say "Potter", more people think "Harry Potter" rather than "Frederica Potter":-)
Hey -- there could be a crossover -- maybe Frederica could marry Harry! Certainly he'd be better than the losers like Nigel Reiver that Frederica normally goes out with...
So... why in the world would anyone want to use a format that ties them to the computer?? With a paperback, I can read it anywhere, read for as long as I want without having to change batteries, and even pass the book onto a friend
Well, I don't use MS-Reader myself (For commercial e-books I like the cross-platform Mobipocket), but a major reason I like e-books is I like to read them on my PDA -- not to save money. I carry my PDA around anyway, and having e-books means less to carry. I would purchase all my books as e-books if they were available as such.
One of the main hobbies of people in Paris is sitting in sidewalk cafes watching people go by. If this invention catches on, what will happen? Will people sit in the cafes and people will go wooshing by, or will the cafe also be on the moving part?
That way, this system'd allow for people who speak totally different languages to understand eachother by describing the meaning of words using a universal system. At least, that's what I think it does. Can anyone confirm?
Certainly that's what Umberto Eco seems to think in his non-fiction "Search for the Perfect Language" -- that is, it was in the same spirit as something like Volapuk or Esperanto, intended to transcend national language barriers. Of course, Wilkins was bit more mystical than the creators of those later languages, and also believed that Real Characters somehow captured the mystical essense of the things described.
surprise surprise, but the maths we create is used by physicists (about a 50->100 year time lag), which in turn is applied and picked up by engineers/chemists/biologists (another 10->50 year lag) which ends up being some new device or revolution for society to play with. you kill off maths, you kill off science as a whole.
Well, math is important, but some engineers/chemists/biologists aren't exactly mathematically illiterate you know...
parent is a troll
No, it's just that I don't dig that whole "the beauty of this is that it is absolutely useless to anybody" vibe.
So what if the mathematicians work primarily because they enjoy math? So what if the practical applications that come of it are just a side effect? We still get those benifits; does it really matter that those benifits weren't the primary purpose of doing the work?
Well, I guess I'm somewhat annoyed by the way Hollywood likes to present scientists -- as people similar to the way the article described mathematicans -- that is people that just like puzzles, not worrying about the consequences, even if it means creating some evil world-destroying weapon in the process. That always struck me as a rather offensive stereotype.
But the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics in explaining the world, as the physicist Eugene Wigner once put it, is a minor motivation at best for those immersed in the field. Most mathematicians say they are in it for the math itself, for the delirious quest for patterns, the thrill of the detective chase and the lure of beautiful answers.
I sure hope this isn't really true. If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them? I certainly know that a major motivation for my career in science is that understanding the world through science will help people, cure diseases, etc.
And of course there is the real reason we own home computers (and yes, I already mentioned it) : games. Flight simulators. Everquest (et.al MMORPGs) MechWarrior 2/3/4. Battles of Destiny. Yes, I know that Q3 is available on Linux, as is Unreal (well I believe it is) and the UT series. Anything else?
Nethack and MAME. Really, those are just about the only two forms of computer entertainment I need, and they are certainly available on Linux (and Windows, and Mac, and even PocketPCs)
Better off? Yes, the influence of Tolkien is hard to avoid today, but did the world really need a series that was so close to the original that a one-for-one mapping of characters was possible?
Re:Liberalism != (Communism || Socialism)
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
The modern Republicans are the ones advocating radical changes.
No, they want to make *reactionary* changes -- that is, they want things they way they were in earlier times.
The GOP wants to tear away Affirmative Action
Guess what? Before the 1960s, there was no Affirmative Action.
attack Iraq,
Attacking a country that isn't attacking you in order to get its resources is hardly novel. It's just good old 19th century imperalism, just like the 1898 war against Spain. Then, the hawks claimed that Spain attacked a US ship (a falsehood). Now they claim Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (apparently also a falsehood).
create new government institution (dept of homeland security)
In the 1950's, when commies rather than muslims were the enemy, there was *exactly* such a department. It was called the Department of Civil Defense. It was a waste of money.
decrease taxes
Decreased taxes means decreased social programs. Before FDR, social programs hardly existed, but yes, taxes were lower.
Re:Liberalism != (Communism || Socialism)
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you want to understand genuine liberalism, read John Locke, Adam Smith, or basically anything written by the founding fathers of the US. If you want to understand the bullshit that people call liberalism today, read the Communist Manifesto.
As has been said many times -- it only takes twenty years for liberal to become a conservative, even without changing a single idea. The whole *point* of liberalism is to be avant garde. Adam Smith, believe it or not, was a *radical*. Being a Smith fan today is just as silly as being an Velvet Underground fan today -- what was once outrageous is just old hat today. Heck, even the conservative economists at the University of Chicago don't totally subscribe to the idea of the free market anymore. And Marx is over 100 years out of date, btw.
Breeding is not equal to genetical engineering. There is no way to do transgenetic breeding, iow. to introduce genes from one species into another species by breeding
It is well known that genes move across species through entirely natural processes. Trans-species viruses pick up and deposit genes, as many cells can take up DNA directly. Really, read about horizontal gene transfer -- it's one of the most interesting things in molecular evolution. And when the HGT happens in gamates, it can spread just like any other gene. Greenpeace (and maybe your pastor) may not like to hear this, but it is just the way nature works.
That being said, it is easy to exaggerate the amount of HGT. Paralogy (the loss of a gene in one lineage and conservation in another) can cause similar results to HGT.
Surely stuff like this couldn't be the cause, could it?
Well, if you really think that vacuuming and adjusting your car seats gives you lots of exercise, I supose so. On the other hand, I tend to think that leaving these tasks to robots and going to the gym instead might be more effective...
Imagine the fame for being the first person to be fired for buying IBM.
Old news. fortune(1) has the following quote from the WSJ in 1989.
Although it is still a truism in industry that "no one was ever fired for buying IBM," Bill O'Neil, the chief technology officer at Drexel Burnham Lambert, says he knows for a fact that someone has been fired for just that reason. He knows it because he fired the guy.
"He made a bad decision, and what it came down to was, 'Well, I bought it because I figured it was safe to buy IBM,'" Mr. O'Neil says. "I said, 'No. Wrong. Game over. Next contestant, please.'"
-- The Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1989
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I do take my iPod to the gym. Really, what else is an MP3 player good for? If I'm at my computer, I can listen to the MP3s from there, no?
Hey, don't get me wrong -- I love Dover and have about 20 of their books, but the whole point is that these books are *classics* of science that Dover has brought back from out-of-print limbo -- Pauling's General Chemistry is a fine work and better written than most textbooks, but it is obviously not what is used as a textbook in chemistry classes of the 21st century.
Well, Joe Smith claimed he had found tablets of gold with holy writings -- he claimed that his "Book of Mormon" was a translation of these. Of course these tablets somehow "disappeared" before anyone but a few devotees actually had a chance to verify their existence. Perhaps that's the problem with SCO. The infringing lines of code were written on similar tablets....
That wasn't Monroe -- that was Stephen Jay Gould playing himself!
Do you even know who Eisenhower was? Here's a hint: before he was a President, he was a General.
Yes. That's the point. Real generals don't love war -- notice that the only person in the Bush admin that wasn't too keen on the whole Iraq fiasco was Powell, who realized that it was going to be another Vietnam-style guerilla war. It's easy to support war when your only experience is watching CNN.
Before you try to play the history card, make sure it's in your hand
This is just too funny. Really, had you never heard of the Eisenhower's famous "cross of iron" speech? Here's a longer quote which brings in the stupidity of wasting scientists on designing weapons, thus tying it to the article we're discussing
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
Hey, the US government is also trying to ban Model Rockets so why not? If it's fun and geeky, congresscritters, who almost always were members of the Debate Team and not the Science Club in high school, will try to ban it under some BS "terrorism" excuse.
It isn't a DOS emulator -- SCUMM games are written in a cross-platform format -- that way LucasArts didn't need to write, for example, completely different versions of a game for DOS and Amiga -- they just had to write a SCUMM interpreter for each platform. It's basically the same strategy that the Infocom people did for text adventures like Zork.
This is like saying "Well, the makers of the Terminator movie have a copyright on that movie, so they can sue anyone that makes any story that even resembles a plot where robots take over the world."
That isnt how copyright works, even in copyrights current fucked up state.
Actually, it is somewhat ironic that you use the Terminator example, because the SF author Harlan Ellison sued James Cameron over copyright infringement -- the "crime"? That Cameron made a movie that involved robot killers going back in time. Apparently Ellison thought he owned that hackneyed concept. Cameron even settled with him.
How is this any different from someone talking to the passenger sitting next to them?
Well, the majority of people aren't sitting next to people they know, so they *aren't* talking. A cell phone means that people who like to chatter can always find someone they know to chatter with. More people chattering means the ambient noise level goes up, which means the people chatter even louder -- a nasty feedback loop.
He is going to create Imperial fighters for ever piece of formal wear except bow ties...
As long as you never (a) reveal information you shouldn't have accessed, nor (b) base a decision on such information, it is not a problem for me. Possession of information is never wrong {claiming otherwise creates the concept of thoughtcrime}, though it can certainly be misused.
Well, every government in the world would disagree with you. Saying you photocopied those Top Secret stealth submarine plans merely for your own curiosity won't stop you from doing time.
She's just jealous because when you say "Potter", more people think "Harry Potter" rather than "Frederica Potter" :-)
Hey -- there could be a crossover -- maybe Frederica could marry Harry! Certainly he'd be better than the losers like Nigel Reiver that Frederica normally goes out with...
So... why in the world would anyone want to use a format that ties them to the computer?? With a paperback, I can read it anywhere, read for as long as I want without having to change batteries, and even pass the book onto a friend
Well, I don't use MS-Reader myself (For commercial e-books I like the cross-platform Mobipocket), but a major reason I like e-books is I like to read them on my PDA -- not to save money. I carry my PDA around anyway, and having e-books means less to carry. I would purchase all my books as e-books if they were available as such.
One of the main hobbies of people in Paris is sitting in sidewalk cafes watching people go by. If this invention catches on, what will happen? Will people sit in the cafes and people will go wooshing by, or will the cafe also be on the moving part?
That way, this system'd allow for people who speak totally different languages to understand eachother by describing the meaning of words using a universal system. At least, that's what I think it does. Can anyone confirm?
Certainly that's what Umberto Eco seems to think in his non-fiction "Search for the Perfect Language" -- that is, it was in the same spirit as something like Volapuk or Esperanto, intended to transcend national language barriers. Of course, Wilkins was bit more mystical than the creators of those later languages, and also believed that Real Characters somehow captured the mystical essense of the things described.
surprise surprise, but the maths we create is used by physicists (about a 50->100 year time lag), which in turn is applied and picked up by engineers/chemists/biologists (another 10->50 year lag) which ends up being some new device or revolution for society to play with. you kill off maths, you kill off science as a whole.
;-)
:-)
Well, math is important, but some engineers/chemists/biologists aren't exactly mathematically illiterate you know...
parent is a troll
No, it's just that I don't dig that whole "the beauty of this is that it is absolutely useless to anybody" vibe.
very VERY short sighted (see his home page
Yeah -10.25 right, -4.0 left.
So what if the mathematicians work primarily because they enjoy math? So what if the practical applications that come of it are just a side effect? We still get those benifits; does it really matter that those benifits weren't the primary purpose of doing the work?
Well, I guess I'm somewhat annoyed by the way Hollywood likes to present scientists -- as people similar to the way the article described mathematicans -- that is people that just like puzzles, not worrying about the consequences, even if it means creating some evil world-destroying weapon in the process. That always struck me as a rather offensive stereotype.
But the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics in explaining the world, as the physicist Eugene Wigner once put it, is a minor motivation at best for those immersed in the field. Most mathematicians say they are in it for the math itself, for the delirious quest for patterns, the thrill of the detective chase and the lure of beautiful answers.
I sure hope this isn't really true. If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world, why should society fund them? I certainly know that a major motivation for my career in science is that understanding the world through science will help people, cure diseases, etc.
And of course there is the real reason we own home computers (and yes, I already mentioned it) : games. Flight simulators. Everquest (et.al MMORPGs) MechWarrior 2/3/4. Battles of Destiny. Yes, I know that Q3 is available on Linux, as is Unreal (well I believe it is) and the UT series. Anything else?
Nethack and MAME. Really, those are just about the only two forms of computer entertainment I need, and they are certainly available on Linux (and Windows, and Mac, and even PocketPCs)
2) Where would we be without the Shannara books?
Better off? Yes, the influence of Tolkien is hard to avoid today, but did the world really need a series that was so close to the original that a one-for-one mapping of characters was possible?
The modern Republicans are the ones advocating radical changes.
No, they want to make *reactionary* changes -- that is, they want things they way they were in earlier times.
The GOP wants to tear away Affirmative Action
Guess what? Before the 1960s, there was no Affirmative Action.
attack Iraq,
Attacking a country that isn't attacking you in order to get its resources is hardly novel. It's just good old 19th century imperalism, just like the 1898 war against Spain. Then, the hawks claimed that Spain attacked a US ship (a falsehood). Now they claim Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (apparently also a falsehood).
create new government institution (dept of homeland security)
In the 1950's, when commies rather than muslims were the enemy, there was *exactly* such a department. It was called the Department of Civil Defense. It was a waste of money.
decrease taxes
Decreased taxes means decreased social programs. Before FDR, social programs hardly existed, but yes, taxes were lower.
If you want to understand genuine liberalism, read John Locke, Adam Smith, or basically anything written by the founding fathers of the US. If you want to understand the bullshit that people call liberalism today, read the Communist Manifesto.
As has been said many times -- it only takes twenty years for liberal to become a conservative, even without changing a single idea. The whole *point* of liberalism is to be avant garde. Adam Smith, believe it or not, was a *radical*. Being a Smith fan today is just as silly as being an Velvet Underground fan today -- what was once outrageous is just old hat today. Heck, even the conservative economists at the University of Chicago don't totally subscribe to the idea of the free market anymore. And Marx is over 100 years out of date, btw.
Breeding is not equal to genetical engineering. There is no way to do transgenetic breeding, iow. to introduce genes from one species into another species by breeding
It is well known that genes move across species through entirely natural processes. Trans-species viruses pick up and deposit genes, as many cells can take up DNA directly. Really, read about horizontal gene transfer -- it's one of the most interesting things in molecular evolution. And when the HGT happens in gamates, it can spread just like any other gene. Greenpeace (and maybe your pastor) may not like to hear this, but it is just the way nature works.
That being said, it is easy to exaggerate the amount of HGT. Paralogy (the loss of a gene in one lineage and conservation in another) can cause similar results to HGT.
Surely stuff like this couldn't be the cause, could it?
Well, if you really think that vacuuming and adjusting your car seats gives you lots of exercise, I supose so. On the other hand, I tend to think that leaving these tasks to robots and going to the gym instead might be more effective...
Imagine the fame for being the first person to be fired for buying IBM.
Old news. fortune(1) has the following quote from the WSJ in 1989.
Although it is still a truism in industry that "no one was ever fired for
buying IBM," Bill O'Neil, the chief technology officer at Drexel Burnham
Lambert, says he knows for a fact that someone has been fired for just that
reason. He knows it because he fired the guy.
"He made a bad decision, and what it came down to was, 'Well, I
bought it because I figured it was safe to buy IBM,'" Mr. O'Neil says.
"I said, 'No. Wrong. Game over. Next contestant, please.'"
-- The Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1989