it turns that some of my body thetans had gotten trapped at the electrical outlet, and any kind of a disruption to the old AC current would cause them to send out signals that would wake my laptop. I couldn't figure out what was going on, so I called my counselor at the Church of Scientology. He sent over some of their scientists, and they turned my place upside down with a special device, like an e-meter, that detects escaped body thetans. I'd recommend you give them a call. It'll only cost you about US $15,000.
I don't expect much else from companies, and i think you're probably right that most other companies in the same position would do the same -- which is not to say that Microsoft isn't in a league of its own for other reasons. How sad it is that people and companies are like this. This endemic selfishess will be our downfall. But maybe i'm just a bit of a pessimist...
Yes, but I bet they don't consider their hundreds of 'trading partners' to be third parties -- i.e., pay us a small fee, and you are no longer a third party.
Using a free service doesn't mean that you have no rights. The price of the service and the rights you do or don't have are totally independent.
What amounts to you having no rights, though, is that you probably clicked through an agreement in order to activate the account that said microsoft is free to change the terms and conditions of the account at any time, without notice. It's fucked up, and totally unethical, but borderline legal -- what else would you expect from Microsoft?
... that another researcher tracked (using satellite images) how contrails of military aircraft (the only aircraft flying for those three days) grew from the width of an airplane wing "in a matter of hours into cloud banks that covered 20,000 square kilometers." It hardly seems possible for that to happen in a matter of hours.
After reading this, I wish I'd have thought to look up at the skies back then and pay more attention to the weather, though I guess we all had more important concerns.
It's one of those counter-intuitive things I seem to graps intuitively.
Unlike spelling;-)
what's wrong with non-textbooks?
on
Linux Textbooks?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
...this question keeps poping up - 'What would we use for textbooks?'
What is wrong with using non-textbooks and writing a lab manual with exercises. I have taken computer classes before that didn't use textbooks -- and I've taken classes that did use awful textbooks, where we would have been better off using a non-textbook.
As far as OpenOffice goes, I've just started using it after using Word for a long time, and I find it intuitive enough (and enough like Word) that a textbook on using it would be a waste of paper.
There are plenty of good FAQs out there, which are good learning resources. And isn't it the job of the instructor to design assignments, labs, and testbanks? In subjects other than the sciences, this is certainly the case, so I don't really see your concerns being a problem.
You're right! If you look at the source for both, it is absolutely certain that somebody copied from somebody else and didn't even make an attempt to disguise the fact.
yes, I totally agree. I think it will be cheaper to hire another 2 US-based programmers when you include *all* the costs. However, management sometimes has difficulty including costs that excel doesn't have a 'wizard' for -- like mythical man-month issues. So they compare 100% of the costs to do it in-house with 30% of the costs to outsource it to India.
i agree with your sentiment, but in reality, 2 US programmers' salaries could get you at least 10 Indian programmers on the Indian subcontinent. That's hard to sell to management who only see $ signs and think that a programmer is like a lego block that you can interchange anywhere, all working as well as any other.
From the article you linked to: "Fears that the production of strangelets would lead to some runaway reaction in which more and more ordinary matter would be turned into strange matter, with catastrophic effects for our planet, have been largely dispelled (Dar et al., Physics Letters B, 16 December 1999; and Jaffe et al., Review of Modern Physics, Oct 2000; Select Articles) partly by pointing to the fact that nature has always been producing heavy-ion collisions in amid cosmic ray interactions. "
This is not the kind of danger we're talking about. Why they might be dangerous is that a ton of matter going through your brain probably isn't a good thing, regardless of what does or doesn't happen when strange matter interacts with ordinary matter.
Okay, tell me that again when a 1-ton strangelet rips through the roof of your house and goes through you from head to toe. Which part of that doesn't sound dangerous, or plausible (albeit unlikely)?
No one is suggesting that retyping a book wouldn't be theft.
That is exactly what I was suggesting. Theft is when you steal something, which means that you have some good that was stolen -- i.e., taken not copied. My point is that I think it is a really sloppy use of language to say that copying is theft. Copying is copying; theft is theft.
Why does it matter? Well, when we start being sloppy with words, we get sloppy with our thoughts, and are no longer able to think about an issue rationally.
I would argue that you can't steal intellectual property, and you can't steal code (unless you copy and deprive somebody of the original code). I'm not saying it's not wrong, just that it's not theft and we should be more careful with our words.
So I guess by your logic, if I 'reverse engineer' a book -- say by typing it out word by word, then create a book that contains the original book, I have stolen something. No, that is not theft; it is copying. The goods still exist, so they can't have been stolen. The OED defines theft as:
The action of a thief; the felonious taking away of the personal goods of another; larceny; also, with a and pl., an instance of this.
In my book example, the 'crime' would be 'copyright infringement', which is a very different thing than theft. Similarly, we are not talking about theft here. It may be a crime under the DMCA, but that's another issue: still not theft.
As far as speed reading goes, I would recommend you take a look at http://www.the-reading-edge.com/. I went through their program and can know scan/. at amazing speed. For example, I read this whole page in 2 seconds, with perfect comprehension.
My only point is that to say "somehow consciousness ultimately reduces to brains 'braining'" or "consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain" are *utterly* vacuous explanations -- that is, they have no explanatory power at all. If it is comforting to think that you know something with certainty about a topic on which experts vehemently disagree, then go ahead, but that is little different than religious faith -- which also assumes before the evidence is in.
I don't believe in spirits or Cartesian minds that interact through the pineal gland, but that doesn't mean that the problem-riddled naive reductionism that passes for science is the only alternative. If you are curious to see some of the problems that many reductionisms have, check out any book on the philosophy of mind. Pure reductionism has not been taken seriously for quite a while. Unfortunately, just as most scientists still think of the world naively in terms of newtonian strict determinacy, they think of the mind in terms that were abandoned long ago with behaviorism. Experts know otherwise. If you want somebody whose work I do respect, check out the work of the late Francisco Varela -- you will find a much more nuanced view of consciousness that doesn't strictly reduce the consciousness away.
Shown below is a relatively simple INTERCAL program which will read in 32-bit unsigned integers, treat them as signed, 2's-complement numbers, and print out their absolute values. The program exits if the absolute value is zero.
DO (5) NEXT (5) DO FORGET #1 PLEASE WRITE IN:1 DO.1 <- 'V":1~'#32768$#0'"$#1'~#3 DO (1) NEXT DO:1 <- "'V":1~'#65535$#0'"$#65535' ~'#0$#65535'"$"'V":1~'#0$#65535'" $#65535'~'#0$#65535'" DO:2 <- #1 PLEASE DO (4) NEXT (4) DO FORGET #1 DO.1 <- "'V":1~'#65535$#0'"$":2~'#65535 $#0'"'~'#0$#65535'"$"'V":1~'#0 $#65535'"$":2~'#65535$#0'"'~'#0$#65535'" DO (1) NEXT DO:2 <- ":2~'#0$#65535'" $"'":2~'#65535$#0'"$#0'~'#32767$#1'" DO (4) NEXT (2) DO RESUME.1 (1) PLEASE DO (2) NEXT PLEASE FORGET #1 DO READ OUT:1 PLEASE DO.1 <- 'V"':1~:1'~#1"$#1'~#3 DO (3) NEXT PLEASE DO (5) NEXT (3) DO (2) NEXT PLEASE GIVE UP
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks.
it turns that some of my body thetans had gotten trapped at the electrical outlet, and any kind of a disruption to the old AC current would cause them to send out signals that would wake my laptop. I couldn't figure out what was going on, so I called my counselor at the Church of Scientology. He sent over some of their scientists, and they turned my place upside down with a special device, like an e-meter, that detects escaped body thetans. I'd recommend you give them a call. It'll only cost you about US $15,000.
I don't expect much else from companies, and i think you're probably right that most other companies in the same position would do the same -- which is not to say that Microsoft isn't in a league of its own for other reasons. How sad it is that people and companies are like this. This endemic selfishess will be our downfall. But maybe i'm just a bit of a pessimist...
Yes, but I bet they don't consider their hundreds of 'trading partners' to be third parties -- i.e., pay us a small fee, and you are no longer a third party.
What amounts to you having no rights, though, is that you probably clicked through an agreement in order to activate the account that said microsoft is free to change the terms and conditions of the account at any time, without notice. It's fucked up, and totally unethical, but borderline legal -- what else would you expect from Microsoft?
So I thought i'd be a karmawhore for a change...
After reading this, I wish I'd have thought to look up at the skies back then and pay more attention to the weather, though I guess we all had more important concerns.
Should have read: oh... <ducking-in-shame>
oh...
Unlike spelling ;-)
What is wrong with using non-textbooks and writing a lab manual with exercises. I have taken computer classes before that didn't use textbooks -- and I've taken classes that did use awful textbooks, where we would have been better off using a non-textbook.
As far as OpenOffice goes, I've just started using it after using Word for a long time, and I find it intuitive enough (and enough like Word) that a textbook on using it would be a waste of paper.
There are plenty of good FAQs out there, which are good learning resources. And isn't it the job of the instructor to design assignments, labs, and testbanks? In subjects other than the sciences, this is certainly the case, so I don't really see your concerns being a problem.
You're right! If you look at the source for both, it is absolutely certain that somebody copied from somebody else and didn't even make an attempt to disguise the fact.
yes, I totally agree. I think it will be cheaper to hire another 2 US-based programmers when you include *all* the costs. However, management sometimes has difficulty including costs that excel doesn't have a 'wizard' for -- like mythical man-month issues. So they compare 100% of the costs to do it in-house with 30% of the costs to outsource it to India.
i agree with your sentiment, but in reality, 2 US programmers' salaries could get you at least 10 Indian programmers on the Indian subcontinent. That's hard to sell to management who only see $ signs and think that a programmer is like a lego block that you can interchange anywhere, all working as well as any other.
This is not the kind of danger we're talking about. Why they might be dangerous is that a ton of matter going through your brain probably isn't a good thing, regardless of what does or doesn't happen when strange matter interacts with ordinary matter.
Okay, tell me that again when a 1-ton strangelet rips through the roof of your house and goes through you from head to toe. Which part of that doesn't sound dangerous, or plausible (albeit unlikely)?
That is exactly what I was suggesting. Theft is when you steal something, which means that you have some good that was stolen -- i.e., taken not copied. My point is that I think it is a really sloppy use of language to say that copying is theft. Copying is copying; theft is theft.
Why does it matter? Well, when we start being sloppy with words, we get sloppy with our thoughts, and are no longer able to think about an issue rationally.
I would argue that you can't steal intellectual property, and you can't steal code (unless you copy and deprive somebody of the original code). I'm not saying it's not wrong, just that it's not theft and we should be more careful with our words.
For your information, reverse engineering is not theft.
As far as speed reading goes, I would recommend you take a look at http://www.the-reading-edge.com/. I went through their program and can know scan /. at amazing speed. For example, I read this whole page in 2 seconds, with perfect comprehension.
on comp.lang.java.programmer somebody said that 1.5 will have _real_ enums, so soon enough.
Indeed. Thanks a million. I was getting 10 k from other sites, and managed to download the whole file from you in 5 minutes. thanks.
I don't believe in spirits or Cartesian minds that interact through the pineal gland, but that doesn't mean that the problem-riddled naive reductionism that passes for science is the only alternative. If you are curious to see some of the problems that many reductionisms have, check out any book on the philosophy of mind. Pure reductionism has not been taken seriously for quite a while. Unfortunately, just as most scientists still think of the world naively in terms of newtonian strict determinacy, they think of the mind in terms that were abandoned long ago with behaviorism. Experts know otherwise. If you want somebody whose work I do respect, check out the work of the late Francisco Varela -- you will find a much more nuanced view of consciousness that doesn't strictly reduce the consciousness away.
Here's a sample:
except that, no, psychologists don't operate on minds. they talk to people.