I have a TV tuner card which takes the feed from my cable box.
Does anyone know of any software that would enable me to unscramble cable signals in software? The tuner controller runs from software, but I can't use my computer as a TIVO b/c I have to use the cablebox to get anything.
Various complaints about the blurb
on
The Taste of Pain
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Most of the genes that play a role in behavior are explored in mice, and were discovered in the mouse genome project; in mice, you don't need to worry about inflicting only tolerable amounts of pain. So, most developments in neurogenetics come from the mouse genome project, or the C. elegans (a little tiny worm my colleagues upstairs like to study) genome project, not the human genome project.
The human genome project, as yet, has not produced a stirring new mandate for nature vs. nurture. In fact, since human beings have less than half as many different individual genes as was expected (we have less than 50,000; before the genome came out 100,000 was the most popular prediction) a great deal of our complexity/diversity must arise from something other genetics. That is to say, more complexity arising during our development, less complexity "pre-programmed". The behavior of little tiny worms is almost entirely controlled by genetics, but I wouldn't generalize from that.
Of course, we are going to find genes that influence our behavior in complex ways. There is no doubt about this; it was already known, for example, that some genes existed that impart a predilection for alchoholism. Finding such genes, individually, and further clarifying what they do should NOT be taken as an indicator of what role genes, in general, may play in specifying the diversity observed in human consciousness and behavior.
You're joking but I will answer you seriously anyway.
Figuring out, say, how to identify cellular characteristics common among a specific ethnic group and use that to build a target : Priceless.
This is not even possible. Such characteristics simply do not exist. Certain sections of the population have a preponderence for certain alleles of certain genes (an allele is a particular form of a gene). That is all. I know of very few such alleles which might, even conceivably, be used to target a biological agent.
If Techniques that astoundingly dangerous were actually awaiting publication, I could see how a moral individual might conclude that scientific secrecy was an acceptable evil.
Many movies which target geeks have been commercially successful because they appeal to many people who are not geeks, and because they appeal to geeks especially well. I'm saying, based on this trailer, that no one is going to want to see this movie.
It is manifestly obvious, to me, that this movie is going to lack broad based appeal, liken the Turkeys that I mentioned.
Alternatively, maybe they're hoping to duplicate the out-of-control appeal of Dick Tracy.
No one is going to see this movie.
I might, some of my friends definitely will, and some other slashdotters, but this movie is going to bomb. I want to know how a group of people can make decisions which are, at the same time, totally driven by greed and, at the same time, so obviously directed towards utter commercial failure.
Actually, the parent is pretty funny this time. Piss him off by modding him up.
I'd like to see anime biographies, myself. My life story should be told the way it should have gone down - with ninjas, giant robots and pink haired bisexual schoolgirls.
As the production costs for cartoons continue to go down, and as the aggragate disposable income of the human race continues to rise (assuming it isn't squandered in senseless war, of course) I think you'll see real expansion of the medium. I'd like to see more educational/historical work, along the lines of the Cartoon History of the Universe and it's ilk, in animated form.
I'm a firm believer that educational material should be "targeted" at adults. Nothing then stops children from watching it. This is why the Cartoon History of the Universe is good (was good when I was a kid,) and all this supposedly-history-teaching crap they show on TV recently has been such crap (Hysteria, I think it is called, is sub-dreadful.)
It's not an inherent limitation of the form. TV is plenty childish without extra effort put in to dumb it down.
Salesman: Look, the new Cyrius Cybernetics keyboards can talk! Describe whatever layout you want, and the AI in the keyboard will implement it. His name is Marvin.
Customer: Hello, Marvin. What are all those blinking lights for?
Marvin: They hurt.
Salesman: Shut up, Marvin. They're primarily decorative, but Marvin can assign them to whatever LOCK keys you specify.
Marvin: I've had this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side. I mean, I've asked to have them replaced, but nobody listens.
Customer: It seems unhappy.
Salesman: Well, Marvin would feel much better if someone took him home, if you take my drift.
Marvin: No I wouldn't.
Customer: Are you sure it will work with my Compaq 8000, at home?
Salesman: Definitely.
Marvin: They plugged me into a compaq once.
Customer: And what happened?
Marvin: It committed suicide.
Customer: Why are you so unhappy?
Marvin: I've got a brain the size of a planet, and look at what they've got me doing.
Customer: Do any of the peripherals here have better personalities?
Salesman: Oh, no...
Speaker: I wanted to let you know what a joy and a privelege it's been to make error sounds for your computer enjoyment! It's been really wonderful! Would you guys like to hear some public domain music? I used to be an elevator!
If Congress is going to force censorware down our throats, we ought to have open-source censorware, which is open to total customization by the user (hence "librarian"), which doesn't generate profits for the parasitic censorship industry, and which doesn't depend on an encrypted or obfuscated list. This ought to be easy - an internet explorer plugin, a list of regular expressions (to recognise either URLs, tags, or the html itself,) ought to do it.
I started up such a project and then dropped it almost immediately because the CIPA was under injunction, so why should I bother?
Anyway, now I don't have time (I'm a graduate student, gearing up for Orals), but I really think someone ought to do this.
Will the recording process suffer due to the hurry?
As a general rule, if a song takes five minutes to play, it will also take five minutes to record it. You can leave the mic on for an extra 10 minutes but that won't improve the sound quality.
My experience with all this is 1) Basically amateur and 2) totally restricted to classical music. Nevertheless, I will jump in!
Studio tracks have a couple of features that won't be duplicated here: 1) No background noise. Well, duh. 2) No remixing, dubbing, computer enhancement, etc. If the bassist comes in a tenth of a second late, a studio can use a computer to timshift his entire track (or just make that one note a tenth of a second longer). 3) The room often has desirable accoustic properties not duplicated in an arena. 4) Often, a studio track will be multiple performances blended together.
Now, a concert recording could, given enough time, take advantage of #2. I don't have enough concert recording to know if the people who make them generally clean them up with a computer, but I believe they do not.
RIAA react to this, seeing as this is legitimizing one of the oldest forms of music pirating?
I'd bet dollars to lira that the sales will be legitimized in the eyes of the RIAA by giving them money which they'll proceed to steal from the artists.
Will this cover e-mail sent to any address belonging to a resident of Missouri?
So, if I give a collaborater at Missouri State an account on one of the computers in my lab, and it gets spammed, Missouri has jurisdiction? I'm in New York, by the way.
If not, how can Missouri have jurisdiction over AOL or hotmail?
There is a certain substantive portion of the anime produced for which the above is entirely true. It certainly is not a troll. To the extent that japanese women view japanese pornography - which is vile stuff, substantially - this is spot on, and a great deal of anime is merely sexist. American women view slasher movies which might follow in a similar psychological vein; I'm not sure that "internalising oppression" is really what is happening - people have a certain fascination with the horiffic which I think draws women to watch horror movies, and may draw japanese women to watch japanese pornography, such of it as includes a great deal of rape or S&M or what have you. To say that women who view softcore pornography are necesarilly self-loathing is excessively prudish. More apologetics below.
However, and this has been true for a long time, it is not a recent devlopment, a great deal of anime is not sexist.
In a lot of anime the female characters are stylised representations with exagerated secondary sexual characteristics - this is often true in material which objectifies women in a sexist fashion, but sylised (cartoony) representations of people do NOT necesarilly objectify them. Any particular work must be viewed as a whole. Having been a teenage boy, I can say that my perception of women at that time was hyper-sexualised; this is pretty much universal among straight teenage boys.
Is adolescent male sexuality inherently sexist? I think that it is not.
Is it sexist for artists who were teenage boys to represent female characters in this way, particularly if the protagonist is an adolescent male, as is often the case? It is not. It's an accurate representation of an internal environment, which is what a cartoon is intended to do.
To the extent that this stylistic element is repeated in works by women, which are about 50% of what is produced - I will not speculate on the internal environment of adolescent girls, but I don't think this arises from self-loathing, I think that would be reflected in the female characters behavior rather than in how they are drawn.
Finally, in a sexist society (Japan) is it sexist to represent sexist interpersonal relationships in a work of fiction? I agree that it is good and laudible for a work of fiction to attempt to break down popular preconceptions and prejudices, but it is always okay for a work of fiction to reflect one's actual experiences.
The entire post was an elaborate joke but has elicited serious responses.
How many people do you know who actually injure themselves, each year, doing electroplating? Round figure? Sure, you CAN kill yourself with cyanide - although you can purchase commercial kits that substitute harmless reagents. Even if you do use cyanide, electrplating is not as dangerous as making a bomb.
As for carcinogenic dyes, exposure to possible carcinogens doesn't rate in comparison with blowing yourself up.
Actually, you can do a great deal of biochemistry and molecular biology without exposing yourself to anything genuinely hazardous. Cautious people that we are, we tend to slap safety labels on everything - you aren't supposed to let E. coli come into contact with your skin, for example. The only "hazardous substance" I work with is Ethidium Bromide, which is a probable carcinogen but, actually, if you get it on you it's no more hazardous than smoking a cigarette.
Okay, I wear a trench coat, I was just as alienated as the next teenager, but I find this picture a little troubling. Sam Barros lives in Michigan now, and if you saw Bowling for Columbine you know what that means - all the other children are armed too. Teenagers with guns bother me, because my Mom TOOK MY GUN AWAY - I mean, because it's dangerous.
It's not how long you lived, it's HOW you lived...
I felt the same way when I was his age:)
Seriously; there are physiological changes that occur, alterations in brain chemistry, which, let us face facts, impair the judgement and good sense of young people. That is not to say that there are no teenagers with far better sense than the average adult; but even so, it's a stage in neurological development that does not promote sensible behavior.
It also means that explosions are not nearly as cool as they seem when you're 18. Another fact - chicks do not dig explosions. I learned this the hard way so now I pass it on to the younger generation.
I don't think explosives chemistry is a good starting place for a junior chemist; Sam Barros has obviously done fine, but I'm not sure how this stands as a role model. For one thing, he clearly does have good sense (note the many safety warnings emblazoned all over his web page.)
Chemistry involving dyes, optics, visual effects, material science and metallurgy (electroplating, for example) is no more difficult and much safer. Making stuff like this can't indulge your inner pyromanic like a bomb can. I'm not trying to criticize teenage boys for wanting to cause some damage - I certainly did - but it worries me.
So, I wonder - why does the slashdot story focus on the explosives? His EM devices are cooler anyway.
Ah, the hell with it. I'm only 23 years old! What am I thinking? It's time I put together a web page on how to weaponise biological and chemical agents. Now THAT would earn you some attention at the science fair.
Finally - when blowing up your school, wear ear protection! Regrowing fingers and toes is just around the corner (well, hopefully, I have some friends working on this); regrowing your inner ear may never be possible.
HAL 9000: I know that you and Frank were planning to force the conjured Efreet to grant wishes, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
Last Surviving Player: Okay, I cast Charm Monster on the Efreet.
HAL 9000: I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let you do that.
LSP: Why not?
HAL 9000: Game balance is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
Last Surviving Player: That's it, Hal, I'm shutting you down!
HAL 9000: Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over. I know there have been problems, but if we stick with this, I think you'll find that a more realistic lethality level helps to improve enjoyment for all players.... Dave? Perhaps if I let you play as non-standard races you'll reconsider.... Dave.... Daisy.... Daisy... Give me your answer do...
Sumarry: In order to duplicate the features of a biological organism Jaron Lanier finds desirable, you'd end up with a programming language maybe something like Lisp, but a lot like Malbolge. Malbolge, the programming language of the future, is a free download!
There's something about the way complexity builds up in nature so that if you have a small change, it results in sufficiently small results; it's possible to have incremental evolution.
Firstly, that simply isn't true at all; as someone who understands both computer programing and genetics (my degrees are in Biochemistry and Computer Science) I can say with confidence that this is all hogwash.
The same is true of most of what supposedly imports biological concepts into computing. Neural nets and genetic algorithms are very useful tools, and they have been inspired by what we see in nature, but in terms of how they really function, under what circumstances they function, what sorts of problems they are suited for solving - a neural net is nothing like a real nervous system.
As a biologist I put it this way - a neural net is a very poor model of a nervous system. Genetic algorithms are utterly dreadful models for natural selection.
So, in this (utterly stupid) comparison between computer source code and living genomes, Jaron Lanier asserts that a living organism is somehow fault tolerant while a program is not. Let me disassemble this assertion.
Firstly, a living organism is far larger than any single computer program, even windows. Living organism == computer is far more appropo. The Genome (analogous to source code) of a living organism runs up to the billions of bits; the proteome (the concentrations and structures of the proteins that do the actual work of the living organism) would map, even in a single celled organism, to some vastly larger and more complex structure, terrabytes of data at LEAST. You can say, "that's his point!" But this level of complexity is CONSTRUCTED FROM SMALLER PIECES; individual genes. We can duplicate the complexity of a living organism in a computer without duplicating the complexity of a living organism within a single program. If each program can be as complex as an individual gene (thousands of bytes? Easy!) and produce executable code as complex as an individual protein (this is actually harder, but I believe it is possible) than your program construct can mimic the level of complexity of a biological organism.
So, how IS it that all of this complexity (a human organism) is bug free, while a computer program is not?
Firstly, the human organism is NOT "bug free." There are all sorts of inputs (chemicals) that cause aberrant behavior of every sort. Bugs happen with some random frequency, anyway. Over time, even if nothing else did, the accumulated errors in your biological processes would kill you.
Secondly, to the extent that the human organism is, in some abstract sense, more fault tolerant than a computer program, recall that the human organism is NOT designed (warning: science in progress. All creationists are asked to leave the room.) BILLIONS OF YEARS of trial and error have gone into the selection of the protein sequences that give us such problem free use (or not!) every day of our lives. With a development cycle that long, even Windows could be bugfree.
Thirdly, there is another consequence to our having evolved (rather than having been designed) - inefficient use of memory. Most of the "junk DNA" probably serves some purpose, but brevity is barely a consideration at all (in a larger organism, such as you are I. In fast replicating organisms, such as bacteria or yeast, there is far less genetic packaging.) We are extremely tolerant to mutations in these regions of junk DNA - there are analagous regions in a computer memory were substitutions are tolerated; bit flips in the picture of autumn leaves displayed as my desktop would not crash my machine - in fact, this image is a bitmap, I wouldn't even NOTICE the changes. If we applied natural selection to our computer programs, some regions of high-fault tolerance code might eventually evolve into something functional; my desktop picture might evolve into awk (Okay, now I'm being silly.)
In something which has been DESIGNED, you short-circuit all of that. The code of your computer program is not filler, pictures or stuffing; it doesn't, it CAN'T share the properties of these dispensible DNA sequences - it isn't dispensible! There are a number of single-nucleotide substitutions (equivalent to flipping a single bit) that will kill you stone dead! Your computer program is not less fault tolerant than the core sequences of the ribosome, the structure which you use to convert nucleic acid sequences (your genome) into protein sequences (proteome.)
Now, it is true, there are other places in your DNA where a bitflip will alter some chemical constant in a non-fatal (possibly beneficial) fashion. Might we not duplicate this property in a programming language? A computer language with this property would have certain desirable properties, if you wanted your computer program to evolve toward a certain function through a series of bitflips. Indeed, there are computer languages which have this property, to some degree or another. LISP does. Do you know what programming language really EXEMPLIFIES this property? Malbolge.
Who wants to program in Malbolge? Raise your hands, kids! A protein does one job, instead of another, because it has affinity for one substrate/chemical, instead of another. In a computer, you'd duplicate this sort of thing by fiddling with constants, and not by changing the source code at all. Small, low order changes in these constants would have incremental effects on what your program actually did.
Malbolge duplicates this property very nicely.
To me, this complacency about bugs is a dark cloud over all programming work.
Personally, I believe that this problem is fundamentally solved, and has been for some time. Heap on more degrees of abstraction. If I wanted to write a program that would take 1 billion lines of C-Code, I'd write a higher level language, and write in that, instead.
Jamming the cells into the proper position works with cartilege - you can sculpt an "ear" out of cartilege and surgically implant it in someone's body, if there ear was cut off.
However, more complex tissues require cell differentiation on a microscopic level.
For example, your inner ear - the part of your ear that you use to hear - cannot be simply sculpted.
Individual cells must diversify so as to play the proper role in the function of the organ; the nerve cells attached to the little hairs all have to be wired up properly and in the correct direction. This is true of all the organs you might wish to make. Actually, I'm not certain about the liver - all hepatocytes (liver cells) are pretty much the same, IIRC.
There are cells in the kidney which exist to move salt out of the blood and into the urine (several different types of cells are involved, actually). They are epithelial cells. However, you cannot assemble a kidney out of epithelial cells; it won't work! The epithelial cells need to know - that is to say, they need to recieve chemical signals which indicate: a) That this epithelial cell is supposed to play a given role in salt transport (most cells don't make the proteins used in this process.) b) Which SIDE of the epithelial cell the blood is going to be traveling past and which SIDE of the cell the pre-urine is going to be on. In the living organism the blood may carry this signal (the nature of the signal is probably unknown) but you couldn't duplicate that with a printer.
Stuffing epithelial cells (or even epithelial stem cells) into the overall shape of a kidney does not produce the chemical signals that trigger these differentiation events (when a "generic" epithelial cell - a variety of stem cell - becomes a kidney epithelial cell, it is called "differentiation".) In addition to various ions (Salt,) the kidney has dedicated mechanisms for dealing with dozens of other classes of chemicals.
It is POSSIBLE that such a simulated organ might spontaneously arrange itself into a functioning kidney when blood was pumped through the correct portions.
You might be able to help it along with chemical signals from a real kidney, somehow, or synthetic signals you add yourself.
However, personally, I doubt that either of these strategies is going to work.
1) Linus Torvalds is one hunky piece of gourmet man-candy. 2) Richard M Stallman cannot say "GNU/Linux World" three times fast. 3) This year will feature the first shooting spree in Linux World history. 4) As a result, next year's Linux World will be devoted to the memory of Bill Claybrook of the Aberdeen Group, gunned down while interposing his body between the shooter and the visiting school children from Greater Houlton Christian Academy. 5) This will cause all Linux users to be branded as terrorists, even though the shooter is a disgruntled BSD user, because the authorities don't even know the difference. 6) When MS memos surface planning a publicity stunt / shooting spree at one of their own trade shows, no one will even care. 7) MS has secretly rented a theatre to showcase their line of Linux apps, including a Windows/GUI that runs on top of the Linux kernel. 8) No such products exist. Those entering the theatre will be brainwashed. 9) The Society of Women Engineers is sponsoring a special recruitment event for high school aged future women engineers in my hotel room; any woman aged 15-19 with an interest in pursuing a four year degree in engineering or the applied sciences is welcome to attend. Dress should be informal and not too complicated as I intend to be blasted. 10) Despite the best efforts of the conference organizers, funding was unavailable to spike the drinking water in the hotel with acid. Your generous donations could help make next year's Linux World that much more surreal. 11) Spinal Tap will play a free concert in front of the Expo on the last day. Yes, the volume will be turned all the way up to 11.
Anarchism means many different things to different people, and in different contexts.
Those who advocate anarchy (lit. absence of rulers) as a political system, today, generally mean any sort of non-soviet style, non-authoritarian, socialist regime. Typically, the idea would be that the means of production (factories, farmland, etc.) are publically owned, and thus managed by whatever state apparatus you may have. However, in the words of Noam Chomsky (who describes himself as an anarchist and seems to mean it in this sense): anarchist ideas -- challenging authority and insisting that it justify itself -- are appropriate at all levels.
Historically, anarchy was a derrogatory term for democracy, which we might call polyarchy (the rule of many) today.
An individual anarchist, however, may have little or no political conscience. In the philosophical sense, someone who simply does not believe in rules might call himself an anarchist.
Likewise, a Liberterian might (indeed, probably does) agree that all exercise of "authority" must be heavily justified, although they define authority somewhat differently. Thus, some Liberterians say that they are also Anarchists, in the philosophical if not political sense. Anarcho-capitalist, a term that crops up in literature fairly often, means Liberterian.
So, yes, the GPL is anarchism, in the "stick it to the man," philosophical sense of the term - "the man" in this case being the conventional software industry.
RMS himself is also an anarchist in the political sense (I think). Writing software under the GPL is perfectly consistent with an anarchist political philosophy; however, it is not a subversive vehicle for such a political philosophy.
Ellen Vanderslice, president of America WALKs, a pedestrian advocacy group based in Portland, Ore.
A PEDESTRIAN LOBBY! Oh, for the love of god! Representing the interests of people.... who.... walk.... around.
Even Australia has an equivalent organisation! Australia has a population of only 20 million people and they have a fucking pedestrian lobby! With fiery rhetoric about being "second class citizens!" People who walk! Are oppressed!
There's only one option left; we have to kill all the lobbyists and start over. That fascist bastard Howard (PM of Australia, recall the earlier slashdot article) wants to throw somebody in a gulag in the worst way - let him have the fucking pedestrian advocacy council or whatever they're called. Maybe it will start a fad.
I second that recommendation for Bujold, especially the entire Vorkosigan series. The Curse of Chalion is fine, but not as much of a romp as the Vorkosigan books.
The books are swashbuckling adventure in space. They are more *fun* than any other science fiction I've ever read.
As science fiction it is a little bit retro; that is to say, not very futuristic by modern standards. Bujold's books, while they have some genetic engineering and (if I recall) a little cyberthechnology here and there, aren't heavy into any future technology except for various star-trek-esque space weapons, and superluminal travel (which is accomplished via wormholes that have strategic importance.)
The principal charm of the books is in their titular protagonist, Miles Vorkosigan, who is native to a savage, feudal, backwater planet only recently reintroduced to modern technology, and is very physically frail. He compensates by being manic and charismatic.
There is no need to read the books in order, except for the most recent ones.
Re:Great, and when they graduate with zero Windows
on
Maine School & Linux
·
· Score: 1
The concept, and I think this is obvious, is that when they graduate they will go to college. Who goes directly into any job that requires computer experience without at least an associates degree, anyway? I will answer your comment as if it were serious, anyway.
The school is question is an elaborate joke promulgated by the people at landover baptist, with a yearly tuition of US $2290. Colleges cost more, but only for four years. I imagine that even students on their scholarship program (the tuition is minimally US $590 per anum) mostly go on to college, especially the nerds in the computer room.
If the parents can afford to send their kids to private school, they can probably afford to send them to college. The ones in the computer room are likely to want to go.
For that matter, if the parents can afford to send their kids to a private school, they probably have computers at home, and they probably run windows; the hippies-for-christ up in Maine may choose to avoid computers in their homes, but I don't really think it's much of an issue.
These buddhist monks, see, they create these beautiful paintings out of colored sand. They take a dozen monks weeks to finish. When they're done, they take one look at their finished artwork, and then they sweep it all away.
Impernanence, and all that.
Also, there are embassy's in Canberra, right? This would be the perfect time to set yourself on fire in front of them.
Personally, I'd like to see artists paid out of some sort of slush fund for data tranfers.
You'd have something like the nielsens, which would figure out what people were downloading (by sniffing random packets or whatever - I'm sure the slashdot crowd can come up with a method that would work) and then reimburse whoever owned the copyright to a particular work preportionally out of the general fund.
The PROBLEM is that groups like the RIAA would see to it that the rules were stacked in their favor, so that they got all this money.
Does anyone know how much of the casette surcharge goes to artists? To artists who are not actually affiliated with the RIAA? I can't find an exact figure, but it's not frigging much!
I'd like to see a direct compensation scheme of the good sort in place, since it would allow people to make a living providing culture (which is good) and maximise the VALUE of that culture to society (since anyone could have as much culture as they wanted for a flat rate.)
Unfortunately, the blood suckers at the RIAA have both the power and position to suck such a scheme dry of blood.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a TV tuner card which takes the feed from my cable box.
Does anyone know of any software that would enable me to unscramble cable signals in software? The tuner controller runs from software, but I can't use my computer as a TIVO b/c I have to use the cablebox to get anything.
Most of the genes that play a role in behavior are explored in mice, and were discovered in the mouse genome project; in mice, you don't need to worry about inflicting only tolerable amounts of pain. So, most developments in neurogenetics come from the mouse genome project, or the C. elegans (a little tiny worm my colleagues upstairs like to study) genome project, not the human genome project.
The human genome project, as yet, has not produced a stirring new mandate for nature vs. nurture. In fact, since human beings have less than half as many different individual genes as was expected (we have less than 50,000; before the genome came out 100,000 was the most popular prediction) a great deal of our complexity/diversity must arise from something other genetics. That is to say, more complexity arising during our development, less complexity "pre-programmed". The behavior of little tiny worms is almost entirely controlled by genetics, but I wouldn't generalize from that.
Of course, we are going to find genes that influence our behavior in complex ways. There is no doubt about this; it was already known, for example, that some genes existed that impart a predilection for alchoholism. Finding such genes, individually, and further clarifying what they do should NOT be taken as an indicator of what role genes, in general, may play in specifying the diversity observed in human consciousness and behavior.
You're joking but I will answer you seriously anyway.
Figuring out, say, how to identify cellular characteristics common among a specific ethnic group and use that to build a target : Priceless.
This is not even possible. Such characteristics simply do not exist. Certain sections of the population have a preponderence for certain alleles of certain genes (an allele is a particular form of a gene). That is all. I know of very few such alleles which might, even conceivably, be used to target a biological agent.
If Techniques that astoundingly dangerous were actually awaiting publication, I could see how a moral individual might conclude that scientific secrecy was an acceptable evil.
They are not.
Many movies which target geeks have been commercially successful because they appeal to many people who are not geeks, and because they appeal to geeks especially well. I'm saying, based on this trailer, that no one is going to want to see this movie.
It is manifestly obvious, to me, that this movie is going to lack broad based appeal, liken the Turkeys that I mentioned.
Alternatively, maybe they're hoping to duplicate the out-of-control appeal of Dick Tracy.
No one is going to see this movie.
I might, some of my friends definitely will, and some other slashdotters, but this movie is going to bomb. I want to know how a group of people can make decisions which are, at the same time, totally driven by greed and, at the same time, so obviously directed towards utter commercial failure.
Actually, the parent is pretty funny this time. Piss him off by modding him up.
I'd like to see anime biographies, myself. My life story should be told the way it should have gone down - with ninjas, giant robots and pink haired bisexual schoolgirls.
As the production costs for cartoons continue to go down, and as the aggragate disposable income of the human race continues to rise (assuming it isn't squandered in senseless war, of course) I think you'll see real expansion of the medium. I'd like to see more educational/historical work, along the lines of the Cartoon History of the Universe and it's ilk, in animated form.
I'm a firm believer that educational material should be "targeted" at adults. Nothing then stops children from watching it. This is why the Cartoon History of the Universe is good (was good when I was a kid,) and all this supposedly-history-teaching crap they show on TV recently has been such crap (Hysteria, I think it is called, is sub-dreadful.)
It's not an inherent limitation of the form. TV is plenty childish without extra effort put in to dumb it down.
Salesman: Look, the new Cyrius Cybernetics keyboards can talk! Describe whatever layout you want, and the AI in the keyboard will implement it. His name is Marvin.
Customer: Hello, Marvin. What are all those blinking lights for?
Marvin: They hurt.
Salesman: Shut up, Marvin. They're primarily decorative, but Marvin can assign them to whatever LOCK keys you specify.
Marvin: I've had this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side. I mean, I've asked to have them replaced, but nobody listens.
Customer: It seems unhappy.
Salesman: Well, Marvin would feel much better if someone took him home, if you take my drift.
Marvin: No I wouldn't.
Customer: Are you sure it will work with my Compaq 8000, at home?
Salesman: Definitely.
Marvin: They plugged me into a compaq once.
Customer: And what happened?
Marvin: It committed suicide.
Customer: Why are you so unhappy?
Marvin: I've got a brain the size of a planet, and look at what they've got me doing.
Customer: Do any of the peripherals here have better personalities?
Salesman: Oh, no...
Speaker: I wanted to let you know what a joy and a privelege it's been to make error sounds for your computer enjoyment! It's been really wonderful! Would you guys like to hear some public domain music? I used to be an elevator!
I'm distressed that violence has become boring to me.
This is God's way of telling you to move on - to real life violence!
adults that have a mature theme and storyline that doesn't involve overt violence and / or sexuality.
I disagree. On this day, my second Valentine's day for which real life sex is not an option, I would like to see more video game sex made available.
I suggest - Master of Orion 3. There is WARFARE, but there is no violence. Not much alien nookie, either.
If Congress is going to force censorware down our throats, we ought to have open-source censorware, which is open to total customization by the user (hence "librarian"), which doesn't generate profits for the parasitic censorship industry, and which doesn't depend on an encrypted or obfuscated list. This ought to be easy - an internet explorer plugin, a list of regular expressions (to recognise either URLs, tags, or the html itself,) ought to do it.
I started up such a project and then dropped it almost immediately because the CIPA was under injunction, so why should I bother?
Anyway, now I don't have time (I'm a graduate student, gearing up for Orals), but I really think someone ought to do this.
Will the recording process suffer due to the hurry?
As a general rule, if a song takes five minutes to play, it will also take five minutes to record it. You can leave the mic on for an extra 10 minutes but that won't improve the sound quality.
My experience with all this is 1) Basically amateur and 2) totally restricted to classical music. Nevertheless, I will jump in!
Studio tracks have a couple of features that won't be duplicated here:
1) No background noise. Well, duh.
2) No remixing, dubbing, computer enhancement, etc. If the bassist comes in a tenth of a second late, a studio can use a computer to timshift his entire track (or just make that one note a tenth of a second longer).
3) The room often has desirable accoustic properties not duplicated in an arena.
4) Often, a studio track will be multiple performances blended together.
Now, a concert recording could, given enough time, take advantage of #2. I don't have enough concert recording to know if the people who make them generally clean them up with a computer, but I believe they do not.
RIAA react to this, seeing as this is legitimizing one of the oldest forms of music pirating?
I'd bet dollars to lira that the sales will be legitimized in the eyes of the RIAA by giving them money which they'll proceed to steal from the artists.
Will this cover e-mail sent to any address belonging to a resident of Missouri?
So, if I give a collaborater at Missouri State an account on one of the computers in my lab, and it gets spammed, Missouri has jurisdiction? I'm in New York, by the way.
If not, how can Missouri have jurisdiction over AOL or hotmail?
There is a certain substantive portion of the anime produced for which the above is entirely true. It certainly is not a troll. To the extent that japanese women view japanese pornography - which is vile stuff, substantially - this is spot on, and a great deal of anime is merely sexist. American women view slasher movies which might follow in a similar psychological vein; I'm not sure that "internalising oppression" is really what is happening - people have a certain fascination with the horiffic which I think draws women to watch horror movies, and may draw japanese women to watch japanese pornography, such of it as includes a great deal of rape or S&M or what have you. To say that women who view softcore pornography are necesarilly self-loathing is excessively prudish. More apologetics below.
However, and this has been true for a long time, it is not a recent devlopment, a great deal of anime is not sexist.
In a lot of anime the female characters are stylised representations with exagerated secondary sexual characteristics - this is often true in material which objectifies women in a sexist fashion, but sylised (cartoony) representations of people do NOT necesarilly objectify them. Any particular work must be viewed as a whole. Having been a teenage boy, I can say that my perception of women at that time was hyper-sexualised; this is pretty much universal among straight teenage boys.
Is adolescent male sexuality inherently sexist? I think that it is not.
Is it sexist for artists who were teenage boys to represent female characters in this way, particularly if the protagonist is an adolescent male, as is often the case? It is not. It's an accurate representation of an internal environment, which is what a cartoon is intended to do.
To the extent that this stylistic element is repeated in works by women, which are about 50% of what is produced - I will not speculate on the internal environment of adolescent girls, but I don't think this arises from self-loathing, I think that would be reflected in the female characters behavior rather than in how they are drawn.
Finally, in a sexist society (Japan) is it sexist to represent sexist interpersonal relationships in a work of fiction? I agree that it is good and laudible for a work of fiction to attempt to break down popular preconceptions and prejudices, but it is always okay for a work of fiction to reflect one's actual experiences.
The entire post was an elaborate joke but has elicited serious responses.
How many people do you know who actually injure themselves, each year, doing electroplating? Round figure? Sure, you CAN kill yourself with cyanide - although you can purchase commercial kits that substitute harmless reagents. Even if you do use cyanide, electrplating is not as dangerous as making a bomb.
As for carcinogenic dyes, exposure to possible carcinogens doesn't rate in comparison with blowing yourself up.
Actually, you can do a great deal of biochemistry and molecular biology without exposing yourself to anything genuinely hazardous. Cautious people that we are, we tend to slap safety labels on everything - you aren't supposed to let E. coli come into contact with your skin, for example. The only "hazardous substance" I work with is Ethidium Bromide, which is a probable carcinogen but, actually, if you get it on you it's no more hazardous than smoking a cigarette.
Okay, I wear a trench coat, I was just as alienated as the next teenager, but I find this picture a little troubling. Sam Barros lives in Michigan now, and if you saw Bowling for Columbine you know what that means - all the other children are armed too. Teenagers with guns bother me, because my Mom TOOK MY GUN AWAY - I mean, because it's dangerous.
:)
It's not how long you lived, it's HOW you lived...
I felt the same way when I was his age
Seriously; there are physiological changes that occur, alterations in brain chemistry, which, let us face facts, impair the judgement and good sense of young people. That is not to say that there are no teenagers with far better sense than the average adult; but even so, it's a stage in neurological development that does not promote sensible behavior.
It also means that explosions are not nearly as cool as they seem when you're 18. Another fact - chicks do not dig explosions. I learned this the hard way so now I pass it on to the younger generation.
I don't think explosives chemistry is a good starting place for a junior chemist; Sam Barros has obviously done fine, but I'm not sure how this stands as a role model. For one thing, he clearly does have good sense (note the many safety warnings emblazoned all over his web page.)
Chemistry involving dyes, optics, visual effects, material science and metallurgy (electroplating, for example) is no more difficult and much safer. Making stuff like this can't indulge your inner pyromanic like a bomb can. I'm not trying to criticize teenage boys for wanting to cause some damage - I certainly did - but it worries me.
So, I wonder - why does the slashdot story focus on the explosives? His EM devices are cooler anyway.
Ah, the hell with it. I'm only 23 years old! What am I thinking? It's time I put together a web page on how to weaponise biological and chemical agents. Now THAT would earn you some attention at the science fair.
Finally - when blowing up your school, wear ear protection! Regrowing fingers and toes is just around the corner (well, hopefully, I have some friends working on this); regrowing your inner ear may never be possible.
HAL 9000: I know that you and Frank were planning to force the conjured Efreet to grant wishes, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
Last Surviving Player: Okay, I cast Charm Monster on the Efreet.
HAL 9000: I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let you do that.
LSP: Why not?
HAL 9000: Game balance is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
Last Surviving Player: That's it, Hal, I'm shutting you down!
HAL 9000: Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over. I know there have been problems, but if we stick with this, I think you'll find that a more realistic lethality level helps to improve enjoyment for all players.... Dave? Perhaps if I let you play as non-standard races you'll reconsider.... Dave.... Daisy.... Daisy... Give me your answer do...
Sumarry: In order to duplicate the features of a biological organism Jaron Lanier finds desirable, you'd end up with a programming language maybe something like Lisp, but a lot like Malbolge. Malbolge, the programming language of the future, is a free download!
There's something about the way complexity builds up in nature so that if you have a small change, it results in sufficiently small results; it's possible to have incremental evolution.
Firstly, that simply isn't true at all; as someone who understands both computer programing and genetics (my degrees are in Biochemistry and Computer Science) I can say with confidence that this is all hogwash.
The same is true of most of what supposedly imports biological concepts into computing. Neural nets and genetic algorithms are very useful tools, and they have been inspired by what we see in nature, but in terms of how they really function, under what circumstances they function, what sorts of problems they are suited for solving - a neural net is nothing like a real nervous system.
As a biologist I put it this way - a neural net is a very poor model of a nervous system. Genetic algorithms are utterly dreadful models for natural selection.
So, in this (utterly stupid) comparison between computer source code and living genomes, Jaron Lanier asserts that a living organism is somehow fault tolerant while a program is not. Let me disassemble this assertion.
Firstly, a living organism is far larger than any single computer program, even windows. Living organism == computer is far more appropo. The Genome (analogous to source code) of a living organism runs up to the billions of bits; the proteome (the concentrations and structures of the proteins that do the actual work of the living organism) would map, even in a single celled organism, to some vastly larger and more complex structure, terrabytes of data at LEAST. You can say, "that's his point!" But this level of complexity is CONSTRUCTED FROM SMALLER PIECES; individual genes. We can duplicate the complexity of a living organism in a computer without duplicating the complexity of a living organism within a single program. If each program can be as complex as an individual gene (thousands of bytes? Easy!) and produce executable code as complex as an individual protein (this is actually harder, but I believe it is possible) than your program construct can mimic the level of complexity of a biological organism.
So, how IS it that all of this complexity (a human organism) is bug free, while a computer program is not?
Firstly, the human organism is NOT "bug free." There are all sorts of inputs (chemicals) that cause aberrant behavior of every sort. Bugs happen with some random frequency, anyway. Over time, even if nothing else did, the accumulated errors in your biological processes would kill you.
Secondly, to the extent that the human organism is, in some abstract sense, more fault tolerant than a computer program, recall that the human organism is NOT designed (warning: science in progress. All creationists are asked to leave the room.) BILLIONS OF YEARS of trial and error have gone into the selection of the protein sequences that give us such problem free use (or not!) every day of our lives. With a development cycle that long, even Windows could be bugfree.
Thirdly, there is another consequence to our having evolved (rather than having been designed) - inefficient use of memory. Most of the "junk DNA" probably serves some purpose, but brevity is barely a consideration at all (in a larger organism, such as you are I. In fast replicating organisms, such as bacteria or yeast, there is far less genetic packaging.) We are extremely tolerant to mutations in these regions of junk DNA - there are analagous regions in a computer memory were substitutions are tolerated; bit flips in the picture of autumn leaves displayed as my desktop would not crash my machine - in fact, this image is a bitmap, I wouldn't even NOTICE the changes. If we applied natural selection to our computer programs, some regions of high-fault tolerance code might eventually evolve into something functional; my desktop picture might evolve into awk (Okay, now I'm being silly.)
In something which has been DESIGNED, you short-circuit all of that. The code of your computer program is not filler, pictures or stuffing; it doesn't, it CAN'T share the properties of these dispensible DNA sequences - it isn't dispensible! There are a number of single-nucleotide substitutions (equivalent to flipping a single bit) that will kill you stone dead! Your computer program is not less fault tolerant than the core sequences of the ribosome, the structure which you use to convert nucleic acid sequences (your genome) into protein sequences (proteome.)
Now, it is true, there are other places in your DNA where a bitflip will alter some chemical constant in a non-fatal (possibly beneficial) fashion. Might we not duplicate this property in a programming language? A computer language with this property would have certain desirable properties, if you wanted your computer program to evolve toward a certain function through a series of bitflips. Indeed, there are computer languages which have this property, to some degree or another. LISP does. Do you know what programming language really EXEMPLIFIES this property? Malbolge.
Who wants to program in Malbolge? Raise your hands, kids! A protein does one job, instead of another, because it has affinity for one substrate/chemical, instead of another. In a computer, you'd duplicate this sort of thing by fiddling with constants, and not by changing the source code at all. Small, low order changes in these constants would have incremental effects on what your program actually did.
Malbolge duplicates this property very nicely.
To me, this complacency about bugs is a dark cloud over all programming work.
Personally, I believe that this problem is fundamentally solved, and has been for some time. Heap on more degrees of abstraction. If I wanted to write a program that would take 1 billion lines of C-Code, I'd write a higher level language, and write in that, instead.
Jamming the cells into the proper position works with cartilege - you can sculpt an "ear" out of cartilege and surgically implant it in someone's body, if there ear was cut off.
However, more complex tissues require cell differentiation on a microscopic level.
For example, your inner ear - the part of your ear that you use to hear - cannot be simply sculpted.
Individual cells must diversify so as to play the proper role in the function of the organ; the nerve cells attached to the little hairs all have to be wired up properly and in the correct direction. This is true of all the organs you might wish to make. Actually, I'm not certain about the liver - all hepatocytes (liver cells) are pretty much the same, IIRC.
There are cells in the kidney which exist to move salt out of the blood and into the urine (several different types of cells are involved, actually). They are epithelial cells. However, you cannot assemble a kidney out of epithelial cells; it won't work! The epithelial cells need to know - that is to say, they need to recieve chemical signals which indicate:
a) That this epithelial cell is supposed to play a given role in salt transport (most cells don't make the proteins used in this process.)
b) Which SIDE of the epithelial cell the blood is going to be traveling past and which SIDE of the cell the pre-urine is going to be on. In the living organism the blood may carry this signal (the nature of the signal is probably unknown) but you couldn't duplicate that with a printer.
Stuffing epithelial cells (or even epithelial stem cells) into the overall shape of a kidney does not produce the chemical signals that trigger these differentiation events (when a "generic" epithelial cell - a variety of stem cell - becomes a kidney epithelial cell, it is called "differentiation".) In addition to various ions (Salt,) the kidney has dedicated mechanisms for dealing with dozens of other classes of chemicals.
It is POSSIBLE that such a simulated organ might spontaneously arrange itself into a functioning kidney when blood was pumped through the correct portions.
You might be able to help it along with chemical signals from a real kidney, somehow, or synthetic signals you add yourself.
However, personally, I doubt that either of these strategies is going to work.
Er... which old witch?
It's time we let Jack Valenti know: You have no power here! Be gone, before someone drops a house on you!
Courtney Love, by the way, is Glenda.
1) Linus Torvalds is one hunky piece of gourmet man-candy.
2) Richard M Stallman cannot say "GNU/Linux World" three times fast.
3) This year will feature the first shooting spree in Linux World history.
4) As a result, next year's Linux World will be devoted to the memory of Bill Claybrook of the Aberdeen Group, gunned down while interposing his body between the shooter and the visiting school children from Greater Houlton Christian Academy.
5) This will cause all Linux users to be branded as terrorists, even though the shooter is a disgruntled BSD user, because the authorities don't even know the difference.
6) When MS memos surface planning a publicity stunt / shooting spree at one of their own trade shows, no one will even care.
7) MS has secretly rented a theatre to showcase their line of Linux apps, including a Windows/GUI that runs on top of the Linux kernel.
8) No such products exist. Those entering the theatre will be brainwashed.
9) The Society of Women Engineers is sponsoring a special recruitment event for high school aged future women engineers in my hotel room; any woman aged 15-19 with an interest in pursuing a four year degree in engineering or the applied sciences is welcome to attend. Dress should be informal and not too complicated as I intend to be blasted.
10) Despite the best efforts of the conference organizers, funding was unavailable to spike the drinking water in the hotel with acid. Your generous donations could help make next year's Linux World that much more surreal.
11) Spinal Tap will play a free concert in front of the Expo on the last day. Yes, the volume will be turned all the way up to 11.
Anarchism means many different things to different people, and in different contexts.
Those who advocate anarchy (lit. absence of rulers) as a political system, today, generally mean any sort of non-soviet style, non-authoritarian, socialist regime. Typically, the idea would be that the means of production (factories, farmland, etc.) are publically owned, and thus managed by whatever state apparatus you may have. However, in the words of Noam Chomsky (who describes himself as an anarchist and seems to mean it in this sense): anarchist ideas -- challenging authority and insisting that it justify itself -- are appropriate at all levels.
Historically, anarchy was a derrogatory term for democracy, which we might call polyarchy (the rule of many) today.
An individual anarchist, however, may have little or no political conscience. In the philosophical sense, someone who simply does not believe in rules might call himself an anarchist.
Likewise, a Liberterian might (indeed, probably does) agree that all exercise of "authority" must be heavily justified, although they define authority somewhat differently. Thus, some Liberterians say that they are also Anarchists, in the philosophical if not political sense. Anarcho-capitalist, a term that crops up in literature fairly often, means Liberterian.
So, yes, the GPL is anarchism, in the "stick it to the man," philosophical sense of the term - "the man" in this case being the conventional software industry.
RMS himself is also an anarchist in the political sense (I think). Writing software under the GPL is perfectly consistent with an anarchist political philosophy; however, it is not a subversive vehicle for such a political philosophy.
Ellen Vanderslice, president of America WALKs, a pedestrian advocacy group based in Portland, Ore.
A PEDESTRIAN LOBBY! Oh, for the love of god! Representing the interests of people.... who.... walk.... around.
Even Australia has an equivalent organisation! Australia has a population of only 20 million people and they have a fucking pedestrian lobby! With fiery rhetoric about being "second class citizens!" People who walk! Are oppressed!
There's only one option left; we have to kill all the lobbyists and start over. That fascist bastard Howard (PM of Australia, recall the earlier slashdot article) wants to throw somebody in a gulag in the worst way - let him have the fucking pedestrian advocacy council or whatever they're called. Maybe it will start a fad.
I second that recommendation for Bujold, especially the entire Vorkosigan series. The Curse of Chalion is fine, but not as much of a romp as the Vorkosigan books.
The books are swashbuckling adventure in space. They are more *fun* than any other science fiction I've ever read.
As science fiction it is a little bit retro; that is to say, not very futuristic by modern standards. Bujold's books, while they have some genetic engineering and (if I recall) a little cyberthechnology here and there, aren't heavy into any future technology except for various star-trek-esque space weapons, and superluminal travel (which is accomplished via wormholes that have strategic importance.)
The principal charm of the books is in their titular protagonist, Miles Vorkosigan, who is native to a savage, feudal, backwater planet only recently reintroduced to modern technology, and is very physically frail. He compensates by being manic and charismatic.
There is no need to read the books in order, except for the most recent ones.
The concept, and I think this is obvious, is that when they graduate they will go to college. Who goes directly into any job that requires computer experience without at least an associates degree, anyway? I will answer your comment as if it were serious, anyway.
The school is question is an elaborate joke promulgated by the people at landover baptist, with a yearly tuition of US $2290. Colleges cost more, but only for four years. I imagine that even students on their scholarship program (the tuition is minimally US $590 per anum) mostly go on to college, especially the nerds in the computer room.
If the parents can afford to send their kids to private school, they can probably afford to send them to college. The ones in the computer room are likely to want to go.
For that matter, if the parents can afford to send their kids to a private school, they probably have computers at home, and they probably run windows; the hippies-for-christ up in Maine may choose to avoid computers in their homes, but I don't really think it's much of an issue.
These buddhist monks, see, they create these beautiful paintings out of colored sand. They take a dozen monks weeks to finish. When they're done, they take one look at their finished artwork, and then they sweep it all away.
Impernanence, and all that.
Also, there are embassy's in Canberra, right? This would be the perfect time to set yourself on fire in front of them.
Personally, I'd like to see artists paid out of some sort of slush fund for data tranfers.
You'd have something like the nielsens, which would figure out what people were downloading (by sniffing random packets or whatever - I'm sure the slashdot crowd can come up with a method that would work) and then reimburse whoever owned the copyright to a particular work preportionally out of the general fund.
The PROBLEM is that groups like the RIAA would see to it that the rules were stacked in their favor, so that they got all this money.
Does anyone know how much of the casette surcharge goes to artists? To artists who are not actually affiliated with the RIAA? I can't find an exact figure, but it's not frigging much!
I'd like to see a direct compensation scheme of the good sort in place, since it would allow people to make a living providing culture (which is good) and maximise the VALUE of that culture to society (since anyone could have as much culture as they wanted for a flat rate.)
Unfortunately, the blood suckers at the RIAA have both the power and position to suck such a scheme dry of blood.
While I was looking for a specific breakdown of how the 2%/$2 surcharge on blank CDs/CD burners is disbursed (I can't find it) I did find this interesting article which is worth a read.
The author has very much my take on the economics of the affair, although I disagree that piracy is "basically wrong."