Actually, many more atrocities that happen in the middle east through our governments interactions have gone by unknownst and even uncaring by most of us, we dont elect our politicians on their foriegn policy and it shows.
Hmmm I'm on the oposite side of America, while we certainly didnt ask for a T3, we got DSL (high speed DSL) from them pretty quick, quicker then they were estimating as a matter of a fact. The other nice thing I recall reading, was that they refused to release information about their customers and not track what their customers do and ban them for using gnutella (unlike some other broadband companies that have gove bank rupt recently).
There were several arcades where I used to live that were removed because it was said they attract gangs and violence. I never experienced this myself, but that is what they said. And now there isnt any real arcades except at a far away college and a near by bowling alley which doesnt up date its games that often.
Wow, I just did a search and found this article...
http://www.fair.org/extra/0003/elian.html
Its funny that article is extremely enlightning and a good summary of what happened with Elián González. During those events, most of the news media was so focused on other issues, that I had no idea what was really going on. I even had that same thought in my mind (after watching to much news media) that the mother was trying to give her child a better life.
The land of opertunities, or the land of opertunists?
It seems to me we have lost several opertunities and gained many opertunists.
It can be seen right after the WTC buildings came crashing down, from the people looting, to the people commiting fraud about donations, to the people selling tiny flags for $25, even to the politicians using this to stiffle political oposition by saying "now is not the time", or for taking away freedom "now is the time". Politics has gone to hell, not because of the terrorists but because of the opertunists in our government, they have been sitting and waiting for this opertunity. When they said it was an attack on our freedom, they were not saying it was the terrorists, they were threatening america, our freedom after all is strongly in their hands, the terrorists dont have the power or the resources to take over america and its government to take away our freedom, only the politicians of our government can do this. They are threatening us because over the pass couple of years, the internet has allowed for so much information about them to be spread around. Hell, dubya himself has said and I quote "There ought to be limits to freedom", in reference to www.gwbush.com and freedom of speech.
So there is no possible way to sustain recycling effeciency? Eventually like a clock, or battery, things will start winding down and collapse? I've heard it before and it makes some sense, just about every philosophy and religions that I know of also say the future is a collapse, including many of my own ideas. But most of this is based upon our knowledge, and our knowledge is finite and relative not absolute (my poster name says it all in terms of paradox and contradiction), there is nothing in this universe that has given us a guarantee that things will continue to work the way we know them to work, there is nothing that guarantees for example that we will continue to have gravity in the universe and that something in some other dimension could not occure that could alter gravity and even reverse it in our universe. Again there is no guarantee, if we say everything is relative, is that an absolute? How can a relative being state what is absolute and what is not? They can't they can only speculate based upon their relative perspective. I think its possible for life (either biological or electrical) to stabilize the universe, to using energy conversion in as many ways possible to create effecient recycling, and even possibly go as far as controlling time through dialation or other means in order to make it last longer, long enough for life to understand the answer to the question "why". And once that is answered, things will come to an end there will be no more reason to live/exist, it is the questions that drive us and its the final answer that will take out the final question that will give us nothing to work for or toward. Funny thing is though, I dont think we will ever answer that question, its impossible for us to answer that question, with out getting the answer from something out side of our system (like God), so the pursuit of truth is an endless persuit. Even if we know something, we dont know it to an nth degree of accuracy and we can always learn more. And when we hit our limitations in analysis of our own universe, we will then try to create our own universe in our electric minds (computers) to varify that all we know is true, and that universe will create another universe will create another universe, each universe giving us more accuracy about our universe, because it will never end. Possible but not the only possibility, is all that need to be said.
Well, you're right, but I meant as a laymen 'its easier to understand fission', in comparison to understanding fusion because its easier to relate it to a battery (storage of energy), where as I have no idea what fusion would relate to with out going beyond that of a laymen and going into chemistry.
I'm definetly not an expert, but I have no idea how they would sustain something like that, it would seem to me that eventually it would get exhausted (like our sun will do eventually), or they would need a way to keep feeding it hydrogen and sucking out the helium it produces, plus they need to the temperature hot enough (expending some energy to do so) and make sure the heat itself doesnt destroy everything.
Its easy to understand fission, because the uranium is like a battery, it stores the energy and slowly releases it, and its only a matter of converting that energy over, where as fusion we are trying to use enery to extract a lot of energy.
Either way, the way I see it, the eventual thing will have to be energy recycling effeciency, if we can not do it eventually the energies of the universe will swallow us whole in order to make up for ineffeciency (the balance of things).
> Is that why office xp is so exellent and intuitive and open office is to shitty?
No, Microsoft's office software has years of programming behind it, plus they have the backing of the OS itself (better integration and taking advantage of OS features).
> Is that why visual c++ is so neat and superb and gcc such a shitty compiler it's difficult to understand why anyone in it's own mind would use it?
Visual C++ is an IDE not a compiler, have you even used micrsofts compiler with out an IDE? I have and its no diffrent then GCC. Not unless you like comparing apples and oranges.
Not quite. With open source (free software), the competition can be on a smaller more modular level, where as closed source products are competing on a higher level. What eventually happens when you compete on such a high level, its called bloat. Its you cram so many features into one little program in order to satisfy the vast majority of users, instead of the user deciding what features they want, they end up with features they dont want or need and have trouble navigating through the program, and new users will have a difficult time finding things and be intimidated by the amount of features.
When you compete in the modular sense, users have options in features and features can change easily with out requiring a huge release or patch. The only way in which closed source gets close to this is in plugins, but even plugins become bloated and not modular enough. The only way to get to the modular level is to be open source (of course they have to be good at modular programming in order to make it easier for modules to be created). The easiest one I have ever delt with is Java, in some cases I merely replace a java file with one created by someone else and recompile and its done.
I was extremely fanatical when I came across x2ftp.oulo.fi, it had a lot of information and was contributory to my addiction to programming. Man, it was like finding a gold mine.
Actually (not to disagree with your caution), but I have to note that both are reputable companies and I recall a long ago, SciTech in particular had source code available for an earlier version of their SVGA/VESA library, I remember because I was using it to learn how to use VESA in my own little Watcom DOS experienments. In visiting their site its cool (in an old skool sort of way)to see they're still doing business and still selling Display Doctor and MGL.
This is pretty bad assertion you're making. We have no idea if they valued their life or not, just as we have no idea if the fire fighters who ran into the WTC buildings valued their life or not, or the soldiers we send to other countries value their life or not. Just because someone is willing to give up or put at risk their life for something they believe in does not make them any less brave. And the dictionary description for "bravery" and "courage" is facing fear danger or change(vicissitudes) with self-possession, confidence and resolution. That word in contrast to "coward", one who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. The ones who flew the planes in the buildings were obviously not cowards, its arguable if they were brave or not, but cowards thats not right.
What Bush was refering to when he called the 'terrorists' cowards was that they did not make them selves known so that we can start a war with them. But I would also say the terrorists are not stupid, they obviously dont have the resources to attack us in a direct war.
I totaly agree. In my mind this was a big mistake (it wasnt a small mistake) and changes the perspective on how to look at encryption. If it was a little mistake, its more forgiveable and even ignorable, but this was a big mistake on their part, and they should recieve criticism either way.
I dont think it was a Jihad, as a matter of a fact, when I did a search on the web for the phrase "Jihad means", I found it very interesting that Jihad doesnt really mean holy war, it is more like "a struggle against". The web sites I read, were basicly saying that its a struggle against for example people stepping on your land to take away your property and family. What stirred me on to look this up was someone on CNN said Jihad doesnt mean holy war, so I looked it up.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22jihad+means%22
So anyway, my point is, that many people think jihad is irrational (just like some people think all muslims are irrational after the terrorists attacks). And I think that is why Phil and you like to refer to it as a Jihad, a bunch of irrational (but passionate) people over reacting to something.
With everything there is always a back lash. By not allowing resale, they make their product worthless after the first sale. Well not entirely worthless, but leaving only 2 ways to get some value out of it.
1) Use the software to make (or save) money, directly or indirectly.
2) Illegally sale or trade (or give away) the 'IP' product to someone willing.
The second one is what warez/piracy and file sharing are all about. With file sharing its a community thing, and you give away something to help grow the community (and express your feelings about something) and when the community grows so does the amount of available information.
Yeah, and why hasnt TV picked up on that? Then again, commercials are break time right, cant have that in a browser where you are searching for things.:)
Personaly I dont entirely mind, a click is a click, as long as they make it easy to find the link to the next page (and they dont trick you into clicking the wrong thing like some other advertisment industries do;p)
Its not entirely diffrent then driving a car, and seeing billboards as you drive down the street (although you dont normaly drive through the billboard). But not every street should have them. Personly I think they should only put them up where there is high traffic then when the traffic slows down get rid of them, it would be an interesting thing, possibly reduce the slashdot effect for some websites:).
As for Google the last one applies to search engines obviously, the only other choice for advertisers (for nonsearch engine sites) in that case is monitoring your activity, and many privacy advocates dont like that.
With advertisment you are always going to piss someone off unfortunetly, I've seen some web sites put up banner adds (traditional banner adds, not even pop ups) and the users went in an uproar over it, so the owner put up a donation through paypal and said if you dont want to see advertisments any more donate some cash (advertisment is still there:p).
Well, it will go farther then that. We all like to take what we need with out reguard to cost, there are some people who have even a mental desease where they have to steal something rather then buy it. I think eventually computers will supplant this and make it somewhat of a reality for us. The future will be transfer of information instead of goods. You want food, it will synthesize the food from raw materials, then it will take your waste (dooky, pee, dead skin, hair) and convert it to raw materials to create more food. It will also be able to synthesize products that you want, toys, devices, etc etc, created from information. This information will in turn be recieved through bartering of raw materials, which we will recieve from eating planets with our ships (like bateria), even extenguishing solar systems to extract their resources for bartering. We wont do the bartering, all of that will be handled by the computer in an automated way, we will be doing more criticial and creative work in creating information, and using information for synthesizing tools for maintaining or upgrading our ships so we can extract more resources. Eventually our goals will lead us to controling the galaxy, and multiple galaxys and eventually the universe, at which point we will try to be as effecient as possible in recycling and reusing energy. After which we would have created a computer brain, because we will have hit our limits (and there are limits to our universe, nothing none to man goes off to infinite, except our limited imaginations), and will require a super computer in order to learn more about our existence. This computer will create the universe in a simluation using all known information about the universe, in order to accurately duplicate the universe in a simulation. This will lead to recreation of the universe so we can see our pasts (see what really happened to JFK, Jesus/religion, and other mysteries etc etc). The only way to know how true this simulation is, is if every event happens with in a margin, up until it gets closer to the present in which the margin for error becomes stronger, at which point they will watch themselves creating a super computer to find out their pasts, and the only way to see how accurate the data is, is to watch the simulation in a simulation and see how accurate they are, and on and on and on, a recursive universe, just like GNU is not unix is not unix is not unix, etc etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, many more atrocities that happen in the middle east through our governments interactions have gone by unknownst and even uncaring by most of us, we dont elect our politicians on their foriegn policy and it shows.
Hmmm I'm on the oposite side of America, while we certainly didnt ask for a T3, we got DSL (high speed DSL) from them pretty quick, quicker then they were estimating as a matter of a fact. The other nice thing I recall reading, was that they refused to release information about their customers and not track what their customers do and ban them for using gnutella (unlike some other broadband companies that have gove bank rupt recently).
There were several arcades where I used to live that were removed because it was said they attract gangs and violence. I never experienced this myself, but that is what they said. And now there isnt any real arcades except at a far away college and a near by bowling alley which doesnt up date its games that often.
isnt safeweb owned or some how associated with the CIA?
Wow, I just did a search and found this article...
http://www.fair.org/extra/0003/elian.html
Its funny that article is extremely enlightning and a good summary of what happened with Elián González. During those events, most of the news media was so focused on other issues, that I had no idea what was really going on. I even had that same thought in my mind (after watching to much news media) that the mother was trying to give her child a better life.
Makes you wonder about Elián González.
The land of opertunities, or the land of opertunists?
It seems to me we have lost several opertunities and gained many opertunists.
It can be seen right after the WTC buildings came crashing down, from the people looting, to the people commiting fraud about donations, to the people selling tiny flags for $25, even to the politicians using this to stiffle political oposition by saying "now is not the time", or for taking away freedom "now is the time". Politics has gone to hell, not because of the terrorists but because of the opertunists in our government, they have been sitting and waiting for this opertunity. When they said it was an attack on our freedom, they were not saying it was the terrorists, they were threatening america, our freedom after all is strongly in their hands, the terrorists dont have the power or the resources to take over america and its government to take away our freedom, only the politicians of our government can do this. They are threatening us because over the pass couple of years, the internet has allowed for so much information about them to be spread around. Hell, dubya himself has said and I quote "There ought to be limits to freedom", in reference to www.gwbush.com and freedom of speech.
So there is no possible way to sustain recycling effeciency? Eventually like a clock, or battery, things will start winding down and collapse? I've heard it before and it makes some sense, just about every philosophy and religions that I know of also say the future is a collapse, including many of my own ideas. But most of this is based upon our knowledge, and our knowledge is finite and relative not absolute (my poster name says it all in terms of paradox and contradiction), there is nothing in this universe that has given us a guarantee that things will continue to work the way we know them to work, there is nothing that guarantees for example that we will continue to have gravity in the universe and that something in some other dimension could not occure that could alter gravity and even reverse it in our universe. Again there is no guarantee, if we say everything is relative, is that an absolute? How can a relative being state what is absolute and what is not? They can't they can only speculate based upon their relative perspective. I think its possible for life (either biological or electrical) to stabilize the universe, to using energy conversion in as many ways possible to create effecient recycling, and even possibly go as far as controlling time through dialation or other means in order to make it last longer, long enough for life to understand the answer to the question "why". And once that is answered, things will come to an end there will be no more reason to live/exist, it is the questions that drive us and its the final answer that will take out the final question that will give us nothing to work for or toward. Funny thing is though, I dont think we will ever answer that question, its impossible for us to answer that question, with out getting the answer from something out side of our system (like God), so the pursuit of truth is an endless persuit. Even if we know something, we dont know it to an nth degree of accuracy and we can always learn more. And when we hit our limitations in analysis of our own universe, we will then try to create our own universe in our electric minds (computers) to varify that all we know is true, and that universe will create another universe will create another universe, each universe giving us more accuracy about our universe, because it will never end. Possible but not the only possibility, is all that need to be said.
Well, you're right, but I meant as a laymen 'its easier to understand fission', in comparison to understanding fusion because its easier to relate it to a battery (storage of energy), where as I have no idea what fusion would relate to with out going beyond that of a laymen and going into chemistry.
I'm definetly not an expert, but I have no idea how they would sustain something like that, it would seem to me that eventually it would get exhausted (like our sun will do eventually), or they would need a way to keep feeding it hydrogen and sucking out the helium it produces, plus they need to the temperature hot enough (expending some energy to do so) and make sure the heat itself doesnt destroy everything.
Its easy to understand fission, because the uranium is like a battery, it stores the energy and slowly releases it, and its only a matter of converting that energy over, where as fusion we are trying to use enery to extract a lot of energy.
Either way, the way I see it, the eventual thing will have to be energy recycling effeciency, if we can not do it eventually the energies of the universe will swallow us whole in order to make up for ineffeciency (the balance of things).
> You say that as if you were proud. Loser.
LOL... only a loser would be insecure about who is a loser and who is not.
> Really?
Yes really.
> Is that why office xp is so exellent and intuitive and open office is to shitty?
No, Microsoft's office software has years of programming behind it, plus they have the backing of the OS itself (better integration and taking advantage of OS features).
> Is that why visual c++ is so neat and superb and gcc such a shitty compiler it's difficult to understand why anyone in it's own mind would use it?
Visual C++ is an IDE not a compiler, have you even used micrsofts compiler with out an IDE? I have and its no diffrent then GCC. Not unless you like comparing apples and oranges.
Not quite. With open source (free software), the competition can be on a smaller more modular level, where as closed source products are competing on a higher level. What eventually happens when you compete on such a high level, its called bloat. Its you cram so many features into one little program in order to satisfy the vast majority of users, instead of the user deciding what features they want, they end up with features they dont want or need and have trouble navigating through the program, and new users will have a difficult time finding things and be intimidated by the amount of features.
When you compete in the modular sense, users have options in features and features can change easily with out requiring a huge release or patch. The only way in which closed source gets close to this is in plugins, but even plugins become bloated and not modular enough. The only way to get to the modular level is to be open source (of course they have to be good at modular programming in order to make it easier for modules to be created). The easiest one I have ever delt with is Java, in some cases I merely replace a java file with one created by someone else and recompile and its done.
LOL... its all still there...
p ro gramming/scitech/svgakt51.zip
http://sunsite.lanet.lv/ftp/mirror/x2ftp/msdos/
I was extremely fanatical when I came across x2ftp.oulo.fi, it had a lot of information and was contributory to my addiction to programming. Man, it was like finding a gold mine.
Actually (not to disagree with your caution), but I have to note that both are reputable companies and I recall a long ago, SciTech in particular had source code available for an earlier version of their SVGA/VESA library, I remember because I was using it to learn how to use VESA in my own little Watcom DOS experienments. In visiting their site its cool (in an old skool sort of way)to see they're still doing business and still selling Display Doctor and MGL.
This is pretty bad assertion you're making. We have no idea if they valued their life or not, just as we have no idea if the fire fighters who ran into the WTC buildings valued their life or not, or the soldiers we send to other countries value their life or not. Just because someone is willing to give up or put at risk their life for something they believe in does not make them any less brave. And the dictionary description for "bravery" and "courage" is facing fear danger or change(vicissitudes) with self-possession, confidence and resolution. That word in contrast to "coward", one who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. The ones who flew the planes in the buildings were obviously not cowards, its arguable if they were brave or not, but cowards thats not right.
What Bush was refering to when he called the 'terrorists' cowards was that they did not make them selves known so that we can start a war with them. But I would also say the terrorists are not stupid, they obviously dont have the resources to attack us in a direct war.
exactly line 8 should be...
= 2+2+1-0-0-0...-1
> I think we need to transition to a non-magic-fish based economy.
Out of curiosity what does that mean?
> to the back of someone's back
what is the front of someone's back? LOL j/k
I totaly agree. In my mind this was a big mistake (it wasnt a small mistake) and changes the perspective on how to look at encryption. If it was a little mistake, its more forgiveable and even ignorable, but this was a big mistake on their part, and they should recieve criticism either way.
I dont think it was a Jihad, as a matter of a fact, when I did a search on the web for the phrase "Jihad means", I found it very interesting that Jihad doesnt really mean holy war, it is more like "a struggle against". The web sites I read, were basicly saying that its a struggle against for example people stepping on your land to take away your property and family. What stirred me on to look this up was someone on CNN said Jihad doesnt mean holy war, so I looked it up.
2
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22jihad+means%2
So anyway, my point is, that many people think jihad is irrational (just like some people think all muslims are irrational after the terrorists attacks). And I think that is why Phil and you like to refer to it as a Jihad, a bunch of irrational (but passionate) people over reacting to something.
With everything there is always a back lash. By not allowing resale, they make their product worthless after the first sale. Well not entirely worthless, but leaving only 2 ways to get some value out of it.
1) Use the software to make (or save) money, directly or indirectly.
2) Illegally sale or trade (or give away) the 'IP' product to someone willing.
The second one is what warez/piracy and file sharing are all about. With file sharing its a community thing, and you give away something to help grow the community (and express your feelings about something) and when the community grows so does the amount of available information.
This is why people give "information property" away for free or barter for warez online, it has little to no value after you buy it.
Yeah, and why hasnt TV picked up on that? Then again, commercials are break time right, cant have that in a browser where you are searching for things. :)
;p)
:).
:p).
Personaly I dont entirely mind, a click is a click, as long as they make it easy to find the link to the next page (and they dont trick you into clicking the wrong thing like some other advertisment industries do
Its not entirely diffrent then driving a car, and seeing billboards as you drive down the street (although you dont normaly drive through the billboard). But not every street should have them. Personly I think they should only put them up where there is high traffic then when the traffic slows down get rid of them, it would be an interesting thing, possibly reduce the slashdot effect for some websites
As for Google the last one applies to search engines obviously, the only other choice for advertisers (for nonsearch engine sites) in that case is monitoring your activity, and many privacy advocates dont like that.
With advertisment you are always going to piss someone off unfortunetly, I've seen some web sites put up banner adds (traditional banner adds, not even pop ups) and the users went in an uproar over it, so the owner put up a donation through paypal and said if you dont want to see advertisments any more donate some cash (advertisment is still there
Well, it will go farther then that. We all like to take what we need with out reguard to cost, there are some people who have even a mental desease where they have to steal something rather then buy it. I think eventually computers will supplant this and make it somewhat of a reality for us. The future will be transfer of information instead of goods. You want food, it will synthesize the food from raw materials, then it will take your waste (dooky, pee, dead skin, hair) and convert it to raw materials to create more food. It will also be able to synthesize products that you want, toys, devices, etc etc, created from information. This information will in turn be recieved through bartering of raw materials, which we will recieve from eating planets with our ships (like bateria), even extenguishing solar systems to extract their resources for bartering. We wont do the bartering, all of that will be handled by the computer in an automated way, we will be doing more criticial and creative work in creating information, and using information for synthesizing tools for maintaining or upgrading our ships so we can extract more resources. Eventually our goals will lead us to controling the galaxy, and multiple galaxys and eventually the universe, at which point we will try to be as effecient as possible in recycling and reusing energy. After which we would have created a computer brain, because we will have hit our limits (and there are limits to our universe, nothing none to man goes off to infinite, except our limited imaginations), and will require a super computer in order to learn more about our existence. This computer will create the universe in a simluation using all known information about the universe, in order to accurately duplicate the universe in a simulation. This will lead to recreation of the universe so we can see our pasts (see what really happened to JFK, Jesus/religion, and other mysteries etc etc). The only way to know how true this simulation is, is if every event happens with in a margin, up until it gets closer to the present in which the margin for error becomes stronger, at which point they will watch themselves creating a super computer to find out their pasts, and the only way to see how accurate the data is, is to watch the simulation in a simulation and see how accurate they are, and on and on and on, a recursive universe, just like GNU is not unix is not unix is not unix, etc etc.