There is a tendency to over-differentiate in human thinking. More and more branches open up and the consequences between them become ever more complex with the resulting signal of your thoughts plummeting. Do you think you are trying to relate things that may have no relation? All these things may have been factors but I believe the true motivator from your post, the one to concentrate on, is the nature of biblical thinking. From that perspective it is acceptable to deny things rather than face the truth that they are part of our natural experience. Banning Google I believe in this context stems from biblical rationale. Stating why you want to ban them and publicly exposing that rationale is more compatible with information flow. Information flow trusts individuals to do the right thing, censorship implies that you as an individual cannot be trusted to not fall off the biblical path. Do you think that this mind-set is relevant?
You lack the imagination to apply structure to our world? That entire page is taken from a carefully constructed and coherent extrapolation of human activity and knowledge. There are quite a few examples of quotes on the same page that are taken directly from our actual history as well. Apply your sensibility and winnow out the impossible, what is left are situations to consider. Think.
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Commissioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"
Is it a student's right to free speech or a school's right to discipline?
Well, first lets break it into two continuums*. The Students right to free speech and the Schools right to discipline. On the Students their main focus is to learn. On the School their main focus is to teach. Branching between these two continuui is a complex network of social interaction and possible ways the structure of transferring knowledge from one party to the other could proceed. Precedence is on success so it is favored that the Student will learn. Schools seek the most efficient method to process large numbers of Students successfully. Meeting these criteria in a mutual way requires allowances for each others constraints. Students should take shit and Schools shouldn't give it. Disproof?;):):D
* With this definition: Continuum. Complete set of all information. The totality of a symbol. Totality means everything that was, is, and will be. To sum up a continuum, logically organize top-down into pieces. Discard all variation or take the set. Sets contain no duplicates. Interrelate unique pieces into theories. Train theories in your mind using mnemonics. Map sequences of action or consequences through the network of relationships between theories. Result quality matches theory quality.
Just give the police a better recorder! A camera, microphone, radar, quantum flux detector, or whatever mounted where most appropriate like the head for a camera and microphone. This information becomes a public record of the event. Let people record what occurs when police interact with them! The police will also have their own impartial witness to the event. If you ever go to court the individual with the better information wins! Solved.
Sorry, should have mentioned why this comment should be in this story. The flip side of measurement of your systems latency to improve performance is to optimize your program as well as the system. Pyke is a meta-programming framework and in effect caches your programs structure and variables dramatically improving performance. Which is latency.
A human life span is a very small unit of perception. Pacifism and its embodiment of cooperation instead of competition is the ideal. You are correct that in today's world it is not realistic to just expect everyone to get along. However, multi-generation wise you can promote, adapt, and execute strategy. Some of those strategies can be composed of education towards tolerance, community-building, life-skills, and other social bonds. These are all social constructs, perhaps a social solution is needed to social problems?
Every generation has had its share of apocalypse. Perhaps on this single pale blue dot we could promote pacifism as the ideal and agree to just not kill each other over the ideas in our head. Respecting differences and promoting the good of all - undivided, is more scalable than bickering and bloodshed?
Or you could say that without science to guide us those areas will be covered by religion. Religion covers evaluations such as: "Is it a good idea to develop weapons of mass destruction?"
There are different places for the Freedoms. The GPL squarely puts the Freedom with the end-user. That person will always be free to receive distributed updates to their software as long as interest and activity for it exists. Another place for Freedom is in contrast with a BSD'ish license putting the Freedom with the software itself. That software is free to use anywhere without guaranteeing the end-user receive free updates. A consequence of the software itself having the Freedom is that the end-user is not guaranteed improvements.
That manufacturing base is rapidly becoming devalued. It is no longer anything special, it has been and is being duplicated all over the world. The competition of the future is going to be over the designs of the products and then they can be built anywhere at all.
Why would ACTA have been vital to "national security"? Is this an admission of sorts that the US no longer makes actual things but instead the majority of its GDP is based on intangible products? So, piracy as the issue: what if the world doesn't play ball with the situation the US has worked themselves into? If the world does not recognize ideas as property, where does that leave the future revenue source of the US?
Microsoft as a corporation is sworn to seek profit for their shareholders. Being entrenched in proprietary software a new business model is hard to push there. Do not expect Microsoft to ever work in the favor of Open Source unless there is a clear a profitable reason for them to do so. Expecting anything else is naive.
I've never tried Blu-Ray media on my system. I have a 3Ghz Pentium D on my machine, that is about equivalent to a 1.8Ghz Core2Duo. I've thought about upgrading, I really have, but every time I think about it I realize that for my particular situation I would gain very little for the cash. OpenOffice would just spend a bajillion wasted CPU cycles instead of a million between my key presses;)
How much more performance do we need before we all say: "enough."? Computers years ago already passed the good-enough mark for normal usage. The only thing that still drives processors are transcoding and games really. Give it another year or two and I'm sure I won't even look at the spec for what processor is in a machine I buy: of course it will be fine. What do you think this will mean for new computer sales? Will people jump off the upgrade treadmill and simply wait until their current machine dies before purchasing a new one? The inflationary days of selling computing hardware may just be over: now we seem to be getting into a saturated sector. What will manufacturers do to replace those sales?
Slashdot Mirror
There is a tendency to over-differentiate in human thinking. More and more branches open up and the consequences between them become ever more complex with the resulting signal of your thoughts plummeting. Do you think you are trying to relate things that may have no relation? All these things may have been factors but I believe the true motivator from your post, the one to concentrate on, is the nature of biblical thinking. From that perspective it is acceptable to deny things rather than face the truth that they are part of our natural experience. Banning Google I believe in this context stems from biblical rationale. Stating why you want to ban them and publicly exposing that rationale is more compatible with information flow. Information flow trusts individuals to do the right thing, censorship implies that you as an individual cannot be trusted to not fall off the biblical path. Do you think that this mind-set is relevant?
You'll have to be more clear in what you are saying about Google. Keeping information secret to yourself keeps things from changing.
Sorry wrong branch.
You have some secret information that would qualify Google? Spill the beans! So it can be considered freely! ;)
You lack the imagination to apply structure to our world? That entire page is taken from a carefully constructed and coherent extrapolation of human activity and knowledge. There are quite a few examples of quotes on the same page that are taken directly from our actual history as well. Apply your sensibility and winnow out the impossible, what is left are situations to consider. Think.
I think this quote applies here:
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Commissioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"
source
This weeks guerrilla post brought to you by: Continuui.
To see the complete definition, markup, of Continuum see: Here.
Bill.
Is it a student's right to free speech or a school's right to discipline?
;) :) :D
Well, first lets break it into two continuums*. The Students right to free speech and the Schools right to discipline. On the Students their main focus is to learn. On the School their main focus is to teach. Branching between these two continuui is a complex network of social interaction and possible ways the structure of transferring knowledge from one party to the other could proceed. Precedence is on success so it is favored that the Student will learn. Schools seek the most efficient method to process large numbers of Students successfully. Meeting these criteria in a mutual way requires allowances for each others constraints. Students should take shit and Schools shouldn't give it. Disproof?
* With this definition: Continuum. Complete set of all information. The totality of a symbol. Totality means everything that was, is, and will be. To sum up a continuum, logically organize top-down into pieces. Discard all variation or take the set. Sets contain no duplicates. Interrelate unique pieces into theories. Train theories in your mind using mnemonics. Map sequences of action or consequences through the network of relationships between theories. Result quality matches theory quality.
Has anyone seen all of the automated collection? Should Google be burning select back-up tapes?
If the information has the potential to be misused at an uncertain future date wouldn't it better be prudent to just outright delete it?
Sometimes retaining information is worse than losing it.
Your own recording.
Just give the police a better recorder! A camera, microphone, radar, quantum flux detector, or whatever mounted where most appropriate like the head for a camera and microphone. This information becomes a public record of the event. Let people record what occurs when police interact with them! The police will also have their own impartial witness to the event. If you ever go to court the individual with the better information wins! Solved.
Sorry, should have mentioned why this comment should be in this story. The flip side of measurement of your systems latency to improve performance is to optimize your program as well as the system. Pyke is a meta-programming framework and in effect caches your programs structure and variables dramatically improving performance. Which is latency.
Shameless plug for writing optimized programs: Pyke. I'm tentatively learning this framework: myself.
A human life span is a very small unit of perception. Pacifism and its embodiment of cooperation instead of competition is the ideal. You are correct that in today's world it is not realistic to just expect everyone to get along. However, multi-generation wise you can promote, adapt, and execute strategy. Some of those strategies can be composed of education towards tolerance, community-building, life-skills, and other social bonds. These are all social constructs, perhaps a social solution is needed to social problems?
Every generation has had its share of apocalypse. Perhaps on this single pale blue dot we could promote pacifism as the ideal and agree to just not kill each other over the ideas in our head. Respecting differences and promoting the good of all - undivided, is more scalable than bickering and bloodshed?
Or you could say that without science to guide us those areas will be covered by religion. Religion covers evaluations such as: "Is it a good idea to develop weapons of mass destruction?"
There are different places for the Freedoms. The GPL squarely puts the Freedom with the end-user. That person will always be free to receive distributed updates to their software as long as interest and activity for it exists. Another place for Freedom is in contrast with a BSD'ish license putting the Freedom with the software itself. That software is free to use anywhere without guaranteeing the end-user receive free updates. A consequence of the software itself having the Freedom is that the end-user is not guaranteed improvements.
That manufacturing base is rapidly becoming devalued. It is no longer anything special, it has been and is being duplicated all over the world. The competition of the future is going to be over the designs of the products and then they can be built anywhere at all.
Why would ACTA have been vital to "national security"? Is this an admission of sorts that the US no longer makes actual things but instead the majority of its GDP is based on intangible products? So, piracy as the issue: what if the world doesn't play ball with the situation the US has worked themselves into? If the world does not recognize ideas as property, where does that leave the future revenue source of the US?
Microsoft as a corporation is sworn to seek profit for their shareholders. Being entrenched in proprietary software a new business model is hard to push there. Do not expect Microsoft to ever work in the favor of Open Source unless there is a clear a profitable reason for them to do so. Expecting anything else is naive.
I've never tried Blu-Ray media on my system. I have a 3Ghz Pentium D on my machine, that is about equivalent to a 1.8Ghz Core2Duo. I've thought about upgrading, I really have, but every time I think about it I realize that for my particular situation I would gain very little for the cash. OpenOffice would just spend a bajillion wasted CPU cycles instead of a million between my key presses ;)
How much more performance do we need before we all say: "enough."? Computers years ago already passed the good-enough mark for normal usage. The only thing that still drives processors are transcoding and games really. Give it another year or two and I'm sure I won't even look at the spec for what processor is in a machine I buy: of course it will be fine. What do you think this will mean for new computer sales? Will people jump off the upgrade treadmill and simply wait until their current machine dies before purchasing a new one? The inflationary days of selling computing hardware may just be over: now we seem to be getting into a saturated sector. What will manufacturers do to replace those sales?
If copyright law was more sane we wouldn't have to argue so much about privacy.