I like the capabilities of my "smart" phone, and indeed there are times when I wish the screen was larger. But for something I end up carrying with me at all times, smaller is better. I really miss my earlier, very-dumb phones, which could fit in the coin pocket in my jeans.
I'm not sure cramming more screens into a smart phone is what I'd be interested in.
How much longer until I can get a screen in contact lenses?
Try turning max wheels down to zero. In the comments, people are reporting that they end up with spoke-like-contraptions that evolve to roll without wheels!
Representative democracies change the way issues are presented.
In the United States, one issue that is extremely popular and controversial is abortion. Even though it is in fact a non-issue. Hardly anyone advocates abortions-for-everyone, and hardly anyone advocates totalitarian-control-of-our-bodies. And yet we have this huge divisive issue. Why? Because it serves politicians to make it into an issue.
Without a politician-based system, these huge non-issues fade away, and people can focus on what they really care about.
Sure, many people might not concentrate on what's going on in their neighborhood (though I honestly do believe that would fundamentally change if people had the ability to participate in local decision-making as they please). But even if most people don't, some people will. And those people's actions will be transparent and immediately open to repeal if they do anything that turns out to not serve the community.
So even if only a few people work on the actually-important issues, the end result has to be better than the status quo, where very few people work on issues in secret, with the understood objective of garnering power, influence, and money by whatever means they can.
Collaborative governance is not directly comparable to traditional direct democracy, which is usually a majority rule system used on only a few major issues. By comparison, collaborative governance is a consensus system intended to be used on all issues affecting a community, with the implicit understanding that anyone not participating on a particular issue consents to allow others to decide the issue.
The "point" to me sounded like a bunch of bullshit cyberspeak about how the internet is going to turn government into a big drum circle where we all join hands and sing songs of peace and love.
I don't think you're reading it right. Consensus governance is a valid technique and has nothing to do with hippie love fests (except that yes, it is more peaceful than authoritarian rule by threat of violence). Try reading the linked article again.
It's the same shit we've been hearing since the mid-90's. And yet government today still seems the same bunch of douchebags, doing the same evil shit that it was before--only now politicians send out tweets instead of flyers.
That is exactly what the Slashdot story says: e-democracy is about politicians sending tweets (etc.). Collaborative governance is a new formation that is in its infancy. Give it a few years.
No, no. Learn your history. It's Asimov's version of Newton's Laws.
The full form goes something like:
1. Every robot must remain in a state of constantly not injuring humans or causing them to become injured through the robot's state of rest.
2. Any robot, subject to a force in the form of an order by a human undergoes an acceleration in the form of obeying the order as long as it does not contradict the first law.
3. The mutual forces of action and reaction between a robot and another object must not allow that other object to end the existence of the robot, provided this doesn't conflict with the first two laws.
I think that's it. Wikipedia probably has the full version.
(Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with this site, and it is non-commercial as far as I can tell.)
This leads me to pimp my favorite new site/game/lesson... what is this? It's cool, that's all. Check out this neat implementation of a genetic algorithm to produce a cool demonstration computer-generated evolution: http://www.boxcar2d.com/
Beloved and esteemed buyer of premium pharmaceuticals.
I am most honourable assistant chief justice of Zarcon 3. Most recently a neighboring planetary system went nova, and desperately no heir has come to claim the system's remaining possessions. These being worth at 237 trillion dollars and also many more.
If you kindly would provide the rest of your contact information, I can willingly and excitedly provide soon meeting with you in Centauri for transfer of funds.
Seems like a firewall could then help minimize a DDoS. A well-configured one will have traffic limiters on some ports in order to allow others to have some wiggle room.
So if ports 80 and 443 have less than 100% of the allocation, the firewall should pass the other ports on the remainder allocation without a hiccup.
Even if you allocate 90% to the http ports, that still leaves 10% for SMTP, SSH, etc. And note how important that is... if SSH is still easily passed, then you as an admin can log in and tweak (and respond) without leaving the comfort of your couch.
It's nice to know an individual can die over important things like a group of people who have no idea that individual exists losing a friggin' game.
Things like the fact that the U.S. has been engaged in a war for a decade, or impending revolution in the Middle East, or the onset of global warming, or whatnot... these are just minor annoyances compared to the vastly important things in life.
I wonder what happens to people if their favorite on American Idol doesn't win. That must cut life expectancy by half.
IMO, the annoying part is ever being called a "consumer."
It reduces my existence down to the one-dimensional act of consuming. Makes me feel like some sort of herd animal grazing on whatever slop the farmer is throwing in front of my face.
Granted, there is utility in only focusing on one dimension when that's the one being, ahem, focused on. For example, IT calls the individuals who operate computers "users."
But from an economic standpoint, it is dangerous to reduce people to consumers, because it locks you into thinking that that is their actual purpose for existence. We see this a lot now: that consumption = good, and any diminution in consumption is somehow bad.
Words are powerful, and "consumer" is not a positive word.
...but you can still remove the part that says they have eleven.
Just because you know that you have ten fingers doesn't prove much, once you start looking at more grey-area examples. Some people are 100% positive that the Earth is 6,000 years old and/or that everyone in the world adores Britney Spears and/or that Sudafed can cure a cold and/or that Barak Obama is a Muslim. Just because they are sure it is true doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is fantastically useful, if used properly.
If used improperly, it is just as unreliable as... any other page you stumble across on the internet (including on slashdot).
Incorrect method: read an article, and trust it implicitly as the absolute truth. Frankly, this is something that should be avoided for reading any article, regardless of who published it.
Correct method: read the article and provisionally consider it to be true. If you feel in the slightest bit uncomfortable about anything in it, do the following: 1. Check the history tab and look at the last few edits to see if there has been recent vandalism injected into it (always recommended). 2. Check the discussion tab to see if anyone is complaining about anything in it (this step is pretty optional most of the time). 3. Click the references on parts you question and read the referenced articles. 4. Click some external links and see if it checks out.
Recommended method: read the article and edit it as you go. Each time something sounds a little strange, do a bit of research and make it better and/or insert references. Do some copy-edits too. By the time you have completed the article, you will be a basic expert on the subject, and you will have substantially improved the article for all future readers. You rock!
Slashdot Mirror
Can't they pick different codenames? Makin' me hungry.
Insert obligatory Sarah Palin joke here.
I like the capabilities of my "smart" phone, and indeed there are times when I wish the screen was larger. But for something I end up carrying with me at all times, smaller is better. I really miss my earlier, very-dumb phones, which could fit in the coin pocket in my jeans.
I'm not sure cramming more screens into a smart phone is what I'd be interested in.
How much longer until I can get a screen in contact lenses?
Try turning max wheels down to zero. In the comments, people are reporting that they end up with spoke-like-contraptions that evolve to roll without wheels!
Currently, FOSS projects are not governed by collaborative governance.
They suffer from the same flaws as other representative democracies.
Representative democracies change the way issues are presented.
In the United States, one issue that is extremely popular and controversial is abortion. Even though it is in fact a non-issue. Hardly anyone advocates abortions-for-everyone, and hardly anyone advocates totalitarian-control-of-our-bodies. And yet we have this huge divisive issue. Why? Because it serves politicians to make it into an issue.
Without a politician-based system, these huge non-issues fade away, and people can focus on what they really care about.
Sure, many people might not concentrate on what's going on in their neighborhood (though I honestly do believe that would fundamentally change if people had the ability to participate in local decision-making as they please). But even if most people don't, some people will. And those people's actions will be transparent and immediately open to repeal if they do anything that turns out to not serve the community.
So even if only a few people work on the actually-important issues, the end result has to be better than the status quo, where very few people work on issues in secret, with the understood objective of garnering power, influence, and money by whatever means they can.
From the linked article:
Collaborative governance is not directly comparable to traditional direct democracy, which is usually a majority rule system used on only a few major issues. By comparison, collaborative governance is a consensus system intended to be used on all issues affecting a community, with the implicit understanding that anyone not participating on a particular issue consents to allow others to decide the issue.
No, politicians who spam meet the definition of "e-democracy.".
Alternatively, collaborative governance is something different... not about politicians at all.
The "point" to me sounded like a bunch of bullshit cyberspeak about how the internet is going to turn government into a big drum circle where we all join hands and sing songs of peace and love.
I don't think you're reading it right. Consensus governance is a valid technique and has nothing to do with hippie love fests (except that yes, it is more peaceful than authoritarian rule by threat of violence). Try reading the linked article again.
It's the same shit we've been hearing since the mid-90's. And yet government today still seems the same bunch of douchebags, doing the same evil shit that it was before--only now politicians send out tweets instead of flyers.
That is exactly what the Slashdot story says: e-democracy is about politicians sending tweets (etc.). Collaborative governance is a new formation that is in its infancy. Give it a few years.
No, no. Learn your history. It's Asimov's version of Newton's Laws.
The full form goes something like:
1. Every robot must remain in a state of constantly not injuring humans or causing them to become injured through the robot's state of rest.
2. Any robot, subject to a force in the form of an order by a human undergoes an acceleration in the form of obeying the order as long as it does not contradict the first law.
3. The mutual forces of action and reaction between a robot and another object must not allow that other object to end the existence of the robot, provided this doesn't conflict with the first two laws.
I think that's it. Wikipedia probably has the full version.
(Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with this site, and it is non-commercial as far as I can tell.)
This leads me to pimp my favorite new site/game/lesson... what is this? It's cool, that's all. Check out this neat implementation of a genetic algorithm to produce a cool demonstration computer-generated evolution: http://www.boxcar2d.com/
Beloved and esteemed buyer of premium pharmaceuticals.
I am most honourable assistant chief justice of Zarcon 3. Most recently a neighboring planetary system went nova, and desperately no heir has come to claim the system's remaining possessions. These being worth at 237 trillion dollars and also many more.
If you kindly would provide the rest of your contact information, I can willingly and excitedly provide soon meeting with you in Centauri for transfer of funds.
Honestly,
Xeeebox Smith
Can we now be done with all these "my universe is bigger" disputes? Or is someone else going to come along now and say it's 500 times larger?
Even today, a lot of people are pretty dang confused about what them there internets have on 'em.
Seems like a firewall could then help minimize a DDoS. A well-configured one will have traffic limiters on some ports in order to allow others to have some wiggle room.
So if ports 80 and 443 have less than 100% of the allocation, the firewall should pass the other ports on the remainder allocation without a hiccup.
Even if you allocate 90% to the http ports, that still leaves 10% for SMTP, SSH, etc. And note how important that is... if SSH is still easily passed, then you as an admin can log in and tweak (and respond) without leaving the comfort of your couch.
The most complex mechanical tool ever built is being decommissioned.
I doubt it will serve much use except in museums after that.
It's nice to know an individual can die over important things like a group of people who have no idea that individual exists losing a friggin' game.
Things like the fact that the U.S. has been engaged in a war for a decade, or impending revolution in the Middle East, or the onset of global warming, or whatnot... these are just minor annoyances compared to the vastly important things in life.
I wonder what happens to people if their favorite on American Idol doesn't win. That must cut life expectancy by half.
Now who would go and attack SourceForge? Microsoft? Oracle?
I just don't see why anyone would target an OSS repository.
IMO, the annoying part is ever being called a "consumer."
It reduces my existence down to the one-dimensional act of consuming. Makes me feel like some sort of herd animal grazing on whatever slop the farmer is throwing in front of my face.
Granted, there is utility in only focusing on one dimension when that's the one being, ahem, focused on. For example, IT calls the individuals who operate computers "users."
But from an economic standpoint, it is dangerous to reduce people to consumers, because it locks you into thinking that that is their actual purpose for existence. We see this a lot now: that consumption = good, and any diminution in consumption is somehow bad.
Words are powerful, and "consumer" is not a positive word.
What is that strange substance these books are packaged in? Some kind of plant-fiber derivative? Weird.
...but you can still remove the part that says they have eleven.
Just because you know that you have ten fingers doesn't prove much, once you start looking at more grey-area examples. Some people are 100% positive that the Earth is 6,000 years old and/or that everyone in the world adores Britney Spears and/or that Sudafed can cure a cold and/or that Barak Obama is a Muslim. Just because they are sure it is true doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is fantastically useful, if used properly.
If used improperly, it is just as unreliable as... any other page you stumble across on the internet (including on slashdot).
Incorrect method: read an article, and trust it implicitly as the absolute truth. Frankly, this is something that should be avoided for reading any article, regardless of who published it.
Correct method: read the article and provisionally consider it to be true. If you feel in the slightest bit uncomfortable about anything in it, do the following:
1. Check the history tab and look at the last few edits to see if there has been recent vandalism injected into it (always recommended).
2. Check the discussion tab to see if anyone is complaining about anything in it (this step is pretty optional most of the time).
3. Click the references on parts you question and read the referenced articles.
4. Click some external links and see if it checks out.
Recommended method: read the article and edit it as you go. Each time something sounds a little strange, do a bit of research and make it better and/or insert references. Do some copy-edits too. By the time you have completed the article, you will be a basic expert on the subject, and you will have substantially improved the article for all future readers. You rock!
Hm. Seems something very similar to this was depicted a while ago...
Or do you mean 1984?
Think on that one... ;)
Is there any moderation-tag for "super-duper-insightful-(plus-funny)?"