I enjoy tinkering around with computers. I have a moderate idea of security. I've spent the last few days brining up a firewall which sits behind a cable/dsl router. I imagine a fair number of the people here are like that too. But we are not the general public. We are a biased subsample. I know many people who would rather not know or think about security if someone else could handle it for them. It is a service they would gladly pay others to do. With all the alarmist articles about the net, this is adds an incentive to have security done by someone. But people don't want to learn so sombody else. The other major reason that desktops could die is them well dieing. If someone could develop a client that is as reliable as the phone system and keep the complexity at the other end. Then pros can take care of the problems. So the end user never has to worry.
This has nothing to do with servers or even TCP/IP it's about data transmission bandwidth. What they are complaining about is that they have to pay the full bandwidth up and down. Instead of having a portion of the bandwidth paid for by the other side. The idea behind the complaint is that some of that bandwidth is used by traffic generated in other places so other companies should pay something for that. In other words they are adding value to anothers companies products and so should get some sort of compensation. The other argument they are using is that data and voice are so similar the rules for one should apply to the other. Well the 50% cost subsidy on the bandwidth anyways..
It also only gets rid of one pollutant. There are some other pollutants that are quite nasty. Sulphur dioxide is quite often produced by burning impure coal and petroleum. This in turn can lead to the formation of H2SO4 on contact with water. This is reason why "london fogs" of the industrial revolution where quite toxic. Another major pollutant is O3 (ozone), which is a carcinogenic agent among other things.
Well thats not what the model is at all. First the people do not get rehabilitated. They are just afraid of getting caught. When they are past a certain level of fear they start turning other people in. Thats not a police state thats a snitch state. However there are alot of flaws when compared to real world situations. No "this worked before" events. No loyalty. No exclusive dealings with friends. No lying to the authorities about a deal. No believing one person over the other. Lots of problems which translate into real societies shifting more rapidly and more towards either direction than the model.
so you increase the chance of accurate predictions
on
Simulating Societies
·
· Score: 1
So you develop a model of human populations that works moderatly well. It won't give you an exact image of what is going next but still follows the same trends. You modify it slightly in some real world way. Like as in this example allowing the peace keepers more mobility in arresting people that commit violence. It is doubtfull that it will work perfectly. But it might reduce the chance that an act of genocide occurs. So in essance a probabilistic model of the world to which modification has a probabilistic effect on the real world. That is very usefull. Sure it won't work in all cases but it's much better than nothing. It reduces the risk of a viable solution being canned because it just happend to run in to a set of random events that where detrimental. Where as the normal case for this solution is quite effective. Besides your arguments are assuming absolutes. Process A fails once so it is as bad as process B which fails once. However when you look at the two one model gets things right 99% of the time and the other gets it right 99.999 percent of the time. Which are of course not equally flawed. To illustrait with a real world example think of weather predictions. Over the last century we have improved the length of time that our predictions are adequatly acurate from a few hours to 5 days. Both of which are based on raw data. Of course after a period of time your guess is as good as environment canada. Except that as time goes on we refine our weather model and update the data to a current state. Allowing probabalistic accuracy for another period of time. So if we can do weather why can't we do society? What says we can't predict free will? After all we do it all the time. Think about the predictions we use about other drivers when we are driving. How about how people react in a social setting. There are limits on humans normal reactions so why can't we try to model it with a reasionably usefull accuracy.
The license seems to restrict Company implementation (which seems to apply to non-microsoft operating systems.) and the use of gpl/ gpl like licenses. But not when a Company implementation fails to apply i.e. win9x. If this is true then you could implement one for Win2k/xp/me/95/98/dos gpl it and then have someone who didn't look at the tech ref port it.. Since one is following the guidelines of the tech ref license and the other hasn't signed it could they do it right? Someone see a clause or something that closes the hole in the agreement?
Slashdot Mirror
I enjoy tinkering around with computers. I have a moderate idea of security. I've spent the last few days brining up a firewall which sits behind a cable/dsl router. I imagine a fair number of the people here are like that too. But we are not the general public. We are a biased subsample. I know many people who would rather not know or think about security if someone else could handle it for them. It is a service they would gladly pay others to do. With all the alarmist articles about the net, this is adds an incentive to have security done by someone. But people don't want to learn so sombody else. The other major reason that desktops could die is them well dieing. If someone could develop a client that is as reliable as the phone system and keep the complexity at the other end. Then pros can take care of the problems. So the end user never has to worry.
This has nothing to do with servers or even TCP/IP it's about data transmission bandwidth. What they are complaining about is that they have to pay the full bandwidth up and down. Instead of having a portion of the bandwidth paid for by the other side. The idea behind the complaint is that some of that bandwidth is used by traffic generated in other places so other companies should pay something for that. In other words they are adding value to anothers companies products and so should get some sort of compensation. The other argument they are using is that data and voice are so similar the rules for one should apply to the other. Well the 50% cost subsidy on the bandwidth anyways..
It also only gets rid of one pollutant. There are some other pollutants that are quite nasty. Sulphur dioxide is quite often produced by burning impure coal and petroleum. This in turn can lead to the formation of H2SO4 on contact with water. This is reason why "london fogs" of the industrial revolution where quite toxic. Another major pollutant is O3 (ozone), which is a carcinogenic agent among other things.
Well thats not what the model is at all. First the people do not get rehabilitated. They are just afraid of getting caught. When they are past a certain level of fear they start turning other people in. Thats not a police state thats a snitch state. However there are alot of flaws when compared to real world situations. No "this worked before" events. No loyalty. No exclusive dealings with friends. No lying to the authorities about a deal. No believing one person over the other. Lots of problems which translate into real societies shifting more rapidly and more towards either direction than the model.
So you develop a model of human populations that works moderatly well. It won't give you an exact image of what is going next but still follows the same trends. You modify it slightly in some real world way. Like as in this example allowing the peace keepers more mobility in arresting people that commit violence. It is doubtfull that it will work perfectly. But it might reduce the chance that an act of genocide occurs. So in essance a probabilistic model of the world to which modification has a probabilistic effect on the real world. That is very usefull. Sure it won't work in all cases but it's much better than nothing. It reduces the risk of a viable solution being canned because it just happend to run in to a set of random events that where detrimental. Where as the normal case for this solution is quite effective. Besides your arguments are assuming absolutes. Process A fails once so it is as bad as process B which fails once. However when you look at the two one model gets things right 99% of the time and the other gets it right 99.999 percent of the time. Which are of course not equally flawed. To illustrait with a real world example think of weather predictions. Over the last century we have improved the length of time that our predictions are adequatly acurate from a few hours to 5 days. Both of which are based on raw data. Of course after a period of time your guess is as good as environment canada. Except that as time goes on we refine our weather model and update the data to a current state. Allowing probabalistic accuracy for another period of time. So if we can do weather why can't we do society? What says we can't predict free will? After all we do it all the time. Think about the predictions we use about other drivers when we are driving. How about how people react in a social setting. There are limits on humans normal reactions so why can't we try to model it with a reasionably usefull accuracy.
The license seems to restrict Company implementation (which seems to apply to non-microsoft operating systems.) and the use of gpl/ gpl like licenses. But not when a Company implementation fails to apply i.e. win9x. If this is true then you could implement one for Win2k/xp/me/95/98/dos gpl it and then have someone who didn't look at the tech ref port it.. Since one is following the guidelines of the tech ref license and the other hasn't signed it could they do it right? Someone see a clause or something that closes the hole in the agreement?