There is certainly a bad effect from making private information too public. I consider it is generally a matter of what needs to be public. Take reporting by the news media in general.
There is this notion that the public "has a right to know". This is carried forward in such a way that individuals that may not have done anything wrong at all, have their private life flushed in the media.
What is newsworthy should be tempered by what is damaging to the individual(s) vs vital to the public. In a situation where, for example, somebody's house is being robbed, the identity of who's been robbed is not important to anyone else. But can be damaging to the individual.
The presumption of innocent until found guilty is a building block of our society, and though it's often abused, needs to be applied when evaluating revealing private information.
The general public don't want to be associated with people of "bad repute." But in today's litigious society it is very easy to get drawn into some suit. Not-so-easy-to-find information becomes a practical barrier which in effect stops casual lookers who are not that interested in the first place from finding information that requires a deeper knowledge to see it in the proper light, or perspective.
Being casual about people's private information under any guise is a recepy for trouble. It creates a chain effect where we start to think less and less of our fellow citizens, which means more and more likely to be harsh when being compassionate would have yielded better results. That leads into fearing people more and more, with less and less interaction.
This is already playing out in cities across the US, where interestingly the media is hellbent on scaring citizens. Presenting news more from an entertainment value than developments or activities in society, has turned reporting upside down. What is important to one family is first page, while news for the country is hidden. Only presenting bad news is promoting a loopsided view of what actually goes on. Giving the idea that mostly bad things are happening.
Unfortunately you tend to get what you put your attention on.
The US has more people incarcerated, in at least the western hemisphere, than anywhere else. Our values have drastically dropped in the last 40 years. When was the last time you even saw a man open a door for a woman? Or for someone to do something unselfish for a stranger?
Though I don't put the blame squarely on the media, or them being casual with private information, it certainly is not helping either. The rule should be a gradual scale of keeping private information private unless vital to society at large.
Yeah, they ARE so greedy to get paid for someone elses music, whom they ripped off in the first place.
Not to condone stealing at any level, but RIAA are more criminal in their ripping the artists off. You should read one of these contracts.
Or take a look at the movie industry. If you live in greater Los Angeles and you go to the bank to borrow money to make a movie you will NOT get it without a contract with one of the big studios. THAT contract in turn reads similar to the record labels which says handy little things like, I can charge for any expense, real or imagined, over and over, if I only show it once. (The bank will even tell you that they are willing to give you the money if you want it for something else!)
Guess why going on tour in spite of being so hard on everyone, is done at length? It's the only way a musician can make money. Unless you are really a big ticket.
No, the RIAA should be run out of business and be replaced with something that actually have musicians interests at heart. Though, basically being criminals themselves they are busy doing it to themselves already.
Eh, no. They don't have $100M at this point. They only get something like 5M to start. Which might not even be in stone at this point. Anyway we have not seen any evidence that 100M even is available.
When saying uniting people it does not does automatically mean forcing people with radically different view upon others. Rather people finding things to agree on, typically towards an agreed upon goal.
What IS needed is to find more unity and agreements towards greater survival. There is too much individuation without care for others. Of course that does not mean it would be easy to accomplish. Certainly there are people who are opposed to people in any way being closer to them, or knowing more about them. Fortunately the clear majority do care and once the unknown about the other person has been replaced with some agreeable knowledge things get easier fast.
I've seen a few different continents, and met people from a few more. A common factor I've observed is a desire to know about strangers and their different ways. Simply by looking for something I could admire or respect about the others, caused the to do the same and I could get a lot of positive interaction going.
Unifying with for example radical Islamists(?) or poor people does not have to mean I adopt, against my will, their bad traits or situations. People who are not surviving well need our knowledge and support, and usually seem only too happy to receive it. Islam no doubt have some good things in it if one were to look closer. The point is one can still allow people to be different and let them pursue their goal of happiness without it being at the cost of others. One could probably say that unity would be a workable coexistence.
The war between Russia and the USA was heavily fueled by there not being any understanding about the other. Both were afraid of what they might do to them. A bit like the song where Sting sings "I hope the Russians love their children too!". Which indeed the do. One very interesting story about love for others were from a battle lines during WWI when on Christmas Night they started to sing Christmas songs. After that they refused to shoot on each other and had to be replaced.
The Internet is one such great tool which allows people to come together and find out about each other. Of course various government leaders prefer wars and so on and do what they can to fuel discourse, but that's not what the people really want.
Partly correct. What they did was to mass introduce the GUI. 1.0 was a joke as far as usability went. At the same time the 386 was out and the talks of multiprocessing was promising new and exciting computing in the near future.
I don't think they measured squat. Just did their best. Only thing was that there were nobody who could properly design an O/S and complexity, instead of simplicity, ruled the day.
What we are seeing is the very best they as group are able to produce.
They have never been great at marketing either. But they were really the first to push the GUI with success. Don't forget Apple became a very closed platform. They did not attract masses the way the open IBM PC did. Right there history shows how important open standards are to success. Apple was considered this fantastic success story but in reality they cut it short and did not buy the masses the way the Johnny came lately IBM PC did. But we are slow when it comes to learning from history.
What they have been good at is market lock-in, vender lock-in and many other types of lock-in. (The problem really is that they had never heard about duty and were only interested in money.) We all thought they would get it right sooner or later and deliver a good platform that would allow happy computing. The fact that they specialized in adopting good standards and then corrupt them so that you got locked in was a very calculated development.
At one point Gates himself said that Unix was the way to go. Then he decided to do it better but clearly never understood what made Unix so good (simplicity). Torvald on the other hand was ONLY looking for simplicity. Which is why it fit so well into the general Unix design.
Look at windows, it is filled with arbitrary complexities and is horribly inefficient. Never mind when upper management throws fits and yell at staff, I've never found that conducive to good programming, or business.
Gates cheated his way into O/S design, used people from VAX who's memory management problem were dragged over to windows. Built a kernel in BASIC! Haha! And got away with it for years!
Someone who knew more about systems picked the Unix design and rewrote history based on technology, and was not motivated by money. Interesting to see how much we like to be able to just do what we need. Imagine if IBM had released Linux. With all the corporate support for let's say $100. Then opened it up with a GPL license.
Microsoft would not be sitting pretty at all. The O/S2 collaboration would not have happened and Gates would not have learned his lessons from that. For all their success I've never considered them much of a success where it really matters. Integrity in product and care for customers. I have people send me Brandy, fine wines and other tokens of their appreciation after sales. Because I believe in treating other people the way I like to be treated, and I really care about my clients.
In order to compile you need to install the dependencies which is very easy. I've been a power user of Linux since -95 and have checked out something like 100 distributions and O/S's.
Sometimes you get stomped because you have no idea of what you are doing. Things are so different that it simply does not make sense.
However, what saves the day just about every single time. Including your problem is Google!
In fact I ran into needing to compile something under Kubuntu a few days ago, on a remote server without X.
A quick google showed exactly the line to execute which installed the needed files. Ubuntu/Kubuntu has an extensive library of how to do things and when that fails someone has either put up instruction on a web page or in a forum. Being new to Linux and all it can be a total barrier to accomplish things. Spending a little time to get familiar with your new environment would have saved you a lot of headache, never mind 200GB.
Agreed. One of the biggest mistake people do when deciding that something is more secure is to do things the way it is supposed to work. A good example is how packet filtering firewalls allowed any traffic in if they just said "I'm a response to a request you sent". When they designed the firewall technology they clearly did not expect people to do non standard things like that.
After getting seriously hacked they came out with stateful inspection which keeps track of requests going out so they can reasonably tell if an inbound packet is a reply and not a hack.
The point being that crackers, thieves and other criminals cannot be counted on to do things the "right way". By lying, cheating and doing things in a totally unexpected way they find ways around the barriers we put up.
Like digging a tunnel under the wall to get in. You're supposed to try to _walk_ in.
This is where most people fall short when they evaluate how secure something is. They test it the way they are supposed to. Never imagining someone doing it backwards and upside down. So limiting functionality that should never have been turned on by default, with windows there obviously are a lot of things you can do to make it more secure. Giving off a nice warm feeling of how much more secure it is. Then missing obvious buffer overflows and new holes created by the new buggy code.
Windows people usually never realize that Unices have a design philosophy that makes it much easier to lock down. (The concept of one small and simple program that does one thing really well. Then just chain them to get added functionality.) I constantly run into windows techs who think their computer is safe because they unchecked check boxes and so on. (It is no coincidence that OpenBSD can tout the statistics they have. The sound design philosophy on Unix allowed them to accomplish what billion dollar operations cannot.)
Did these cats ever research what hackers/crackers have done and how they got in? Nope. It just feels right to them, so it must be more secure.
And then a law was past which makes it illegal for anyone who is not trained on it, to use it. Which is probably why eBay made that decision. The sensitivity on that thing is amazing. The needle work is probably the best you can find anywhere. Not your average measuring instrument.
You should take a pinch test. The moment you think of the moment when you were pinched the operator can tell. Does not matter of what you think of before. There might be a lot of needle activity as you think about various things, but the operator is trained to recognize the needle action that occurred when you got pinched the first time. Seeing the same needle action again he/she can tell that you were thinking about the pinch.
You are not likely to find an ohm meter that will be sensitive enough to respond to thought.
Well I know that there's an old animosity between the any Mental Health Association since the Church is not only turning over evidence on mental health practitioners that does things like having sex with their patients but highlighting their lack of medical evidence for putting children and adults on psychotropic drugs. Several thousand have been turned over to the D.A.'s office. Clearly there's no love lost between them.
The "rhythmic massages" is not at all rhythmic but one of the basic body assists which according to my understanding works with the nervous system and relieves electrical standing waves. I believe it's called a nerve assist and judging from testimonies by firefighters they felt they could not have accomplished what they did without it. Probably why they gave out the commendation.
As for the Red Cross I don't think they were even allowed in early on. That might have pissed them off since the volunteer ministers had organized a lot of support lines.
But I can see the spin which makes it sound really bad. I'd be pissed off if I read that.
Hmm. It always warms my heart to see people who are willing to stand up and fight for freedom and so on. But there are a lot of stories that sound totally made up, sorta like a which hunt. If I got it right; Someone steels the church's materials and places it on the Internet. Church uses legal methods to stop the distribution. Some people feel their freedom is threatened by the church's lawsuits, even though they probably really had no business distributing it in the first place. Then it sort of snowballs.
The really odd part is that if you just look the CoS is recognized worldwide for it's humanitarian actions. They were for a while the only non govt organization allowed on Ground Zero due the relief given to firefighters etc. Helped hurricane victims in some of the worst disasters in the world, including New Orleans. If you look you see prison reform in various places and countries which has an amazing success rate using Ron's teachings. Kids are helped becoming much better students thanks to what he developed. (Which is what interests me, being a parent myself. Plus frankly I find it fascinating. My daughter is now rated part of the top 2% in the US, after doing some courses in the life improvement center.)
I have visited many types of churches across three continents. You could easily say that I've been interested in what the world has to offer for a long time. Out of all of them Scientology appears to have received a lot of positive responses and produced real improvements all over the place.
The church is very big on learning about ethics. Which is defined as something along the line of what is helping the greatest number. Being honorable, help others, true to self and things like that. Has a book with precepts that sounds like the ten commandments. Sounds pretty decent.
As for the "thousands and thousands of dollars before you can learn much about it at all" that is simply not so. I've seen a bunch available online at typical book store prices.
The way I see it is that unless mayors all over the US, police chiefs, fire chiefs, heads of states, and citizens of all walks of life, from all over the world are all in a big conspiracy to fool everyone there clearly is a lot of good coming out from Scientology. It's hard to balance that with the allegations one can read on some of these websites.
I've spoken to a few people who were warning me about how dangerous the church is. How one could not even open the Dianetics book without being hypnotized! I mean if you are that easily hypnotized then the world is one a massive threat. (Imagine turning on the TV!) Obviously some people need a good which hunt to feel good if you ask me.
I grant that there are some law suits that don't look right, though I'm not on a mailing list which tells me why scientology is suing anyone. (Which would be interesting.: ) I would love to get the inside scoop on why the church makes some of these lawsuits, other than what seems the obvious of trying to defend something it cares about. I just don't see the evil in real life that people talk about online. Of course I've not been sued either. But I can't believe that someone walks around doing nothing but minding his/her own business and then gets sued by CoS. Unless of course the lawyers are not scientologists but normal lawyers who just like suing to earn a living!:)
For all the years that I've traveled around the world I know there are things that I'll never understand, but at the same time I know there are people who love to cry wolf. People who are fired, for example, often don't tell the real reason why. Somehow it's always the boss who's crazy. Most people who have done stupid things don't like others to know and of course people usually blame others for what they have done themselves. Human nature.
The Lisa McPherson story is another story that turned out to have more to it than what was said. It turned out that one of the coroners had severly misreported the cause of death. The church was cleared once
it was that this guy got mauled it is interesting to note that it was someone taunting the tiger. Versus someone who was just admiring it. The tiger mauls him and then jumps back in again, hmm. Which begs the other question, how do you taunt a tiger in such a scenario? Being that if you were too obvious one would think someone would have interferred.
I've seen tigers in the wild, but I was safely in a car and nobody yelled at them or anything like that. They simply rested in the shade and looked like they could care less. (Pretty typical of cats in general.) Which again brings the question; what did he do to taunt it? Does any article relay that?
I've never been on the receiving end of being sued by the church, and there certanly has been a lot of people who have sounded like rabid dogs spouting the most outragous stuff, nonstop, on how wrong the church was in doing something. [Like the old ARS (or something like that) newsgroup]. The sheer volume seems to indicate they have no life whatsoever and this is what they spend their time doing. CoS is a popular target because 1) they are quite different and 2) they have stopped other people (who to me sounded like those same rabid people) from spreading what they (CoS) said were lies about them, and in turn the people claimed they were wronged by the church.
A few times over the years I did follow up and looked at the public facts, which supported the CoS attempt to simply defend themselves not from being criticized, but really attacked with pretty nasty lies. Living in LA I had the opportunity to attend one of their court cases (having always been curious about the church's ideals). Not to say that I know all about these cases, but what was being presented in court.
At the same time I'm sure the church must have had their share of nuts who managed to reach positions they shouldn't have, which allowed them to do things they should not have done. Most organizations seem to have had their share.
My dad was a Catholic and my mom a Protestant. They raised me as a Catholic and I took communion at the age of 12. I married a Jewish woman and have known people from all sorts of religions. Having lived all over the world I've met nuts and really good people from all religions and walks of life. You always have some people who seem to fester on wounds. They have no interest in truth or helping anyone; they seem to live only on raising trouble. My mother-in-law was a bit like that. Did not have a job, lived on money from her dead husband. She would come up with fantistic stories to fill her life.
Again not being a specialist in the facts behind these lawsuits, where a paralegal would probably be the ideal person to talk to, I really wonder what the truth is behind them./. certainly is not a reliable place to find facts, nor are some of these places (mentioned in earlier posts), as many really sound like a bunch of unemployed people spreading rumors, like my mother-in-law.
I've also been in positions a couple of times where I stood up defending the rightous publicly and ended up with egg on my face because it turned out I had bought lies from the "rightous". Which is pretty embarrasing.
If the church is really violating our rights through the courts, would they or their lawyers not be slapped by the judge? I've seen the church get slapped a couple of times but then Supreme courts have overturned them.
In short I don't publicly cry "foul!" anymore before having checked the facts myself. Though I may do so in private, but at least I don't end up with "public egg face"!:)
The whole problem is related to an outdated business model of ripping everyone off, the labels in other words. I've developed and sold my software for 30 years and could care less about piracy. Actually it makes software known. In the old days dBase was considered to gain much of it market share and recognition initially from piracy, so it seems helpful. It's not like these people would buy from you anyway. Plus it gives legit people a chance to check it out before buying. Now all I do is OSS and I love the model. It's a great facilitator for offering additional services for those who don't want to be bothered.
The labels are crying piracy because that's what they have been doing for all these years. As musicians in general points out you can't make money on CD's unless you get really big numbers. Then labels don't chase after good musicians or make sure there is quality music available. They are too focused on money to see the forest, so to speak.
After 20 years the market is saying enough is enough. We are not going to accept DRM on top of it all.
Mind you these labels actually lobbied for legislation that would allow them to wipe out a computer remotely if they thought it had pirated music on it! No checks or balances, just wipe it!
That kind of an attitude is entirely in line with their general attitude towards artists. The old saying of knowing others the as you know yourself, or some such, comes to mind.
If these real pirates were to go out of business I would not come to their funeral. It would however open up the doors for much better labels to spring up. Labels who actually did not just think of themselves but tried to be an asset. That attitude is far more popular with people and would quickly gain foothold.
Then you could have had the opportunity to discover that it is not needed with weapons, provided they are not heavy. As I'm sure you know it does not take much body motion to use many light weapons.
Don't know what's so new about the blind spot. No, I did not bother.
No, I did not refer to those times when someone is constantly looking around. Rather those where it's really unique to see them turn around at all. Those are the times that stand out and make it really odd.
Good that it got you laughing, I quite enjoyed your replies. And like you I think yours are just as crazy.
This was one hell of a piece of misinformation. I was thinking why would they need a bill to to say that the Internet can be used as a terrorist tool? Are we going to see bills on guns, knives, forks etc, and just about everything imaginable, declaring them terrorist tools now!?
I see you don't do martial arts. You have to see what is coming your way or you will buy the faint and be set up for another attack. The normal urge is to avoid what comes your way. But in order to be good, you train to only respond to real threats, not faints.
No I've never done LSD or any drugs, simply did not interest me. I've always been too interested in life and my senses to take chances of limiting them or adding vias.
Though I find it interesting how you want to explain it away with the subconscious. It is a popular why for things that cannot be explained. Yet, if you are not in your body there is no brain to aid you. The guy had not been in the garage, valuables were still there. The door to it was closed, there were no change in temperature as the garage has outdoor temperature and I came in from the outside. (And frankly that door had been open many times when I got there.) To you it's a few odd incidents, to me it's normal life.
The guy who tried to have me fired had not behaved differently as he had not even decided against me. Which is a totally silly explanation. I felt it when he attacked me, not before or after, while. (All three of us became very good friends.) What I pick up on always matches what happened.
My wife can be in a sudden need to talk to me (friends invited us away for the weekend) she must get hold of me and I'll get it and contact her. It goes on and on. After a while you run out of excuses. But you have not lived my life and cannot be expected to know. And I can tell you there's more to my life than being a brain. You can always be different. We don't have to be the same.
I know whatever I feel will mean something different to you. You are totally into the brain and I've noticed it doesn't do much.
If I wanted a scientific discussion do you really think I would have started it here? Not to say that there could not be people capable of it, but rather the quantity that is not. Never mind those you don't even want to talk to.
Nothing said here could seriously be considered, well... serious. You go here to read interesting links and see some arbitrary views with some occasional value thrown in. I think the best value would be that it sometimes makes people look at and think about uncommon things.
Thank you for proving my point. There are not enough eye "resolution to explain our quality vision. You should befriend and talk to some neurosurgents who actually practice vs someone full of theory, and discover how much they profess not to understand. Some of things that happens they simple can't match.
Yes, I rather rapidly threw together numbers of the net, screwed up my math, and yet there you came and made my point stronger.
The whole subject is best guesswork, which is following the same thread of thinking. The blind leading the blind.
You should however not call me sir, as you would have no idea of what that means.
I agree, if you look at my first post, about the poor eye vision. But not it being filled in in any way. I know from my active life in the military, martial arts, racing etc what is real and not. If you drive at 150mph or have a fast kick flying at you, you cannot do deal with it on a guess, or filled in best guesses. Not that the people who come up with these ideas are usually from that part of life anyway.
When you can discuss all sorts of details with someone who has a photographic memory, you quickly see this is not interpreted.
You think you are a brain. That's fine with me. Western philosophies says so. I know I'm not a brain since I was a little kid where I certainly practiced drowning a number of times. I remember things as a newborn that my mother confirmed, wondering how I knew. To you it is just my brain hallucinating or someone telling me. However only me and my mother knew and she had never told anyone this silly detail.
My life however does not subscribe to that point of view, to partly quote Sting. The brain "facts" does not add up. Too many interesting coincidents that does not fit.
As far as volatile memory, yeah it can certainly appear so. However throughout my life I've done experiments that clearly shows that we never forget anything. It's all there. It just is not something that can be easily explained if the only possibility is that you are a brain, a piece of meat.
Simple experiments like standing in a crowd and looking at a person who is not at all looking at you. Very shortly after I really start looking with interest, that person just turns around and looks right at me. Or the other way around with me finding someone looking intently at me.
I can tell you that happens to me all the time.
Someone I know, who I was visiting, was being burglerized. They were gone for the weekend and I walked in through the garage on the second floor. Instantly I felt the presence of someone who did not belong. It was something threatening. My neck hair stood straight up and I knew someone uninvited was there or had been there. When I made it down to the first floor I discovered things were not in it's normal orderly self and a broken french door. Someone had busted the glass door and spent time looking for something, valuable probably.
A guy in a company I was helping went to the owner and tried to have me fired one evening. That night I suddenly felt as if someone was attacking me, and when I walked in the door the next morning I asked the owner what was going on. He told me about the other guy's attempts. He had however never said or hinted anything to me, but been inspired from something the day before.
I know, I know, I'm severely hallucinating. If it never happened to you then it is impossible. Which is OK. For many people, even in the West, and most people in the East this is not strange. They simply smile when you tell them, as if having discovered a secret everyone knows.
I've never been able to explain life through these brain philosophies. Yet, I know what I know very clearly. I see and feel things that brains are not easily the answer to.
Look at the guy who call my views "bullshit". It clearly is so for him. I have however met a decent percentage of people who does recognize what I'm talking about. But most people, again in the West, talk quietly about their experiences.
Since being a child I've always held this simplistic view of life which is that there is more to life than meets the eye, and I don't think it's found in some firing synaptic.
Tell a fencer they are guessing what is coming in. I know this is the best explanation that brain diggers can come up with. I'm just not that narrow minded.
Actually it's easy to see that the whole nervous system does run at a frequency.
Wave your hand rapidly in front of you and tell me if you see one hand moving or a series of snapshots. If you see a series of snapshots then you have exceeded the rate by which the eye sees.
Ditto, if you know anything about resonating frequencies in object you'd notice how your nervous system is responding to certain frequencies. It clearly runs at a frequency.
I'm not going to tell you about your vision, and I agree on the low volume of input from the eyes. It's the conclusion I don't agree with. My brain does not fill in what it is extrapolating because I would have probably been dead if I had lived part of my life with "guesses."
The "guessing" comes from not being able to come up with a satisfactory answer, having seen how poorly the eyes sees.
Hell, it will be fun to see what they figure out to be the capacity of the brain, as far as how much information it can store.
I know visually we are looking at least at something around 24 frames per second. The eye is supposed to have a resolution of around 1000 dpi. Not sure how to measure the viewing area. But let's say it is lesser and lesser resolution the higher the angle. Let's say, just to have a number, that we have a 16:9 viewing ratio at two feet distance. Lets say it's three feet wide. That should add up to something around 36"x20". At 1000dpi that would be something like 729,000 dots. Time 24 per second becomes 17,496,000 dots per second.
Though I think people who have dissected eyes and the stem to the brain would have a hard time quite understanding how that dpi reaches the brain.
On a daily basis, if we don't count 8 hours sleeping, we still come up with 280 million pieces of data in 16 hours.
If an average brain is 1400 cubic centimeters or 85 cubic inches, how many cells could it have if we say it is solid. Best case scenario.
I see numbers of 9,350 cells per cubed millimeter which is 93,500 per cube centimeter. With the above brain size we are looking at 130,900,000 cells in a solid brain.
To complicate things further, how many days of memory do you have? Most people have problems remembering all details but then some people have photographic memory. Which as far as I can see means that all of us has the potential to have it.
The running question is how much info is stored in each cell.
Of course that's not including all the other senses and impressions that are stored.
Slashdot Mirror
They are available from http://laclinux.com./ They have a decent selection, if not all.
There is certainly a bad effect from making private information too public. I consider it is generally a matter of what needs to be public. Take reporting by the news media in general.
There is this notion that the public "has a right to know". This is carried forward in such a way that individuals that may not have done anything wrong at all, have their private life flushed in the media.
What is newsworthy should be tempered by what is damaging to the individual(s) vs vital to the public. In a situation where, for example, somebody's house is being robbed, the identity of who's been robbed is not important to anyone else. But can be damaging to the individual.
The presumption of innocent until found guilty is a building block of our society, and though it's often abused, needs to be applied when evaluating revealing private information.
The general public don't want to be associated with people of "bad repute." But in today's litigious society it is very easy to get drawn into some suit. Not-so-easy-to-find information becomes a practical barrier which in effect stops casual lookers who are not that interested in the first place from finding information that requires a deeper knowledge to see it in the proper light, or perspective.
Being casual about people's private information under any guise is a recepy for trouble. It creates a chain effect where we start to think less and less of our fellow citizens, which means more and more likely to be harsh when being compassionate would have yielded better results. That leads into fearing people more and more, with less and less interaction.
This is already playing out in cities across the US, where interestingly the media is hellbent on scaring citizens. Presenting news more from an entertainment value than developments or activities in society, has turned reporting upside down. What is important to one family is first page, while news for the country is hidden. Only presenting bad news is promoting a loopsided view of what actually goes on. Giving the idea that mostly bad things are happening.
Unfortunately you tend to get what you put your attention on.
The US has more people incarcerated, in at least the western hemisphere, than anywhere else. Our values have drastically dropped in the last 40 years. When was the last time you even saw a man open a door for a woman? Or for someone to do something unselfish for a stranger?
Though I don't put the blame squarely on the media, or them being casual with private information, it certainly is not helping either. The rule should be a gradual scale of keeping private information private unless vital to society at large.
Yeah, they ARE so greedy to get paid for someone elses music, whom they ripped off in the first place.
Not to condone stealing at any level, but RIAA are more criminal in their ripping the artists off. You should read one of these contracts.
Or take a look at the movie industry. If you live in greater Los Angeles and you go to the bank to borrow money to make a movie you will NOT get it without a contract with one of the big studios. THAT contract in turn reads similar to the record labels which says handy little things like, I can charge for any expense, real or imagined, over and over, if I only show it once. (The bank will even tell you that they are willing to give you the money if you want it for something else!)
Guess why going on tour in spite of being so hard on everyone, is done at length? It's the only way a musician can make money. Unless you are really a big ticket.
No, the RIAA should be run out of business and be replaced with something that actually have musicians interests at heart. Though, basically being criminals themselves they are busy doing it to themselves already.
Eh, no. They don't have $100M at this point. They only get something like 5M to start. Which might not even be in stone at this point. Anyway we have not seen any evidence that 100M even is available.
When saying uniting people it does not does automatically mean forcing people with radically different view upon others. Rather people finding things to agree on, typically towards an agreed upon goal.
What IS needed is to find more unity and agreements towards greater survival. There is too much individuation without care for others. Of course that does not mean it would be easy to accomplish. Certainly there are people who are opposed to people in any way being closer to them, or knowing more about them. Fortunately the clear majority do care and once the unknown about the other person has been replaced with some agreeable knowledge things get easier fast.
I've seen a few different continents, and met people from a few more. A common factor I've observed is a desire to know about strangers and their different ways. Simply by looking for something I could admire or respect about the others, caused the to do the same and I could get a lot of positive interaction going.
Unifying with for example radical Islamists(?) or poor people does not have to mean I adopt, against my will, their bad traits or situations. People who are not surviving well need our knowledge and support, and usually seem only too happy to receive it. Islam no doubt have some good things in it if one were to look closer. The point is one can still allow people to be different and let them pursue their goal of happiness without it being at the cost of others. One could probably say that unity would be a workable coexistence.
The war between Russia and the USA was heavily fueled by there not being any understanding about the other. Both were afraid of what they might do to them. A bit like the song where Sting sings "I hope the Russians love their children too!". Which indeed the do. One very interesting story about love for others were from a battle lines during WWI when on Christmas Night they started to sing Christmas songs. After that they refused to shoot on each other and had to be replaced.
The Internet is one such great tool which allows people to come together and find out about each other. Of course various government leaders prefer wars and so on and do what they can to fuel discourse, but that's not what the people really want.
Partly correct. What they did was to mass introduce the GUI. 1.0 was a joke as far as usability went. At the same time the 386 was out and the talks of multiprocessing was promising new and exciting computing in the near future.
I don't think they measured squat. Just did their best. Only thing was that there were nobody who could properly design an O/S and complexity, instead of simplicity, ruled the day.
What we are seeing is the very best they as group are able to produce.
They have never been great at marketing either. But they were really the first to push the GUI with success. Don't forget Apple became a very closed platform. They did not attract masses the way the open IBM PC did.
Right there history shows how important open standards are to success. Apple was considered this fantastic success story but in reality they cut it short and did not buy the masses the way the Johnny came lately IBM PC did. But we are slow when it comes to learning from history.
What they have been good at is market lock-in, vender lock-in and many other types of lock-in. (The problem really is that they had never heard about duty and were only interested in money.) We all thought they would get it right sooner or later and deliver a good platform that would allow happy computing. The fact that they specialized in adopting good standards and then corrupt them so that you got locked in was a very calculated development.
At one point Gates himself said that Unix was the way to go. Then he decided to do it better but clearly never understood what made Unix so good (simplicity). Torvald on the other hand was ONLY looking for simplicity. Which is why it fit so well into the general Unix design.
Look at windows, it is filled with arbitrary complexities and is horribly inefficient. Never mind when upper management throws fits and yell at staff, I've never found that conducive to good programming, or business.
Gates cheated his way into O/S design, used people from VAX who's memory management problem were dragged over to windows. Built a kernel in BASIC! Haha! And got away with it for years!
Someone who knew more about systems picked the Unix design and rewrote history based on technology, and was not motivated by money. Interesting to see how much we like to be able to just do what we need. Imagine if IBM had released Linux. With all the corporate support for let's say $100. Then opened it up with a GPL license.
Microsoft would not be sitting pretty at all. The O/S2 collaboration would not have happened and Gates would not have learned his lessons from that. For all their success I've never considered them much of a success where it really matters. Integrity in product and care for customers. I have people send me Brandy, fine wines and other tokens of their appreciation after sales. Because I believe in treating other people the way I like to be treated, and I really care about my clients.
Wow!
In order to compile you need to install the dependencies which is very easy. I've been a power user of Linux since -95 and have checked out something like 100 distributions and O/S's.
Sometimes you get stomped because you have no idea of what you are doing. Things are so different that it simply does not make sense.
However, what saves the day just about every single time. Including your problem is Google!
In fact I ran into needing to compile something under Kubuntu a few days ago, on a remote server without X.
A quick google showed exactly the line to execute which installed the needed files. Ubuntu/Kubuntu has an extensive library of how to do things and when that fails someone has either put up instruction on a web page or in a forum. Being new to Linux and all it can be a total barrier to accomplish things. Spending a little time to get familiar with your new environment would have saved you a lot of headache, never mind 200GB.
Agreed. One of the biggest mistake people do when deciding that something is more secure is to do things the way it is supposed to work. A good example is how packet filtering firewalls allowed any traffic in if they just said "I'm a response to a request you sent". When they designed the firewall technology they clearly did not expect people to do non standard things like that.
After getting seriously hacked they came out with stateful inspection which keeps track of requests going out so they can reasonably tell if an inbound packet is a reply and not a hack.
The point being that crackers, thieves and other criminals cannot be counted on to do things the "right way". By lying, cheating and doing things in a totally unexpected way they find ways around the barriers we put up.
Like digging a tunnel under the wall to get in. You're supposed to try to _walk_ in.
This is where most people fall short when they evaluate how secure something is. They test it the way they are supposed to. Never imagining someone doing it backwards and upside down. So limiting functionality that should never have been turned on by default, with windows there obviously are a lot of things you can do to make it more secure. Giving off a nice warm feeling of how much more secure it is. Then missing obvious buffer overflows and new holes created by the new buggy code.
Windows people usually never realize that Unices have a design philosophy that makes it much easier to lock down. (The concept of one small and simple program that does one thing really well. Then just chain them to get added functionality.) I constantly run into windows techs who think their computer is safe because they unchecked check boxes and so on. (It is no coincidence that OpenBSD can tout the statistics they have. The sound design philosophy on Unix allowed them to accomplish what billion dollar operations cannot.)
Did these cats ever research what hackers/crackers have done and how they got in? Nope. It just feels right to them, so it must be more secure.
And then a law was past which makes it illegal for anyone who is not trained on it, to use it. Which is probably why eBay made that decision. The sensitivity on that thing is amazing. The needle work is probably the best you can find anywhere. Not your average measuring instrument.
You should take a pinch test. The moment you think of the moment when you were pinched the operator can tell. Does not matter of what you think of before. There might be a lot of needle activity as you think about various things, but the operator is trained to recognize the needle action that occurred when you got pinched the first time. Seeing the same needle action again he/she can tell that you were thinking about the pinch.
You are not likely to find an ohm meter that will be sensitive enough to respond to thought.
Well I know that there's an old animosity between the any Mental Health Association since the Church is not only turning over evidence on mental health practitioners that does things like having sex with their patients but highlighting their lack of medical evidence for putting children and adults on psychotropic drugs. Several thousand have been turned over to the D.A.'s office. Clearly there's no love lost between them.
The "rhythmic massages" is not at all rhythmic but one of the basic body assists which according to my understanding works with the nervous system and relieves electrical standing waves. I believe it's called a nerve assist and judging from testimonies by firefighters they felt they could not have accomplished what they did without it. Probably why they gave out the commendation.
As for the Red Cross I don't think they were even allowed in early on. That might have pissed them off since the volunteer ministers had organized a lot of support lines.
But I can see the spin which makes it sound really bad. I'd be pissed off if I read that.
Hmm. It always warms my heart to see people who are willing to stand up and fight for freedom and so on. But there are a lot of stories that sound totally made up, sorta like a which hunt. If I got it right; Someone steels the church's materials and places it on the Internet. Church uses legal methods to stop the distribution. Some people feel their freedom is threatened by the church's lawsuits, even though they probably really had no business distributing it in the first place. Then it sort of snowballs.
:)
The really odd part is that if you just look the CoS is recognized worldwide for it's humanitarian actions.
They were for a while the only non govt organization allowed on Ground Zero due the relief given to firefighters etc. Helped hurricane victims in some of the worst disasters in the world, including New Orleans. If you look you see prison reform in various places and countries which has an amazing success rate using Ron's teachings. Kids are helped becoming much better students thanks to what he developed. (Which is what interests me, being a parent myself. Plus frankly I find it fascinating. My daughter is now rated part of the top 2% in the US, after doing some courses in the life improvement center.)
I have visited many types of churches across three continents. You could easily say that I've been interested in what the world has to offer for a long time. Out of all of them Scientology appears to have received a lot of positive responses and produced real improvements all over the place.
The church is very big on learning about ethics. Which is defined as something along the line of what is helping the greatest number. Being honorable, help others, true to self and things like that. Has a book with precepts that sounds like the ten commandments. Sounds pretty decent.
As for the "thousands and thousands of dollars before you can learn much about it at all" that is simply not so. I've seen a bunch available online at typical book store prices.
The way I see it is that unless mayors all over the US, police chiefs, fire chiefs, heads of states, and citizens of all walks of life, from all over the world are all in a big conspiracy to fool everyone there clearly is a lot of good coming out from Scientology. It's hard to balance that with the allegations one can read on some of these websites.
I've spoken to a few people who were warning me about how dangerous the church is. How one could not even open the Dianetics book without being hypnotized! I mean if you are that easily hypnotized then the world is one a massive threat. (Imagine turning on the TV!) Obviously some people need a good which hunt to feel good if you ask me.
I grant that there are some law suits that don't look right, though I'm not on a mailing list which tells me why scientology is suing anyone. (Which would be interesting.: )
I would love to get the inside scoop on why the church makes some of these lawsuits, other than what seems the obvious of trying to defend something it cares about. I just don't see the evil in real life that people talk about online. Of course I've not been sued either. But I can't believe that someone walks around doing nothing but minding his/her own business and then gets sued by CoS. Unless of course the lawyers are not scientologists but normal lawyers who just like suing to earn a living!
For all the years that I've traveled around the world I know there are things that I'll never understand, but at the same time I know there are people who love to cry wolf. People who are fired, for example, often don't tell the real reason why. Somehow it's always the boss who's crazy. Most people who have done stupid things don't like others to know and of course people usually blame others for what they have done themselves. Human nature.
The Lisa McPherson story is another story that turned out to have more to it than what was said. It turned out that one of the coroners had severly misreported the cause of death. The church was cleared once
it was that this guy got mauled it is interesting to note that it was someone taunting the tiger. Versus someone who was just admiring it. The tiger mauls him and then jumps back in again, hmm.
Which begs the other question, how do you taunt a tiger in such a scenario? Being that if you were too obvious one would think someone would have interferred.
I've seen tigers in the wild, but I was safely in a car and nobody yelled at them or anything like that. They simply rested in the shade and looked like they could care less. (Pretty typical of cats in general.) Which again brings the question; what did he do to taunt it? Does any article relay that?
I've never been on the receiving end of being sued by the church, and there certanly has been a lot of people who have sounded like rabid dogs spouting the most outragous stuff, nonstop, on how wrong the church was in doing something. [Like the old ARS (or something like that) newsgroup]. The sheer volume seems to indicate they have no life whatsoever and this is what they spend their time doing. CoS is a popular target because 1) they are quite different and 2) they have stopped other people (who to me sounded like those same rabid people) from spreading what they (CoS) said were lies about them, and in turn the people claimed they were wronged by the church.
/. certainly is not a reliable place to find facts, nor are some of these places (mentioned in earlier posts), as many really sound like a bunch of unemployed people spreading rumors, like my mother-in-law.
:)
A few times over the years I did follow up and looked at the public facts, which supported the CoS attempt to simply defend themselves not from being criticized, but really attacked with pretty nasty lies. Living in LA I had the opportunity to attend one of their court cases (having always been curious about the church's ideals). Not to say that I know all about these cases, but what was being presented in court.
At the same time I'm sure the church must have had their share of nuts who managed to reach positions they shouldn't have, which allowed them to do things they should not have done. Most organizations seem to have had their share.
My dad was a Catholic and my mom a Protestant. They raised me as a Catholic and I took communion at the age of 12. I married a Jewish woman and have known people from all sorts of religions. Having lived all over the world I've met nuts and really good people from all religions and walks of life. You always have some people who seem to fester on wounds. They have no interest in truth or helping anyone; they seem to live only on raising trouble. My mother-in-law was a bit like that. Did not have a job, lived on money from her dead husband. She would come up with fantistic stories to fill her life.
Again not being a specialist in the facts behind these lawsuits, where a paralegal would probably be the ideal person to talk to, I really wonder what the truth is behind them.
I've also been in positions a couple of times where I stood up defending the rightous publicly and ended up with egg on my face because it turned out I had bought lies from the "rightous". Which is pretty embarrasing.
If the church is really violating our rights through the courts, would they or their lawyers not be slapped by the judge? I've seen the church get slapped a couple of times but then Supreme courts have overturned them.
In short I don't publicly cry "foul!" anymore before having checked the facts myself. Though I may do so in private, but at least I don't end up with "public egg face"!
Get over it
A few good comments above here.
The whole problem is related to an outdated business model of ripping everyone off, the labels in other words. I've developed and sold my software for 30 years and could care less about piracy. Actually it makes software known. In the old days dBase was considered to gain much of it market share and recognition initially from piracy, so it seems helpful. It's not like these people would buy from you anyway. Plus it gives legit people a chance to check it out before buying. Now all I do is OSS and I love the model. It's a great facilitator for offering additional services for those who don't want to be bothered.
The labels are crying piracy because that's what they have been doing for all these years. As musicians in general points out you can't make money on CD's unless you get really big numbers. Then labels don't chase after good musicians or make sure there is quality music available. They are too focused on money to see the forest, so to speak.
After 20 years the market is saying enough is enough. We are not going to accept DRM on top of it all.
Mind you these labels actually lobbied for legislation that would allow them to wipe out a computer remotely if they thought it had pirated music on it! No checks or balances, just wipe it!
That kind of an attitude is entirely in line with their general attitude towards artists. The old saying of knowing others the as you know yourself, or some such, comes to mind.
If these real pirates were to go out of business I would not come to their funeral. It would however open up the doors for much better labels to spring up. Labels who actually did not just think of themselves but tried to be an asset. That attitude is far more popular with people and would quickly gain foothold.
Then you could have had the opportunity to discover that it is not needed with weapons, provided they are not heavy. As I'm sure you know it does not take much body motion to use many light weapons.
Don't know what's so new about the blind spot. No, I did not bother.
No, I did not refer to those times when someone is constantly looking around. Rather those where it's really unique to see them turn around at all. Those are the times that stand out and make it really odd.
Good that it got you laughing, I quite enjoyed your replies. And like you I think yours are just as crazy.
This was one hell of a piece of misinformation. I was thinking why would they need a bill to to say that the Internet can be used as a terrorist tool? Are we going to see bills on guns, knives, forks etc, and just about everything imaginable, declaring them terrorist tools now!?
Thanks for verifying the content of the bill!
I see you don't do martial arts. You have to see what is coming your way or you will buy the faint and be set up for another attack. The normal urge is to avoid what comes your way. But in order to be good, you train to only respond to real threats, not faints.
No I've never done LSD or any drugs, simply did not interest me. I've always been too interested in life and my senses to take chances of limiting them or adding vias.
Though I find it interesting how you want to explain it away with the subconscious. It is a popular why for things that cannot be explained. Yet, if you are not in your body there is no brain to aid you. The guy had not been in the garage, valuables were still there. The door to it was closed, there were no change in temperature as the garage has outdoor temperature and I came in from the outside. (And frankly that door had been open many times when I got there.) To you it's a few odd incidents, to me it's normal life.
The guy who tried to have me fired had not behaved differently as he had not even decided against me. Which is a totally silly explanation. I felt it when he attacked me, not before or after, while. (All three of us became very good friends.) What I pick up on always matches what happened.
My wife can be in a sudden need to talk to me (friends invited us away for the weekend) she must get hold of me and I'll get it and contact her. It goes on and on. After a while you run out of excuses. But you have not lived my life and cannot be expected to know. And I can tell you there's more to my life than being a brain. You can always be different. We don't have to be the same.
I know whatever I feel will mean something different to you. You are totally into the brain and I've noticed it doesn't do much.
Haha, this is not science! This is /.
If I wanted a scientific discussion do you really think I would have started it here? Not to say that there could not be people capable of it, but rather the quantity that is not. Never mind those you don't even want to talk to.
Nothing said here could seriously be considered, well... serious. You go here to read interesting links and see some arbitrary views with some occasional value thrown in. I think the best value would be that it sometimes makes people look at and think about uncommon things.
Thank you for proving my point. There are not enough eye "resolution to explain our quality vision. You should befriend and talk to some neurosurgents who actually practice vs someone full of theory, and discover how much they profess not to understand. Some of things that happens they simple can't match.
Yes, I rather rapidly threw together numbers of the net, screwed up my math, and yet there you came and made my point stronger.
The whole subject is best guesswork, which is following the same thread of thinking. The blind leading the blind.
You should however not call me sir, as you would have no idea of what that means.
"Filled in by your brain" eh?
I agree, if you look at my first post, about the poor eye vision. But not it being filled in in any way. I know from my active life in the military, martial arts, racing etc what is real and not. If you drive at 150mph or have a fast kick flying at you, you cannot do deal with it on a guess, or filled in best guesses. Not that the people who come up with these ideas are usually from that part of life anyway.
When you can discuss all sorts of details with someone who has a photographic memory, you quickly see this is not interpreted.
You think you are a brain. That's fine with me. Western philosophies says so. I know I'm not a brain since I was a little kid where I certainly practiced drowning a number of times. I remember things as a newborn that my mother confirmed, wondering how I knew. To you it is just my brain hallucinating or someone telling me. However only me and my mother knew and she had never told anyone this silly detail.
My life however does not subscribe to that point of view, to partly quote Sting. The brain "facts" does not add up. Too many interesting coincidents that does not fit.
As far as volatile memory, yeah it can certainly appear so. However throughout my life I've done experiments that clearly shows that we never forget anything. It's all there. It just is not something that can be easily explained if the only possibility is that you are a brain, a piece of meat.
Simple experiments like standing in a crowd and looking at a person who is not at all looking at you. Very shortly after I really start looking with interest, that person just turns around and looks right at me. Or the other way around with me finding someone looking intently at me.
I can tell you that happens to me all the time.
Someone I know, who I was visiting, was being burglerized. They were gone for the weekend and I walked in through the garage on the second floor. Instantly I felt the presence of someone who did not belong. It was something threatening. My neck hair stood straight up and I knew someone uninvited was there or had been there. When I made it down to the first floor I discovered things were not in it's normal orderly self and a broken french door. Someone had busted the glass door and spent time looking for something, valuable probably.
A guy in a company I was helping went to the owner and tried to have me fired one evening. That night I suddenly felt as if someone was attacking me, and when I walked in the door the next morning I asked the owner what was going on. He told me about the other guy's attempts. He had however never said or hinted anything to me, but been inspired from something the day before.
I know, I know, I'm severely hallucinating. If it never happened to you then it is impossible. Which is OK. For many people, even in the West, and most people in the East this is not strange. They simply smile when you tell them, as if having discovered a secret everyone knows.
I've never been able to explain life through these brain philosophies. Yet, I know what I know very clearly. I see and feel things that brains are not easily the answer to.
Look at the guy who call my views "bullshit". It clearly is so for him. I have however met a decent percentage of people who does recognize what I'm talking about. But most people, again in the West, talk quietly about their experiences.
Since being a child I've always held this simplistic view of life which is that there is more to life than meets the eye, and I don't think it's found in some firing synaptic.
We simply don't share the same views. What's true for you is not true for me.
Shitty lighting outside in the sun!?
Tell a fencer they are guessing what is coming in. I know this is the best explanation that brain diggers can come up with. I'm just not that narrow minded.
Actually it's easy to see that the whole nervous system does run at a frequency.
Wave your hand rapidly in front of you and tell me if you see one hand moving or a series of snapshots. If you see a series of snapshots then you have exceeded the rate by which the eye sees.
Ditto, if you know anything about resonating frequencies in object you'd notice how your nervous system is responding to certain frequencies. It clearly runs at a frequency.
I'm not going to tell you about your vision, and I agree on the low volume of input from the eyes. It's the conclusion I don't agree with. My brain does not fill in what it is extrapolating because I would have probably been dead if I had lived part of my life with "guesses."
The "guessing" comes from not being able to come up with a satisfactory answer, having seen how poorly the eyes sees.
Hell, it will be fun to see what they figure out to be the capacity of the brain, as far as how much information it can store.
I know visually we are looking at least at something around 24 frames per second. The eye is supposed to have a resolution of around 1000 dpi. Not sure how to measure the viewing area. But let's say it is lesser and lesser resolution the higher the angle. Let's say, just to have a number, that we have a 16:9 viewing ratio at two feet distance. Lets say it's three feet wide. That should add up to something around 36"x20". At 1000dpi that would be something like 729,000 dots. Time 24 per second becomes 17,496,000 dots per second.
Though I think people who have dissected eyes and the stem to the brain would have a hard time quite understanding how that dpi reaches the brain.
On a daily basis, if we don't count 8 hours sleeping, we still come up with 280 million pieces of data in 16 hours.
If an average brain is 1400 cubic centimeters or 85 cubic inches, how many cells could it have if we say it is solid. Best case scenario.
I see numbers of 9,350 cells per cubed millimeter which is 93,500 per cube centimeter. With the above brain size we are looking at 130,900,000 cells in a solid brain.
To complicate things further, how many days of memory do you have? Most people have problems remembering all details but then some people have photographic memory. Which as far as I can see means that all of us has the potential to have it.
The running question is how much info is stored in each cell.
Of course that's not including all the other senses and impressions that are stored.