A better way to visualize a hypercube (and to draw one on paper) is as follows:
0. Start with a point. Zero dimensions. (Draw a dot.)
1. Expand each vertex in a direction you haven't used yet. (Draw a horizontal line from the dot, and put a dot at the end of it.)
Now you have a line, one dimension.
2. Expand each vertex in a direction you haven't yet, and connect them. (Draw vertical line from each dot, and a horizontal line connecting the two new dots.)
Now you have a square, two dimensions.
3. Expand each vertex in a direction you haven't yet, and connect them. Since we have run out of actual dimensions on our sheet of paper, we will have to create virtual dimentions. Sorry if I've offended a topologist, I don't know the technical terms. (Draw one diagonal line from each of the four dots of the square, to the top and right. Connect the four new dots with another square. Most of you are probably familiar with this 2D projection of a 3D cube.)
Now you have a cube, three dimensions.
4. Expand each vertex in a direction you haven't yet, and connect them. We have to create more virtual dimensions, so this might seem a little tricky. (Imagine a cube in 3D-space, and imagine what it would look like with lines protruding from the center of the cube, through each corner. Draw these eight lines, then connect their endpoints, one square on top of the cube, one square on the bottom, then four vertical lines connecting each of the two new squares.)
If you did it correctly, you should end up with what looks like a cube, encased within a larger cube, with lines from the corners of the inner cube to the corresponding corners of the outer cube.
ARTICLE IV OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be received.
Recent decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court have held that police can:
Search you home upon the consent of someone who has no authority to give same. (Illinois vs. Rodriquez)
May search every room in your home including the basement and attic without a warrant if they are arresting you in a private residence. Evidence seized may be used in court. (Maryland vs. Bule)
Hold you under arrest and incarcerate you for 48 hours or longer without charging you for a crime. (County of Riverside vs. McLaughlin)
May question you and elicit confessions from you while you are incarcerated without identifying themselves as police officers or advising you of your rights. (Illinois vs. Perkins)
Subject motorists to mandatory sobriety tests without any indication that they have been drinking, or their driving is impaired. (Michigan State Police vs. Sitz)
Stop your car based upon an "anonymous tip" which the court described as "completely lacking in the necessary indicia of reliability." (Alabama vs. White)
May stop, detain and question you anytime, anywhere and for any reason even if there is no evidence or indication of any illegality or wrong doing. (Orange County vs. Lopez)
May record and use as evidence telephone calls made or received from a cordless phone without a warrant and without violating your right to privacy. (Tyler vs. Berodt)
There are a lot of references to Merovingian being something of a "devil" character.
In Reloaded, Persephone was Merovingian's discontent wife. In Greek mythology, Persephone was forced to marry Hades, the god of the Underworld.
Also, if I recall correctly (I've only seen it once), Merovingian said that he was once like Neo, but had since grown bored of that, or stopped caring or something. In Christian mythology, the devil was once an angel, but had fallen.
In both cases (or all three, including Merovec), the Matrix's Merovingian is meant to be a character who enjoy playing tricks, hatching plots, and otherwise being a thorn in the side of the protagonist.
META: Why do I never find the interesting posts and think of good replies until after they're a day old.
You're kidding, right? I worked for WalMart for a year in high school, and the managers would actually tell us to go into neighboring ShopKo's and KMart's and record prices so that theirs would be lower. Sometimes they'd even give us hand-held scanners to make it even easier. Granted, we didn't have to do this, and we wouldn't get paid for it, but that is beside the point. If you ever worked in a WalMart, you'd know this.
As for the issue of whether sampling should be legal, I say yes. Check out the Beastie Boys album Paul's Boutique to hear sampling as an art form at it's peak.
Paul's Boutique is good, but Public Enemy's It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back is excellent. It is a perfect example of how hip-hop sampling can be an artistic collage of hundreds of different samples, as opposed to the mainstream rap process of "looping", or playing someone else's track (be it guitar, bass, drum or entire song) and rapping over it. Check out PE's site here.
There is also a great issue of Stay Free Magazine (The Copyright Issue) that covers many different angles of art and copyright. It contains a brilliant interview with Public Enemy's Chuck D as well as some good articles on the public domain, Disney and the Sonny Bono Copyright extenstion act. The issue as a whole is essential reading for all those concerned with intellectual property and intellectual freedom, and I highly recommend it.
And if you chose the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension, would that make you an lawer working anti-Bono?
There it is Bernard, the smartest thing you'll ever say, and no one was around to hear it... Doh!
Re:Gaming mods as part of school curiculum
on
Gaming Goodness
·
· Score: 1
So, it's probably not what you're think of, but here are some Unreal mods being created at universities to develop and study AI. I know of two of them,
The problem in that case is that he sounds like an immature high school kid ranting about "Micro$oft", "Windoze", or the "United $nakes of AmeriKKKa" (sic, sic, and sic.)
"Trusted Computing" sounds more like... uh.. "Treacherous Computing"... yeah, that's it.
People can have really great ideas, but if they suck at communicating their ideas to other people and people en masse, then these ideas just go to waste. Communication is key. (and unfortunately, not my best skill either.)
"...will have to suffer their entire lives as unattractive and anti-social."
Austism has no connection with how you look...
Since when must attractiveness have to do with appearance? I know it's pretty much the norm, (at least in the US) but can you not imagine someone who is incredibly good-looking but completely unattractive (because of smoking, annoying voice, irritating habits, etc.)?
When it comes to fuzzy issues of free speech (copyrights, trade secrets, patents, etc.) and other important topics like government, corporate, and religious criticism, and of course GNU/Linux and Open Source, the general Slashdot opinion is "Free speech is a right! Fight for free speech! We need free speech!"
But when someone brings up the most basic free speech issue of all, people expressing themselves, the Slashdot response is "People write the most meaningless crap. I don't want to hear your opinion. Destroy the Blogs. I'm unplugging the internet."
Look, the internet is an incredible medium for free expression ("free" as in both speech and beer) and can reach all sorts of people regardless of physical distance. So someone wants to write some Goth poetry or detail the boring events of their day. So what? No one is forcing you to read it. If you don't care for what they have to say, don't read it. If you disagree with them, let them know. But saying that people shouldn't be wasting web space with their ideas, opinions, and expression is ludicrous, especially if you're trying to defend free speech in other cases.
If you have complete freedom of expression you are going to have people expressing pointless views, ignorant views, and stupid views (like on Slashdot). But you will also find people with intelligent views, useful views, and profound views (like on Slashdot). If you start controlling and limiting expression, you will get rid of both sides of the spectrum.
There have been hundreds of people around the U.S. who have been detained with no charges and/or prosecuted in private courts. Locally (to University of Michigan) there is one man, Rabih Haddad, who was treated in such a manner. The governement was trying thier hardest to hold a private trial. Luckily, since Ann Arbor, MI is a pretty politically active place there has been quite an uproar about it.
What we need to do with these people is not fine them 1% of their earnings or even throw them in a minimum-security prison for 5 years or so. They need something more effective; something that will allow them to see the pain that they have created.
I propose we strip them of all their wealth and make them live in inner-city Detroit, or better yet, Mexico City. Make them work in the assembly lines, under dangerous conditions, for slave-wages. Make them breath the noxious fumes that give workers athsma, lung cancer, emphysema. Hell, make them work in the sweatshops.
Make them try to find affordable houses with the minimum wage they make. Make them find apartments that aren't owned by blood-sucking landlords who overcharge rent and leave the buildings run-down simply because they have the power to - because people need a roof over their heads. Have Black or Latino police patrol their neighborhood.
"Cruel"? No more cruel than the conditions they subject their workers to. "Unusual"? Hardly, when millions of people already live like this.
Re:Forcing a contract is illegal.
on
More MS EULA Fun
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This appears similar to owning a car, but under the condition that someone else can use it at any time, and without notifying you.
No, it is not at all like owning a car. If someone decides to use your car without notifying you, you cannot use it at the same time. Thus, they are taking away your freedom to use the car.
Words, thoughts and ideas are completely different. If someone uses an idea you thought of, it does not prevent you from using the same idea. The whole idea of "intellectual property" seems so ludicrous to me in theory. How can you "own" an idea when anyone else can think of it? It's not like a car that has some physical existence and can only be in one place at a certain time.
"... it is the nature of idea to be communicated; written, spoken, done. The idea is like grass. It craves light, likes crowds, thrives on crossbreeding, grows better for being stepped on." - Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Now this is an interesting example. Although I am using an idea that someone else thought of, I note that it is not "my" idea (whatever that means) by placing a persons name after the idea, signifying that that person thought of it before me. Does this mean that she is the first person to ever think of it? Not necessarily, she is probably just a person with enough popularity to spread ideas (to me, at least). Would she be offended if I had included the idea without giving her credit? Considering the idea in question, probably not. Why do I do this, then? Probably to give respect to someone for putting a thought into words so eloquently.
It is owned by a non-profit organization, and airs social, political, cultural, and environmental programming. I have seen some very well-done programs critisizing governments, corporate media, advertising, etc. on FSTV and they are all advertisement free.
DISH Network was also cheaper than cable for me. $200(US) equipment +$9/month = $25/month for one year, compared to $40 or $50/month cable fees in my area.
Slashdot Mirror
A better way to visualize a hypercube (and to draw one on paper) is as follows:
0. Start with a point. Zero dimensions. (Draw a dot.)
1. Expand each vertex in a direction you haven't used yet. (Draw a horizontal line from the dot, and put a dot at the end of it.)
Now you have a line, one dimension.
2. Expand each vertex in a direction you haven't yet, and connect them. (Draw vertical line from each dot, and a horizontal line connecting the two new dots.)
Now you have a square, two dimensions.
3. Expand each vertex in a direction you haven't yet, and connect them. Since we have run out of actual dimensions on our sheet of paper, we will have to create virtual dimentions. Sorry if I've offended a topologist, I don't know the technical terms. (Draw one diagonal line from each of the four dots of the square, to the top and right. Connect the four new dots with another square. Most of you are probably familiar with this 2D projection of a 3D cube.)
Now you have a cube, three dimensions.
4. Expand each vertex in a direction you haven't yet, and connect them. We have to create more virtual dimensions, so this might seem a little tricky. (Imagine a cube in 3D-space, and imagine what it would look like with lines protruding from the center of the cube, through each corner. Draw these eight lines, then connect their endpoints, one square on top of the cube, one square on the bottom, then four vertical lines connecting each of the two new squares.)
If you did it correctly, you should end up with what looks like a cube, encased within a larger cube, with lines from the corners of the inner cube to the corresponding corners of the outer cube.
Rewriting the constitution: It's not just for legislators anymore!
ARTICLE IV OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be received.
Recent decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court have held that police can:
Search you home upon the consent of someone who has no authority to give same. (Illinois vs. Rodriquez)
May search every room in your home including the basement and attic without a warrant if they are arresting you in a private residence. Evidence seized may be used in court. (Maryland vs. Bule)
Hold you under arrest and incarcerate you for 48 hours or longer without charging you for a crime. (County of Riverside vs. McLaughlin)
May question you and elicit confessions from you while you are incarcerated without identifying themselves as police officers or advising you of your rights. (Illinois vs. Perkins)
Subject motorists to mandatory sobriety tests without any indication that they have been drinking, or their driving is impaired. (Michigan State Police vs. Sitz)
Stop your car based upon an "anonymous tip" which the court described as "completely lacking in the necessary indicia of reliability." (Alabama vs. White)
May stop, detain and question you anytime, anywhere and for any reason even if there is no evidence or indication of any illegality or wrong doing. (Orange County vs. Lopez)
May record and use as evidence telephone calls made or received from a cordless phone without a warrant and without violating your right to privacy. (Tyler vs. Berodt)
There are a lot of references to Merovingian being something of a "devil" character.
In Reloaded, Persephone was Merovingian's discontent wife. In Greek mythology, Persephone was forced to marry Hades, the god of the Underworld.
Also, if I recall correctly (I've only seen it once), Merovingian said that he was once like Neo, but had since grown bored of that, or stopped caring or something. In Christian mythology, the devil was once an angel, but had fallen.
In both cases (or all three, including Merovec), the Matrix's Merovingian is meant to be a character who enjoy playing tricks, hatching plots, and otherwise being a thorn in the side of the protagonist.
META: Why do I never find the interesting posts and think of good replies until after they're a day old.
You're kidding, right? I worked for WalMart for a year in high school, and the managers would actually tell us to go into neighboring ShopKo's and KMart's and record prices so that theirs would be lower. Sometimes they'd even give us hand-held scanners to make it even easier. Granted, we didn't have to do this, and we wouldn't get paid for it, but that is beside the point. If you ever worked in a WalMart, you'd know this.
As for the issue of whether sampling should be legal, I say yes. Check out the Beastie Boys album Paul's Boutique to hear sampling as an art form at it's peak.
Paul's Boutique is good, but Public Enemy's It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back is excellent. It is a perfect example of how hip-hop sampling can be an artistic collage of hundreds of different samples, as opposed to the mainstream rap process of "looping", or playing someone else's track (be it guitar, bass, drum or entire song) and rapping over it. Check out PE's site here.
There is also a great issue of Stay Free Magazine (The Copyright Issue) that covers many different angles of art and copyright. It contains a brilliant interview with Public Enemy's Chuck D as well as some good articles on the public domain, Disney and the Sonny Bono Copyright extenstion act. The issue as a whole is essential reading for all those concerned with intellectual property and intellectual freedom, and I highly recommend it.
"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?"
- Joseph Stalin
Well, at least I didn't invoke Godwin's Law.
So, my friends who just had a baby (and almost named her Arwen) were going to name her Holden or Sherman if she was a boy.
Their last name is Tank.
My friends who just had a baby, almost named her Arwen.
In my opinion, it sounded better than any of their other choices. It's nice and elegant, and it's not even in the database at all.
And if you chose the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension, would that make you an lawer working anti-Bono?
There it is Bernard, the smartest thing you'll ever say, and no one was around to hear it... Doh!
So, it's probably not what you're think of, but here are some Unreal mods being created at universities to develop and study AI. I know of two of them,
John Laird is heading the Haunt 2 project at the University of Michigan
and Martin Martin is heading Escape Online at Carnegie Mellon.
I'm currently helping develop Haunt 2.
The problem in that case is that he sounds like an immature high school kid ranting about "Micro$oft", "Windoze", or the "United $nakes of AmeriKKKa" (sic, sic, and sic.)
"Trusted Computing" sounds more like... uh.. "Treacherous Computing"... yeah, that's it.
People can have really great ideas, but if they suck at communicating their ideas to other people and people en masse, then these ideas just go to waste. Communication is key.
(and unfortunately, not my best skill either.)
Since when must attractiveness have to do with appearance? I know it's pretty much the norm, (at least in the US) but can you not imagine someone who is incredibly good-looking but completely unattractive (because of smoking, annoying voice, irritating habits, etc.)?
Way to diagnose the problem...
When it comes to fuzzy issues of free speech (copyrights, trade secrets, patents, etc.) and other important topics like government, corporate, and religious criticism, and of course GNU/Linux and Open Source, the general Slashdot opinion is "Free speech is a right! Fight for free speech! We need free speech!"
But when someone brings up the most basic free speech issue of all, people expressing themselves, the Slashdot response is "People write the most meaningless crap. I don't want to hear your opinion. Destroy the Blogs. I'm unplugging the internet."
Look, the internet is an incredible medium for free expression ("free" as in both speech and beer) and can reach all sorts of people regardless of physical distance. So someone wants to write some Goth poetry or detail the boring events of their day. So what? No one is forcing you to read it. If you don't care for what they have to say, don't read it. If you disagree with them, let them know. But saying that people shouldn't be wasting web space with their ideas, opinions, and expression is ludicrous, especially if you're trying to defend free speech in other cases.
If you have complete freedom of expression you are going to have people expressing pointless views, ignorant views, and stupid views (like on Slashdot). But you will also find people with intelligent views, useful views, and profound views (like on Slashdot). If you start controlling and limiting expression, you will get rid of both sides of the spectrum.
The 6th is definately gone.
There have been hundreds of people around the U.S. who have been detained with no charges and/or prosecuted in private courts. Locally (to University of Michigan) there is one man, Rabih Haddad, who was treated in such a manner. The governement was trying thier hardest to hold a private trial. Luckily, since Ann Arbor, MI is a pretty politically active place there has been quite an uproar about it.
You can find more information on Google.
What we need to do with these people is not fine them 1% of their earnings or even throw them in a minimum-security prison for 5 years or so. They need something more effective; something that will allow them to see the pain that they have created.
I propose we strip them of all their wealth and make them live in inner-city Detroit, or better yet, Mexico City. Make them work in the assembly lines, under dangerous conditions, for slave-wages. Make them breath the noxious fumes that give workers athsma, lung cancer, emphysema. Hell, make them work in the sweatshops.
Make them try to find affordable houses with the minimum wage they make. Make them find apartments that aren't owned by blood-sucking landlords who overcharge rent and leave the buildings run-down simply because they have the power to - because people need a roof over their heads. Have Black or Latino police patrol their neighborhood.
"Cruel"? No more cruel than the conditions they subject their workers to. "Unusual"? Hardly, when millions of people already live like this.
Words, thoughts and ideas are completely different. If someone uses an idea you thought of, it does not prevent you from using the same idea. The whole idea of "intellectual property" seems so ludicrous to me in theory. How can you "own" an idea when anyone else can think of it? It's not like a car that has some physical existence and can only be in one place at a certain time.
"... it is the nature of idea to be communicated; written, spoken, done. The idea is like grass. It craves light, likes crowds, thrives on crossbreeding, grows better for being stepped on." - Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Now this is an interesting example. Although I am using an idea that someone else thought of, I note that it is not "my" idea (whatever that means) by placing a persons name after the idea, signifying that that person thought of it before me. Does this mean that she is the first person to ever think of it? Not necessarily, she is probably just a person with enough popularity to spread ideas (to me, at least). Would she be offended if I had included the idea without giving her credit? Considering the idea in question, probably not. Why do I do this, then? Probably to give respect to someone for putting a thought into words so eloquently.
Free Speech TV.
On DISH Network, and
www.freespeech.org.
It is owned by a non-profit organization, and airs social, political, cultural, and environmental programming. I have seen some very well-done programs critisizing governments, corporate media, advertising, etc. on FSTV and they are all advertisement free.
DISH Network was also cheaper than cable for me. $200(US) equipment +$9/month = $25/month for one year, compared to $40 or $50/month cable fees in my area.