The big problem here is that your gevernment agencies have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. That's the whole point of having checks and balances. That's why they exist; because your founding fathers understood that power corrupts.
Point being: to live in a free country, you will have to accept a few deaths you couldn't prevent because of the protection a free country garanties. The only way to prevent those deaths is by putting in place systems which deny you your rights. As they say, freedom does have it's price.
Not to be rude (and I do mean that), but people aren't concerned about Joe Marine...because Joe Marine just hasn't got the power or influence to do anything bad. It's the half-assed generals/admirals/whatever they're worried about. The ones who do have the power to do stupid stuff like this; they're the ones who people mean when they talk about "the military" in this fashion...not the powerless groundhog who gets to bleed on the ground.
And come on...I'd like to have a black helicopter, wouldn't you?
So what if Iraq doesn't want to disarm. The US just announced it's going ahead with the development of nuclear Bunker Busters...even when it's been demonstarted that this will cause massive fallout (current depth of these bombs is about 7-10 meters; depth neccessary to reduce fallout to 'acceptable' levels is 70 meters).
So at the moment I feel the US is more dangerous to the planet than Iraq.
The surest sign that the US has gone to hell is that in the past when someone said "they're monitoring all our communications" you would call him a crackpot.
Yup! But I must disagree with the last part of your statement: if the theory is (mathematically or otherwise) provable, it ceases to be a theory and becomes a proof. If that were not the case, you couldn't accept a proof of oncorrectness.
No Einsteins theory was not wrong. It explained (demonstrably and provably [as it was when they tested it during an eclipse]) more and better (more detailed, more accurately) how the universe worked than previous theories. Thus it replaced newtonian physics...becasue it was more accurate and explained thing newtonian physics couldn't.
That things could be explained better, hell, everyone knows that. Every theory is expected to be replaced by a better one. But at the time it was the most complete and accurate model we had. So therefore that one gets used in place of others wich are less accurate and explain less.
And, btw, it wasn't Einstein who corrected his theory. It was Hubble who found evidence that an earlier version of Einstein's theory (the one which included the cosmological constant) was actually the one which explained the state of the universe more accurately.
You haven't really understood it, then. For example, in the case of the sheep, all you need is a spectronometer.
As for cumbersome theories, there's a dictum which states that the simpler theorie (which explains more) always 'wins' from a more cumbersome theory which explains the same. And a cumbersome theory which explains more about the way things work 'wins' from a simpler theory which explains less. Not science as art, because science is objective, never subjective.
Actually, for people working in those (speculative) fields, the Universe is "all that is" and the universe (notice the lack of capitalisation) is that subset of the Unoverse where we currently reside. Another universe is the universe where the omega constant is different from the one in our universe.
For one: NYTimes has to justify free online content. They do that by asking for information so they can track their demographic. That's it. If you consider it anoying, you're one of those people who consider everything on the net must be free. Well, wake up and smell the coffee: the world doesn't work like that. Just like you might find it anoying that you actually have to pay for certain software, that's no excuse to pirate it, or NYTimes content, for that matter.
As for the BBC: they have to do it free, as their publically funded with a mandate to provide free info over the net. The BBC is a quite different organisation than the NYTimes. Learn the difference.
As for passwords...what utter bollocks. Just use a generic password for non-critical sites...or do you rally think your registration to the NYTimes and Gamasutra and others would be critically ruinous to your life if ever cracked?
As for your last statement: never set up a fake email account for registration infor? If not, wtf are you doing here? Freeloader.
But it seems to me that that is just a limitation of the input technology. Using photoshop/3dmax/whatever, the change in information density is much higher. Not only that, but the steps to create that change indesity is are also much larger, datawise (a brush stroke with the mouse/stylus caries much more info than a number of keystrokes).
So as I said, for certain files (anything where keystrokes only are used), it won't be much of a problem; the problems stack up when you use an information rich way of changing your data.
And hey, as you can see I use silly terminology too...just as long as we understand what's meant, it's all cool:)
For smaller filetypes, you're right. For larger filetypes the only feasable solution is user initiated backups...just as it's now. The only thing that will change that is massive increases in storage tech...but there will always be filetypes for which that just isn't an option; when we get holographic storage and holographic displays, we'll also get full holographic 3d files...increasing filesize by the same increase in storage:)
You kind of touch upon my point: transparent revision control is not feasable for every filetype. Images, even just 3d scenes take up large amounts of space (obviously I'm talking DTP and movie here, not web graphics and...well, I was going to write games, but even there the changes and files can be large). The changes made when working with them take up large amounts of data, incremental or not. I've worked with large scenes where a larege number of changes take place. Even just recording the 'changelog' (if you will) would take up a huge amount of data.
The thing is that revision control control is something that you can't universaly implement. You have to make choices on when and where to use it. Otherwise it becomes too resource intensive.
That only works for small files. Typically, where you absolutely need (instead of "it would be handy") the features of version control, you work with large files. So the system would have to be aplication/filesize discriminatory.
Easy...with everyone blathering on about "we have the space, harddrives are so big nowadays", they forget they're just working on teensy files.
Some people, on the other hand, actually work with large files. And when you're working with files 50mb+, every revision takes up large amounts of space. That's when you discover that you don't have infinite diskspace.
Revision history isn't included by default because it's easier, handier and more efficient (for the entire population of computer users on the whole) to decide manually if and when you want you backup point to happen.
Long posts everywhere, mostly dissing this guys choice of words/misquotation.
Nowadays, the layering is thus: hardware->OS+applications.
His revolutionary idea is that he wants to add a layer: hardware->OS->"infosphere"+applications. He just wants to add a layer of abstraction, like the HAL, only now for the information your OS works with. So instead of applications working on the filesystem, they'd work on the information contained therein. It's a very powerfull idea. So powerfull that I'll make this prediction: the next multibillion dollar company will be one which develops this idea. Much as MS grew out of it's OS, the next MS is going to grow out of the infosphere/datasphere (or however you want to call that collection of information which a brain can instantly access, but is cumbersome on a computer).
"Let me get this straight. You're arguing for the giant laser, yet I'm the one who has seen too many science fiction movies?"
Well, the giant laser does exist and has been tested (some great movies on the site, btw).
"So chasing Iraq (with thier outdated military) out of Kuwait with the help of the rest of the world proves that our military can handle any threat?"
Nop...if you read me right, you'll see I'm refering to the fact that the way the US is trying to handle their current "war" is kinda wrong (it's kinda dumb to call it a war instead of an ongoing concern [not a conflict, most definitely not a war]) and based on a wrong concept.
This was a study with 25.000! ginie(?sp?) pigs. That's a hell of a lot for a study like this. Conclusion: something is most definitely going on. We don't know what (posture, the VDT [CRT and/or TFT!] factor, not enough exercise, just the eystrain which propagates through the system causing the other symptoms), but there is most definitely a measurable, detrimental effect.
Did a quick google search ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&q=acoustic+bullet+tracking ) and this is what came up near the top of the list:
http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/sniperstop ers.htm
as well as this one (right at the bottom of the page)
http://www.spie.org/Conferences/Calls/03/or/Subm it Abstract/index.cfm?fuseaction=OR25
Now if only I knew how to make these into clickable links:) [li and ul aren't it, and I wasn't about to try them all:)]
It's a BFG with lotsa ammo with a great guidance system attached. Looks like a minigun with a radardome (which probably also houses the ammo) on top. Makes a sound like a huge fart when it goes off, over a kilometer away.
As you can tell, I'm sketchy on the actual technical specs, but it's one hell of a fancy interception system:)
Re:International observers in Florida
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
And the funniest thing is that it's comp[osed of Albanians and Russians! I laughed so hard when I heard that!
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up +5 Scary.
You know, it's doubly scary, because this kind of thing points to something the USSR had done. USA: you have become your enemy.
The big problem here is that your gevernment agencies have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. That's the whole point of having checks and balances. That's why they exist; because your founding fathers understood that power corrupts.
Point being: to live in a free country, you will have to accept a few deaths you couldn't prevent because of the protection a free country garanties. The only way to prevent those deaths is by putting in place systems which deny you your rights. As they say, freedom does have it's price.
Not to be rude (and I do mean that), but people aren't concerned about Joe Marine...because Joe Marine just hasn't got the power or influence to do anything bad. It's the half-assed generals/admirals/whatever they're worried about. The ones who do have the power to do stupid stuff like this; they're the ones who people mean when they talk about "the military" in this fashion...not the powerless groundhog who gets to bleed on the ground.
And come on...I'd like to have a black helicopter, wouldn't you?
So what if Iraq doesn't want to disarm. The US just announced it's going ahead with the development of nuclear Bunker Busters...even when it's been demonstarted that this will cause massive fallout (current depth of these bombs is about 7-10 meters; depth neccessary to reduce fallout to 'acceptable' levels is 70 meters).
So at the moment I feel the US is more dangerous to the planet than Iraq.
Who cares who lit the fire? Bush has his Reichtag fire either way.
Jesus. You people know your governemnt to be corrupt, and you're still not out marching? Wow.
The surest sign that the US has gone to hell is that in the past when someone said "they're monitoring all our communications" you would call him a crackpot.
Now you can at best reply "I'm not sure".
Yup! But I must disagree with the last part of your statement: if the theory is (mathematically or otherwise) provable, it ceases to be a theory and becomes a proof.
If that were not the case, you couldn't accept a proof of oncorrectness.
No Einsteins theory was not wrong. It explained (demonstrably and provably [as it was when they tested it during an eclipse]) more and better (more detailed, more accurately) how the universe worked than previous theories. Thus it replaced newtonian physics...becasue it was more accurate and explained thing newtonian physics couldn't.
That things could be explained better, hell, everyone knows that. Every theory is expected to be replaced by a better one. But at the time it was the most complete and accurate model we had. So therefore that one gets used in place of others wich are less accurate and explain less.
And, btw, it wasn't Einstein who corrected his theory. It was Hubble who found evidence that an earlier version of Einstein's theory (the one which included the cosmological constant) was actually the one which explained the state of the universe more accurately.
"it makes science a form of art"
You haven't really understood it, then. For example, in the case of the sheep, all you need is a spectronometer.
As for cumbersome theories, there's a dictum which states that the simpler theorie (which explains more) always 'wins' from a more cumbersome theory which explains the same. And a cumbersome theory which explains more about the way things work 'wins' from a simpler theory which explains less. Not science as art, because science is objective, never subjective.
Wow...and I nearly bit, too :) Good one!
Actually, for people working in those (speculative) fields, the Universe is "all that is" and the universe (notice the lack of capitalisation) is that subset of the Unoverse where we currently reside. Another universe is the universe where the omega constant is different from the one in our universe.
For one: NYTimes has to justify free online content. They do that by asking for information so they can track their demographic. That's it. If you consider it anoying, you're one of those people who consider everything on the net must be free. Well, wake up and smell the coffee: the world doesn't work like that. Just like you might find it anoying that you actually have to pay for certain software, that's no excuse to pirate it, or NYTimes content, for that matter.
As for the BBC: they have to do it free, as their publically funded with a mandate to provide free info over the net. The BBC is a quite different organisation than the NYTimes. Learn the difference.
As for passwords...what utter bollocks. Just use a generic password for non-critical sites...or do you rally think your registration to the NYTimes and Gamasutra and others would be critically ruinous to your life if ever cracked?
As for your last statement: never set up a fake email account for registration infor? If not, wtf are you doing here? Freeloader.
But it seems to me that that is just a limitation of the input technology. Using photoshop/3dmax/whatever, the change in information density is much higher. Not only that, but the steps to create that change indesity is are also much larger, datawise (a brush stroke with the mouse/stylus caries much more info than a number of keystrokes).
:)
So as I said, for certain files (anything where keystrokes only are used), it won't be much of a problem; the problems stack up when you use an information rich way of changing your data.
And hey, as you can see I use silly terminology too...just as long as we understand what's meant, it's all cool
For smaller filetypes, you're right. For larger filetypes the only feasable solution is user initiated backups...just as it's now. The only thing that will change that is massive increases in storage tech...but there will always be filetypes for which that just isn't an option; when we get holographic storage and holographic displays, we'll also get full holographic 3d files...increasing filesize by the same increase in storage :)
You kind of touch upon my point: transparent revision control is not feasable for every filetype. Images, even just 3d scenes take up large amounts of space (obviously I'm talking DTP and movie here, not web graphics and...well, I was going to write games, but even there the changes and files can be large). The changes made when working with them take up large amounts of data, incremental or not. I've worked with large scenes where a larege number of changes take place. Even just recording the 'changelog' (if you will) would take up a huge amount of data.
The thing is that revision control control is something that you can't universaly implement. You have to make choices on when and where to use it. Otherwise it becomes too resource intensive.
That only works for small files. Typically, where you absolutely need (instead of "it would be handy") the features of version control, you work with large files.
So the system would have to be aplication/filesize discriminatory.
Easy...with everyone blathering on about "we have the space, harddrives are so big nowadays", they forget they're just working on teensy files.
Some people, on the other hand, actually work with large files. And when you're working with files 50mb+, every revision takes up large amounts of space. That's when you discover that you don't have infinite diskspace.
Revision history isn't included by default because it's easier, handier and more efficient (for the entire population of computer users on the whole) to decide manually if and when you want you backup point to happen.
Long posts everywhere, mostly dissing this guys choice of words/misquotation.
Nowadays, the layering is thus:
hardware->OS+applications.
His revolutionary idea is that he wants to add a layer:
hardware->OS->"infosphere"+applications.
He just wants to add a layer of abstraction, like the HAL, only now for the information your OS works with. So instead of applications working on the filesystem, they'd work on the information contained therein.
It's a very powerfull idea. So powerfull that I'll make this prediction: the next multibillion dollar company will be one which develops this idea. Much as MS grew out of it's OS, the next MS is going to grow out of the infosphere/datasphere (or however you want to call that collection of information which a brain can instantly access, but is cumbersome on a computer).
Thanks! Been meaning to learn that for a while now :)
Uh, what do you mean, "escape character the >/ symbols"? Whassat do, if you'll excuse my ignorance?
"Let me get this straight. You're arguing for the giant laser, yet I'm the one who has seen too many science fiction movies?"
Well, the giant laser does exist and has been tested (some great movies on the site, btw).
"So chasing Iraq (with thier outdated military) out of Kuwait with the help of the rest of the world proves that our military can handle any threat?"
Nop...if you read me right, you'll see I'm refering to the fact that the way the US is trying to handle their current "war" is kinda wrong (it's kinda dumb to call it a war instead of an ongoing concern [not a conflict, most definitely not a war]) and based on a wrong concept.
This was a study with 25.000! ginie(?sp?) pigs. That's a hell of a lot for a study like this. Conclusion: something is most definitely going on. We don't know what (posture, the VDT [CRT and/or TFT!] factor, not enough exercise, just the eystrain which propagates through the system causing the other symptoms), but there is most definitely a measurable, detrimental effect.
Did a quick google search ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&q=acoustic+bullet+tracking ) and this is what came up near the top of the list:p ers.htm
m it Abstract/index.cfm?fuseaction=OR25
:) [li and ul aren't it, and I wasn't about to try them all :)]
http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/snipersto
as well as this one (right at the bottom of the page)
http://www.spie.org/Conferences/Calls/03/or/Sub
Now if only I knew how to make these into clickable links
It's a BFG with lotsa ammo with a great guidance system attached. Looks like a minigun with a radardome (which probably also houses the ammo) on top. Makes a sound like a huge fart when it goes off, over a kilometer away.
:)
As you can tell, I'm sketchy on the actual technical specs, but it's one hell of a fancy interception system
And the funniest thing is that it's comp[osed of Albanians and Russians! I laughed so hard when I heard that!