Of course, unless modern physics is wrong and faster-than-light space travel really is possible, a space program isn't going to be of much use in terms of saving the human race. Nothing in our solar system appears able to support a self-sufficient colony if the Earth became uninhabitable. It really looks like one planet is all we are going to be granted.
Mars might be an option, though it's a bit of a fixer-upper. And there's always Europa...
*wanders off, humming a Thomas Dolby song...* -- "HORSE."
Right, or they could use it as parts/extra habitation space/what have you for the ISS. It could be just another module...
"So here we have the lab module...over here is the storage module...life support's this way...here's the habitation module...oh yes, and this is the busted module." -- "HORSE."
Um, I kinda zoned out halfway through your poorly formatted post, but I must say you should at least consider giving South Park another chance. It really is quite good. -- "HORSE."
In a way, it's like defining a new model of computation, the first one since the Turing Machine. (I wonder if this disproves Church's Thesis, which states that the Turing Machine is the most powerful model of computation possible.) It would redefine the boundaries of P and NP. Thus, we may find a new class of NP-complete problems, that would allow the foundation for totally new encryption schemes.
Um, geez, I don't even know enough to be incompetent, but best as I can figure QCs aren't more powerful per se than Turing Machines, it's just that they're a way to fit a very large number of Turing Machines into a very very small space. Anyone who actualy knows what they're talking about, please feel free to smack/moderate me down. -- "HORSE."
Everything a computer does -- whether synthesizing speech, calculating the billionth digit of pi or beating Garry Kasparov at chess -- ultimately comes about through the transformation of bits by gates.
Scary isn't it?
Nah, *coooool*.
And then there's that everything Kasparov does just might come about through transformation of bits by gates, and that's just...waah, that's nifty. -- "HORSE."
/. replies to issues like this are generally libertarian.
Thank God there are still *some* sane people on this Earth.
Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has tied civil libertarianism (which is incredibly nifty) with laissez faire economic policies, which are...broken, to say the least. -- "HORSE."
Re:I think in Redmond they just troll slashdot
on
The Future of GNOME
·
· Score: 1
Why do "Real Seattlites" have such contempt for Eastsiders. Isn't it all pretty much one big city anyway? Is it the same thing as in NM we always complained about Texans, it's just that we were more spread out?
Nah, it's because you're a bunch of republicans. Alright, check that, it's not because you're republicans, it's just that voting republican is one of the symptoms of whatever disease it is the eastside's got.
That's even _before_ you take into account crashy software (and hardware, since a lot of companies can't afford to upgrade all that often).
Okay, pardon me if I'm being hopelessly naive (and I mean that...no sarcasm...), but could it be that the reason productivity isn't increasing is that there's a finite amount of 'producing' which needs to be done? A person who can do in 2 hours what took em[1] 8 hours b.c.[2] won't be more 'productive' if e doesn't need to do any extra work in the 6 hours of free time e now has...e'll probably spend the extra time reading/., playing Quake, etc. Right?
[1]: Spivak is fun! [2]: Before Computers. but you knew that.
Um, what you're overlooking is that 'quantum brains' thing Penrose was going on about? uh, he kinda uh made it up.
Completely.
Made it up.
next time listen to what's being said, rather than who's saying it, hth hand vadim.
Re:Its the COMMERCIALS that are most damaging
on
Quack!
·
· Score: 1
My pastor pointed out in a sermon that TV networks claim that TV doesn't influence personal behavior, while adversisers pay them millions of dollars trying to influence personal behavior. So who's right?
Watch PBS, it's goodferya. Oh, and keep in mind that your pastor's job directly depends on 'influencing your personal behavior' =)
What you're pointing out isn't so much a comment on evolution as it is a comment on classification systems. Of course there aren't finds "between species"; all "between species" finds are assigned their own species.
I'm always amazed at the hypocracy(sp?) that exists within the Linux community. We say that we don't want the government taxing the net, telling us what we can say or do the net, etc. Yet at the same time, we want the government to do something to Microsoft?
(snip)
I think you've set up a...whatsitcalled...a false dichotomy here. Most people would not agree with the statement "Government should regulate (foo)" or the statement "Government should not regulate (foo)" (foo being microsoft, the internet, what have you).
Rather, most people (correct me if I'm wrong) would agree with something like the statement "Government should regulate when it makes sense for it to do so." (which seems rather tautological...oh well). Just because it does not make sense for government to regulate one aspect of technology does not mean that it automatically also does not make sense for the government to regulate some other aspect. Each case must be considered independently. It is not a display of hypocrisy for one to say that government should prosecute Microsoft but not tax the Internet, since other than both being technology-related these two examples of government activity bear very little resemblance to each other.
IMNHO, the government should stay out of the whole mess. The system will self-regulate. Take a look at history. All empires colapse at some point, either because they get to big for those in power to maintain control, or because they are too big and slow to deal with a rapidilly changing situation. This is exactly what will happen to MS. (snip)
In regard to this point, it must be stated that empires take a bloody long time to fall naturally. If there's any quicker method to safely get rid of an unpleasant or abusive empire, then it's certainly not a bad idea to use it.
First dude said: By the terms of the per-processor clause MS would have had a prima facie case against any OEM that did not fork over a license fee for every PC sold, whether it actually had Windows on it or not.
To which second dude replied: And any PC manufacturer is free to forego selling Windows and thereby avoid this liscence. They can't survive without Windows, you say? Well, that's their choice. If Libux is so great, they can start an all-Linux company, and then they don't have to pay the MS tax.
I'm not sure if what the first guy said was correct or not, but if it was it'd mean that OEMs would have to pay the "MS tax" whether or not they used Windows, without the option of saving cash by using another OS.
Were they there with you during the movie? If they were not, why were you there? What gives you the right to decide what laws and policies you choose to obey?
His or her independent and internalized moral code?
Will tomorrow you decide to not obey the laws against theft? Against murder?
I certainly hope not! Legality aside, those are deeply immoral acts.
Explaining calmly and slowly that the regulations aren't a good idea does not work at all, dude. As long as he keeps saying he's a preacher or whatever with a rare kidney disease, the theatre has an out ("Well, he said he was this doctor of divinity with a rare heart^w kidney disease, so we _had_ to give him the amyls ^w^w^w^w let the kids in to see South Park"). Most likely the ticket booth kids knew just as well as he does/we do how dumb the regulations are, so uhm, I'm kinda going in loops here, I think. They knew the kids should get in, he knew the kids should get in, the parents knew the kids should get in. The crucial thing wasn't to convince the movie dudes that letting the kids in was the right thing (they knew that). Rather, the crucial thing was to provide an _excuse for_ the movie dudes to do the right thing, because without the excuse they could get into serious trouble for doing same.
Slashdot Mirror
Mars might be an option, though it's a bit of a fixer-upper. And there's always Europa...
*wanders off, humming a Thomas Dolby song...*
--
"HORSE."
Right, or they could use it as parts/extra habitation space/what have you for the ISS. It could be just another module...
"So here we have the lab module...over here is the storage module...life support's this way...here's the habitation module...oh yes, and this is the busted module."
--
"HORSE."
Um, I kinda zoned out halfway through your poorly formatted post, but I must say you should at least consider giving South Park another chance. It really is quite good.
--
"HORSE."
---
I'm not sure if I'm being facetious or not, either...
--
"HORSE."
Um, geez, I don't even know enough to be incompetent, but best as I can figure QCs aren't more powerful per se than Turing Machines, it's just that they're a way to fit a very large number of Turing Machines into a very very small space. Anyone who actualy knows what they're talking about, please feel free to smack/moderate me down.
--
"HORSE."
Scary isn't it?
Nah, *coooool*.
And then there's that everything Kasparov does just might come about through transformation of bits by gates, and that's just...waah, that's nifty.
--
"HORSE."
Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has tied civil libertarianism (which is incredibly nifty) with laissez faire economic policies, which are...broken, to say the least.
--
"HORSE."
Nah, it's because you're a bunch of republicans. Alright, check that, it's not because you're republicans, it's just that voting republican is one of the symptoms of whatever disease it is the eastside's got.
Okay, pardon me if I'm being hopelessly naive (and I mean that...no sarcasm...), but could it be that the reason productivity isn't increasing is that there's a finite amount of 'producing' which needs to be done? A person who can do in 2 hours what took em[1] 8 hours b.c.[2] won't be more 'productive' if e doesn't need to do any extra work in the 6 hours of free time e now has...e'll probably spend the extra time reading /., playing Quake, etc. Right?
[1]: Spivak is fun! [2]: Before Computers. but you knew that.
Completely.
Made it up.
next time listen to what's being said, rather than who's saying it, hth hand vadim.
Watch PBS, it's goodferya.
Oh, and keep in mind that your pastor's job directly depends on 'influencing your personal behavior' =)
Enter the Strawman...
Just use cypherpunks/cypherpunks like everyone else. If you're really paranoid you could go through an anonymizer first.
Didja read the book, Gomer?
-Nietzche
Nietzche is dead
-God
Stop, you're both right!
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
What you're pointing out isn't so much a comment on evolution as it is a comment on classification systems. Of course there aren't finds "between species"; all "between species" finds are assigned their own species.
I think you've set up a...whatsitcalled...a false dichotomy here. Most people would not agree with the statement "Government should regulate (foo)" or the statement "Government should not regulate (foo)" (foo being microsoft, the internet, what have you).
Rather, most people (correct me if I'm wrong) would agree with something like the statement "Government should regulate when it makes sense for it to do so." (which seems rather tautological...oh well). Just because it does not make sense for government to regulate one aspect of technology does not mean that it automatically also does not make sense for the government to regulate some other aspect. Each case must be considered independently. It is not a display of hypocrisy for one to say that government should prosecute Microsoft but not tax the Internet, since other than both being technology-related these two examples of government activity bear very little resemblance to each other.
In regard to this point, it must be stated that empires take a bloody long time to fall naturally. If there's any quicker method to safely get rid of an unpleasant or abusive empire, then it's certainly not a bad idea to use it.
By the terms of the per-processor clause MS would have had a prima facie case against any OEM that did not fork over a license fee for every PC sold, whether it actually had Windows on it or not.
To which second dude replied:
And any PC manufacturer is free to forego selling Windows and thereby avoid this liscence. They can't survive without Windows, you say? Well, that's their choice. If Libux is so great, they can start an all-Linux company, and then they don't have to pay the MS tax.
I'm not sure if what the first guy said was correct or not, but if it was it'd mean that OEMs would have to pay the "MS tax" whether or not they used Windows, without the option of saving cash by using another OS.
IIRC they raised the number of points required and added the "Just Kidding!" after this guy sent in his points.
Dude, but it's not restricted. Demilitarized Harriers can and have been sold to the public.
(insert standard '"begs the question" doesn't mean that' rant here)...
Of course, you could just steal the computer, but that's no fun.
His or her independent and internalized moral code?
Will tomorrow you decide to not obey the laws against theft? Against murder?
I certainly hope not! Legality aside, those are deeply immoral acts.
Uh...he'll use solar power...yeah, that's the ticket...
Explaining calmly and slowly that the regulations aren't a good idea does not work at all, dude. As long as he keeps saying he's a preacher or whatever with a rare kidney disease, the theatre has an out ("Well, he said he was this doctor of divinity with a rare heart^w kidney disease, so we _had_ to give him the amyls ^w^w^w^w let the kids in to see South Park"). Most likely the ticket booth kids knew just as well as he does/we do how dumb the regulations are, so uhm, I'm kinda going in loops here, I think. They knew the kids should get in, he knew the kids should get in, the parents knew the kids should get in. The crucial thing wasn't to convince the movie dudes that letting the kids in was the right thing (they knew that). Rather, the crucial thing was to provide an _excuse for_ the movie dudes to do the right thing, because without the excuse they could get into serious trouble for doing same.