IE's not that good for low-end machines either, truth be told. Have you given Opera a try recently? My god, that browser (er, *this* browser, considering as how I'm posting from it) is sweet. -- "HORSE."
Particularly since the person knows enough about the game to know that Chun-Li does, in fact, practice kung fu (specifically, the wushu style). To actually know which art she practices and not know the name of the game is pretty much impossible.
D00d, I so want to learn that. Do they teach the "bounce on top of opponent's head until they fall over and die" trick? -- "HORSE."
Certainly you won't be able to make out details (like advertisements), but you can see mir; according to Visual Satellite Observer's Home Page mir is normally about magnitude -0.7, and if you're at just the right angle, you'll get a reflection reaching magnitude -3 off of the solar panels.
That aside, sometimes the purpose of an advertisement isn't to be seen, but just to be known about. I for one would greatly respect anyone who'd pay money to help keep Mir in space. Anyone. Microsoft, McDonald's, anyone (okay, maybe not Phillip-Morris, but anyone short of that). All of those wannabe-geeks who think it'd be a "tragedy" if those silly Iridium satellites came down need to get their priorities straight. Satellites, no matter how much money was blown on them, are a dime a dozen, but space stations are something different altogther. If I were to make a list of reasons why the human race isn't a complete waste of time, keeping Mir manned and in orbit for over 14 years now would probably be near the top of the list. Look! There! *points up*. People!
It's a pity we haven't gone further..we SO need to go back to the moon, if just to check Tycho for magnetic anomalies:)...but at the very least there's Mir.
*whine*I wanna be a cosmonaut! *whine* *whine* -- "HORSE."
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is only applicable to a very small domain. Generalize beyond this domain at your own peril.
If by "a very small domain" you mean "any system which seeks to make claims about itself" then we agree on everything but the meaning of the word 'small'.
Except it's not "any system which seeks to make claims about itself", it's "any formal system which seeks to make claims about itself." -- "HORSE."
"Not to say that I necessarily believe one way or the other" is a disclaimer. It is quite disjoint from the rest of the sentence. I can't see that this was a particularly difficult sentence to parse.
Wrong not. I was talking about the not in the sentence "What I'm trying to say is that might it not be possible that if we were to create life ourselves, it could only be the product of all that the human race was up to that point. " which I still can't seem to untangle.
next!
The first... seems to state that any tool crafted by humans is necessarily inferior to those humans, which is of course complete nonsense, given, among many other examples, chess playing programs that can consistently outplay their authors.
To start with, you have completely ignored the distinction between humankind and a single human being. Secondly, 'A is something less than B' does not imply 'B cannot create anything which will outperform itself at a specific task'.
Hm? How do you define "specific" in this case?
I think that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem contains some clues as to why a particular intelligence may not be able to create a peer for itself. However, we might stumble upon a method by some other method than analysis (like evolutionary techniques, or chance). It is this prospect which I find scary.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is only applicable to a very small domain. Generalize beyond this domain at your own peril. -- "HORSE."
You can see that your model has to contain itself, and although I lack the mathematical prowess to turn this into a snazzy Gödelesque theorem, I think you can see that this looks like one of those "meta" problems that give us so many headaches.
Repeat after me: Self-reference does NOT imply paradox. Again, _self-reference does NOT imply paradox_. Practically all of the most famous paradoxes in some way involve self-reference, but there are plenty of self-referential structures which are in no way paradoxical. Second, one of the major steps on the way to Gödel's proof involves a string that does in fact contain itself, but in a different notation. If self-containing strings weren't possible, Gödel's proof wouldn't be, either. Generalizing from Gödel's proof is something that is astoundingly easy to screw up for anyone who's not well-trained in mathematical logic, as Penrose (among others...) found out. It's really much more restricted than certain popularizations (*coughcoughdouglashofstadtercoughcough*) would have you believe.
That aside, I still think "Douglas Hofstadter" would make a decent band name, but nowhere near as good as "W.V.O. Quine and the Formal Logics" (since "'Is the name of this band' is the name of this band" isn't nearly catchy enough)
I am *so* *bloody* *sick* of people claiming that no given entity can create an entity more complex than itself. That is, and I mean this, utter and complete bullshit. If humans couldn't create things more "intelligent" than themselves, how can you explain the countless chess programs capable of beating their own creators? Sure, chess is a limited domain, but dammit, why is chess different from Turing-style conversation, or any other test of intelligence? Don't just say that chess is "more mathematical" and leave it at that. It is your responsibility to prove that chess is less theoretically difficult to implement in a program than conversation is.
Second, even discounting the example of game-playing machines better than their creators, what reason, other than religious faith, or a "gut feeling", do you have to believe that the level of complexity of creations "tops out" at the level of complexity of their creator? I simply don't see it. At first it kinda sounds right, but then when you look at it it just falls apart. -- "HORSE."
Not to say that I necessarily believe one way or the other, but don't you think that arguments like this don't take into the possibility that the human race is something less than it's theoretical 'divine creator'?
Nani? I don't see where you're going, but maybe it's somewhere interesting...
What I'm trying to say is that might it not be possible that if we were to create life ourselves, it could only be the product of all that the human race was up to that point. But this being that created us may forever be greater than what we could evolve to(spiritually or whatever). This implies that the human race has more potential than anything we could create at any given point.
Well, I can't untangle your first sentence (the 'not' throws me off. I can't tell what it negates.), but it seems like where you're going isn't terribly interesting at all. Foo. Well, since you're not anonymous, I'll have to assume that you're not a troll. Perhaps this is a bad policy. I guess *someone* has to be the mark, and this time around it might as well be me.
In any case. I don't see how the three sentences quoted above hang together. The first (ignoring the 'not' for a moment) seems to state that any tool crafted by humans is necessarily inferior to those humans, which is of course complete nonsense, given, among many other examples, chess playing programs that can consistently outplay their authors. Perhaps the not was supposed to negate/that/, so that you're saying that obviously humans can create things that outperform them. The second sentence is a statement that it is possible that that which 'created' humanity, to use an imprecise but evocative term, may be so superior to humanity that humans can't hope to match it in any way. From these two disparate statements you come to the conclusion that therefore humanity has more "potential" than any of its own creations. This seems like a complete non-sequitur to me, no matter how you interpret the first sentence, but since I am having a bit of trouble figuring out what you're trying to say my confusion may not reflect on the soundness of your reasoning.
On a tangent, I suspect (judging from the overall tack you seem to be taking) that you would enjoy reading some of the science fiction author Stanislaw Lem's stuff. I'm especially thinking of a part of Imaginary Magnitude where GOLEM, a nth generation sentient computer, expounds upon a line similar in flavor to yours, although of course GOLEM's conclusions are wildly different than the ones you seem to be making. Well, I certainly found it interesting, I don't know about you.
Indeed. I'm of the (ill-informed, naturally) opinion that this degree of home automation is great, but only if the persons occupying said home built/set up everything in the house themselves. Buying a house where you have no idea how everything works is a stunningly bad idea. This sort of thing's great if you know what it's doing, but if you don't it just seems random and arbitrary.
Oh, and that toilet thing's just dumb. -- "HORSE."
heh. People are trying to save iridium. Despite the fact that the satellites are totally useless for anything but voice communication, and despite the fact that they're not very good at that, oh, and there's other satellite systems that have taken over everything iridium used to do, oh, and don't forget that they mess up radio astronomers hardcore...but we've got to save IRIDIUM! I mean, think of the POOR IRIDIUM SATELLITES...feh -- "HORSE."
Interesting. Everyone seems to love them, though, which suggests that what they're doing is right in some subtle way. I suppose the reasoning is that introducing lawyers into the company in any way would sour the atmosphere, no matter how much they tried to cordon them off from the rest of the employees. -- "HORSE."
I can't remember the details, but I know back in the 1800s someone tripped across a what looked to be a short and elegant proof of FLT, but which turned out to be subtly wrong. Most likely this almost-proof is what Fermat found. -- "HORSE."
I am admittedly naive about economic matters, so feel free to mod down. Um, how do economists cope with things that are innately enjoyable? ESR aside, I suspect that the main reason people code, just judging from what appear to me to be my motivations to write the little things I do, is because after a long coding session I feel like I've just played a particularly satisfying game of chess, or maybe solved a knotty logic problem. It's disturbingly addictive. -- "HORSE."
"Read Einstein's FBI File" | Preferences | Top | 194 comments | Search Discussion Threshold: -1: 194 comments0: 185 comments1: 135 comments2: 36 comments3: 12 comments4: 6 comments5: 3 commentsNo CommentsThreadedNestedFlatOldest FirstNewest FirstHighest Scores FirstOldest First (Ignore Threads)Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save: The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say. ( Beta is only a state of mind ) Quaker here. I declare thee a troll. (Score:1) by Unclaimed Mysteries on 11:04 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#192) (User Info) http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/ Confusion betweeen Quakers and Amish? A line straight out of the movie "Kingpin." Actually, thou would not be out of place in the surprisingly contentious newsgroup soc.religion.quaker. It Came from C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries - Celebrating 4 years as part of what's wrong with the internet. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Gee what about the Catholics...??? (Score:1) by MacJedi (macjedi@metalab.unc.edu) on 10:34 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#181) (User Info) http://metalab.unc.edu/macjedi Gee what about the Catholics...??? Unless I'm mistaken the vast majority of the Christians on this blue planet are Catholic and Catholics believe that Faith AND Good Works are necessary for salvation... But you probably believe like my friend GW Bush and the entire faculty at Bob Jones University that Catholics are a "cult".... YHBT HAND! Slashdot User #173 [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:Gee what about the Catholics...??? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 10:46 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#182) Catholics believe that Faith AND Good Works are necessary for salvation... True, but they are wrong. There is no Scriptural justification for that belief, nor for any of their other beliefs. They are not Christians. [ Reply to This | Parent ] YHBT! HAND! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 10:48 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#184) You Have Been Trolled! Have A Nice Day! [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:YHBT! HAND! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 11:06 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#194) No, you rocket scientist, I am the troll. The other guy was trolled, and he knew it and said so in his post; which is to say that he wasn't really trolled after all. So you're basically restating the obvious in a notably clumsy and halfassed way. We're all consenting adults here. Don't you have school in the morning? --80md [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:1) by Jonathan the Nerd (jmblant@clemson.dontsendmespam.edu) on 10:32 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#180) (User Info) Why was this marked as "interesting"? It's a troll. In fact, it's one of the most well-written trolls I've seen in quite a while. A good troll is supposed to look enough like a real post to fool people who don't read it closely enough. And judging by the number of replies to this post, it certainly succeeded. Just before I started writing, the post was changed to "funny". I'll agree it's kind of funny, but it's more a troll than a funny post, and "Troll" would be the most accurate categorization. (Actually, I think it deverves a "Score 2, Troll" because of the craftsmanship. This is no ordinary hot grits/Natalie Portmant post. This is a truly well-written troll.) Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily mine, as I've not yet had my medication today. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:1) by mgoren on 09:07 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#137) (User Info) I know I should probably ignore the comment as it is probably intended as a troll, but I do feel the need to respond anyways as I not only disagree with you, but you are blatently wrong about several things. First of all, I am Quaker and a member of AFSC (American Friends Service Committee), so I probably know better than you do about what Quakers and AFSC do.:-) Guess that means I must be a 'devious radical left-winger', eh? First of all I don't refute that many Quakers and AFSC have a lot of left-wing ideas. SO WHAT???? Your ridiculous post lies on the basic assumption that all left-wingers should be watched by the FBI because they are a danger to the nation. What the hell!? It is not the FBI's right to bother people with different political ideas. As far as I can tell, it is the FBI's job to prevent illegal acts, violence, etc. Quakerism is based completely on non-violence in all respects. Quakers do not support ANY type of violence. AFSC, in fact, teaches courses on non-violence not only for holding protests, but also to inner city children to use in their own lives, for example. Quakers and AFSC do not allow for violence at all in their methods. They also do not promote illegal activities. A few Quakers do choose to take non-violent protest to the extent of participating in "non-violent civil disobedience". This is not something that is harming the country. It is a way of making a political point. Much like having the deCSS code available on one's website. Just because a person or organization has different political ideas from your own, does not mean that they are trying to harm the country, provoke violence, etc. Your comments about AFSC (and others, for the matter) posing a "clear threat to the welfare of the nation" are entirely lacking support. Just a couple other minor things to clear up so you can better understand Quakerism: Quakers don't try to become confused with the Amish. What a ridiculous accusation!? Why would any Quaker do that! The confusion comes from the fact that Quakers believe in "living simply", which does not mean without things like electricity. It just means trying to avoid excess so that the excess can be given to those who need it. Perhaps some of the confusion also comes from a certain company that likes to put pictures of Amish or Quakers from many many years ago on their oatmeal boxes.;-) I'm not going to bother arguing about whether or not Quakerism is a branch of Christianity. Does it really matter??? It is a religion. Who cares if it is a branch of some other religion? I can tell you though that no one is trying to confuse you about whether or not Quakers are Christians. Its just that many Quakers do believe in the divinity of Christ and do consider the bible an important source, so they consider themselves Christians. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Condemned by your own admissions! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 09:34 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#155) I am Quaker and a member of AFSC (American Friends Service Committee), . . . Guess that means I must be a 'devious radical left-winger', eh? Obviously so. I don't refute that many Quakers and AFSC have a lot of left-wing ideas. I admit I'm a bit taken aback by your honesty, but I suppose you may have an ulterior motive. On the other hand, Slashdot is an environment so friendly to leftists that you probably feel no shame at all in making this admission. I won't be surprised if it even gains you some support. Your ridiculous post lies on the basic assumption that all left-wingers should be watched by the FBI because they are a danger to the nation. "Ridiculous"?! What, I ask you is ridiculous about being suspicious of people who are opposed to democratic government?! The USA is a democratic nation, founded on the principles of democracy. Left-wing beliefs advocate totalitarianism. Yes, you should be watched! Are you crazy?! Do you want me to hand you the knife you cut my throat with? Quakerism is based completely on non-violence in all respects. An absurd claim, coming from an avowed leftist. Are you going to tell me that the great leftist Stalin was non-violent? What about Mao and Ho Chi Minh? No, I think it's safe to say that leftists are very violent people indeed. It is a way of making a political point. Much like having the deCSS code available on one's website. Bad analogy. Putting the DeCSS code on one's website is more closely analagous to walking down the street handing out lockpicks and other burglar's tools. [ Reply to This | Parent ] I've figured out the confusion! (Score:1) by mgoren on 09:56 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#166) (User Info) I think I've figured out why you're posts don't make any sense. The problem is your understanding of the word left-wing. You seem to assume that all people who are left-wing (as opposed to being right-wing) are extremists that promote violence, communism, overthrow of the government, etc. This is not at all the case. Neither I, nor Quakerism, nor AFSC support violence or overthrow of the U.S. government at all. They are not opposed to democratic government. Just because you have some left-wing ideas, does not mean that you support Stalin, etc. And just to clear things up once and for all, I absolutely guarantee you that Quakers and AFSC do not support violence. You are simply wrong about that. I'm sorry. In fact, they, more than any other religion or even organization are absolutely opposed to violence. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Do you take me for a fool?! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 10:04 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#170) You seem to assume that all people who are left-wing (as opposed to being right-wing) are extremists that promote violence, communism, overthrow of the government, etc. This is not at all the case. Wrong. It is indeed the case. Regardless of whether you yourself explicitly wish to do violence, you remain a leftist. You remain convinced that democracy and liberty are "mistakes" to be "corrected" by means of "social justice" -- and don't try to tell me otherwise, because I have seen the AFSC website and "social justice" is specifically mentioned! Well, the only means of imposing "social justice" on a free nation are violent means. You can't eat meat and sneer at the butcher. If you advocate "social justice", then you implicitly accept the violence necessary to establish it. I absolutely guarantee you that Quakers and AFSC do not support violence. If you sincerely believe that, then I really don't know what to say. With your every waking thought, word, and deed, you work to bring about the most cruel and murderous form of tyranny known to Man: Yet you deny that you "support violence". [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:Do you take me for a fool?! (Score:1) by mgoren on 10:20 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#173) (User Info) Regardless of whether you yourself explicitly wish to do violence, you remain a leftist. You remain convinced that democracy and liberty are "mistakes" to be "corrected" No, but what you're not understanding is that not all leftists - in fact, very few indeed - are believe that democracy and liberty are mistakes. I full-heartedly believe in democracy and liberty and work as hard as I can to preserve them! I also believe there are ways our country could be a better place (within our democracy!). I certainly don't think we should use violence to achieve it. Neither do most leftists. And certainly AFSC does not. I have seen the AFSC website and "social justice" is specifically mentioned! Well, the only means of imposing "social justice" on a free nation are violent means. This is not the case. AFSC promotes working towards social justice through non-violent means. I assure you that it is possible to make the world a more just place without violent means. It may not become 100% just, but it can become better anyway. That is what AFSC tries to do.:) [ Reply to This | Parent ] Perhaps you can be saved. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 10:31 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#179) I also believe there are ways our country could be a better place (within our democracy!). This sounds like the belief of a reasonable man! Why can't you abandon your superstitions and cultishness and join the free men who are working to make this nation a truly better place? There is a need for brave and free men. You need not renounce violence; sometimes it is necessary, and Our Lord himself directed the Israelites to engage in violence on numerous occasions. If you are only willing to give up your devotion to destruction, you can work to make this nation great once again: One nation, under God. You can help to restore liberty to the States which have been denied it by the so-called "Supreme Court" (which was never provided for in the orignal, true Constitution, by the way) since 1954. You can work for real change. Join us. You'll be glad you did. AFSC promotes working towards social justice through non-violent means. Through treachery, then? Your meaning is not clear to me. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:Perhaps you can be saved. (Score:1) by mgoren on 10:49 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#186) (User Info) Through treachery, then? Your meaning is not clear to me. no, through working to get laws changed (lobbying, non-violent protests, stuff like that). Ok, enough discussion for me for now. I need food.;-) [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:Perhaps you can be saved. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 11:03 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#191) I need food.;-) And I need sleep! It's been fun. --80md [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:1) by jgrr (jrosenau@midway.uchicago.edu) on 09:02 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#130) (User Info) http://home.uchicago.edu/~jrosenau When did being left wing become illegal? Did you know there's a socialist congressman? Not only are his thoughts legal, but the state of New Hampshire consistently sends him to represent their interests. He probably supports lifting sanctions on Iraq, and the UN, and the AFSC. This is legal. The he doesn't threaten the government, he is it. For that alone, should the government compile a file on him? NO. For the same reason that, until the folks at Ruby Ridge started collecting illegal weapons, the FBI shouldn't have had a file on them. After, it was in the interest of public safety and law enforcement to watch them. Look down the list: William Faulkner, Bertoldt Brecht, the American Friends' Service Committee. They're all leftists. Are you people seriously trying to claim that it is not the role of the FBI to keep tabs on people who are fundamentally at war with the United States? Hello?! These files are relics of a nearly-forgotten time when the FBI defended this nation. The FBI you see through these files is not the degenerate radical group now laboring to abolish the sacred liberties for the sake of which our nation was founded. I know this is a troll. The illogic of saying that the FBI that invaded law abiding citizens' privacy in the 60's is not the same as the FBI that does that now makes no sense. Being a radical leftist isn't illegal. Holding views that diverge from that of the mainstream is not illegal. Martin Luther King, Jr. may have violated adultery laws, but not federal laws. The files the FBI collected on him were not related to illegal activities, but to legal activities related to free speech. That the Quakers do not believe in justification by faith alone just means that they aren't Lutheran. This is not the most common Christian belief. It was Luther's rebellion. I know I just got trolled, but someone moderated this as interesting, rather than Funny, so I had to speak up. I'm a leftist. I am not at war with the US. I thought that the right-wing coup that was staged is worse than anything Brecht ever did. Did you know that Bob Barr, one of the impeachment managers, has threatened to kill the president, and has threatened to lead an armed coup? This man has a Secret Service file for a reason. PS. J. Edgar Hoover (on the list) was not a leftist. [ Reply to This | Parent ] And you're not even ashamed of yourself . . . (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 09:26 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#151) Did you know there's a socialist congressman? I hadn't heard about that, but in these times, as the United States collapses about our ears, I'm not a bit surprised. The illogic of saying that the FBI that invaded law abiding citizens' privacy in the 60's is not the same as the FBI that does that now makes no sense. The decade is irrelevant. My point is that the Weather Underground and the AFSC are, in effect, terroristic groups. Randy Weaver was not. The AFSC are formally devoted to undermining the principles on which this nation was founded. Randy Weaver was dedicated to upholding those principles -- even at the cost of his life, if need be. Holding views that diverge from that of the mainstream is not illegal. This is disingenuous. You know quite well that not all "views that diverge from the mainstream" are identical. If I fire a gun into the ground, that is harmless; if I were to fire a gun into the body of an innocent bystander, that would be a crime. Both acts involve the firing of a gun, but they are not identical. So it is with "holding views". Furthermore, none of these leftists are accused merely of holding views -- that alone could be tolerated in a free society, no matter how psychopathic the views may be -- no, the problem is that they acted on those views, and actively proselytized them. And in the case of such views as theirs, there is no good reason for the nation to allow itself to be damaged by such behavior. You may not love your liberty, but many of us do, and we reserve the right to defend it. Martin Luther King, Jr. may have violated adultery laws, but not federal laws. The files the FBI collected on him were not related to illegal activities, but to legal activities related to free speech. When "so celestial an article as LIBERTY" is faced with a clear and present danger of annihilation, it is reasonable to use whatever weapons come to hand in defending it. As another dedicated American once put it, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Did you know that Bob Barr, one of the impeachment managers, has threatened to kill the president, and has threatened to lead an armed coup? Present your evidence, or hire an attorney. This is a very serious accusation. It amounts to treason -- a greater treason, even, than that of the criminal monster Klinton. Bob Barr is a loyal American patriot and an honorable man. but someone moderated this as interesting, rather than Funny It would more accurately have been labeled "Informative", but any means to spread the word is acceptable. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Unashamed (Score:1) by jgrr (jrosenau@midway.uchicago.edu) on 10:16 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#171) (User Info) http://home.uchicago.edu/~jrosenau Bernie Sanders has represented New Hampshire since 1991. A republican was president then. My only real reply to the rest of this is that right above that great second amendment is one that talks about the congress not passing laws that restrict the rights of citizens to express their views. The FBI watched these leftists because they were leftists, not because they were revolutionaries. You have yet to explain how the AFSC or the Quakers (noted pacifists) are terrorists. This is disingenuous. You know quite well that not all "views that diverge from the mainstream" are identical. If I fire a gun into the ground, that is harmless; if I were to fire a gun into the body of an innocent bystander, that would be a crime. Both acts involve the firing of a gun, but they are not identical. So it is with "holding views". Furthermore, none of these leftists are accused merely of holding views -- that alone could be tolerated in a free society, no matter how psychopathic the views may be -- no, the problem is that they acted on those views, and actively proselytized them. And in the case of such views as theirs, there is no good reason for the nation to allow itself to be damaged by such behavior. Disingenuous my eye. It's trite, but so clear. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. No one suggests that firing ranges are per se illegal, while drive-by shootings are. How can expressing your views do harm? The constitution places the right to free expression at the top of the rights enumerated. Along with the right to choose a religion that may differ from Luther's perspective on Christianity. It is therefore impossible that Congress could create an agency with the power to invade privacy using a citizen's expressed beliefs as their only justification. As for "B-1" Bob Barr, I don't have 7 year old clippings around, so the exact quote escapes me, but after Clinton was elected, he commented that the president should be careful coming to Georgia, because there's a big military presence there, and they might not like him. I saw a follow up where someone asked the Secret Service to look into that, and they said they questioned him, and were watching out. As a point of fact, treason is the act of making war on the government. Saying "I plan to lead a coup" is not treason. This is that same distinction between speech and action. It's only revolution when you start shooting. The weather underground did, the AFSC didn't. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Why am I not surprised? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 10:25 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#175) My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Correct. And when the arm of your irrational belief system swings the fist of militant action such that it impacts the sacred nose of my liberties, I have a right and an obligation to respond appropriately. I don't have 7 year old clippings around, so the exact quote escapes me, but after Clinton was elected, he commented that the president should be careful coming to Georgia, because there's a big military presence there, and they might not like him. Oh, yeah, I remember that now. IIRC he used stronger language than you mention, too. Representative Barr is a loyal American and an honorable man. I believe that he would not have said such a thing without good reason. To compare him to leftists such as the Weather Underground is libel, and actionable under law. It's only revolution when you start shooting. The weather underground did, the AFSC didn't. Given the views that the AFSC holds, it's only a matter of time. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Because it isn't surprising (Score:1) by jgrr (jrosenau@midway.uchicago.edu) on 10:55 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#188) (User Info) http://home.uchicago.edu/~jrosenau This is silly. If you have an email address, let me know. Your arguments are increasingly weird, and I think we should take this off-line. On one hand, the AFSC should be carefully watched because you, Mr. Anonymous Coward, think that a pacifist organization will become terrorists. At the same time, a man you agree threatened the safety of the president as person and as a political office is OK because you, Mr. AC, know that he "is a loyal American and honorable man." Loyal Americans don't threaten to kill the president. Honorable men respect that people disagree, and don't threaten to harm those they disagree with. You agree that he made a threat. If he said it, how exactly is it libel? Setting aside that he, as a public figure, can't sue for libel. The constitution doesn't say that congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech unless an Anonymous Coward or the FBI thinks that speech could eventually maybe lead to revolution. The first amendment says (care of Project Gutenberg): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Prying into people's lives because they choose to freely peacably assemble with the intention of speaking freely violates the fourth amendment: 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 seized. To choose an example at random, Eistein's records were collected because he belonged to a number of communist groups. The only revolution he caused was within physics. His rights were violated. The FBI, to quote you, "swung the arm of militant action such that it impacted the sacred nose of his liberties." His liberties, as enumerated above, were impacted by FBI agents sticking their noses into his legal actions. He didn't swing the fist, they did. I know I've been trolled, hook, line, and sinker, but I can't stop now. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:Because it isn't surprising (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 11:01 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#190) they choose to freely peacably assemble Those who freely split infinitives will not stop at the annihilation of a few basic liberties. Your motives are clear, our cause is just, liberty shall not perish, and it's past my bed time. I know I've been trolled, hook, line, and sinker, but I can't stop now. Ahh, but I must:( I'm getting bleary and rasterburned. It's been great fun, though.:) --80md [ Reply to This | Parent ] split this (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 11:06 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#193) Split infinitives are only a problem in latin, were the infinitive is one word. Same with dangling participles. Latin rules ported to english by enlightenment thinkers who thought english, a germanic language with french extensions, should follow latin grammar. So don't you impose you imperialist eurocentric hegemony on me, that's my liberty's nose. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:2) by redled (redled at v-wave dot com) on 08:54 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#123) (User Info) Leftists? Who cares? Yes, communism ultimatly failed, but, in a perfect world without corruption and greed, it would make for a perfect system. The average person now knows that extreme left communism just does not work. However, at a time earlier in this century, people were not confident in the capitalistic economy, and had not seen communisms failures firt hand yet. They had, on the other hand, experienced the shortcomings of capitalism. Remember the great depression? It was a _major_ failure of extreme right capitalism. Furthermore, many people were distraught at the mistreatment of the working class. Communism was one answer (opinion: it was a step in the right direction, but the step was much to large). While I'm on the subject, to this day I can show you probably hundreds of millions (billions?) of people around the world who would certainly disagree with capitalism, and embrace socialism or even communism. I guess my point is, the whole communist witchhunt thing was (and still is to an extent) unfair and that capitalism is not perfect either. We must also remember that communist "propaganda" was also met with anti-communist "propaganda", so it's especially hard to judge either side from an unbiased viewpoint. -- "Insert witty quote here." [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:1) by Rares Marian (rmarian@winblowsstart.com) on 09:27 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#153) (User Info) The whole difference between communism and capitalism is the fact that one recognizes that evil exists and the other doesn't. The extreme right capitalism is in no way capitalism. It's communism with a few business people at the helm. Stick to the dynamics the details are just a distraction. Petrified Iron Clad solution: Rob, Jeff - Create the/. API that let's us parse titles and content in articles [ Reply to This | Parent ] You don't really seem to "get it". (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 09:08 PM March 15th, 2000 PDT (#139) at a time earlier in this century, people were not confident in the capitalistic economy, and had not seen communisms failures firt hand yet. Yes, and that is precisely why the FBI had to take on a defensive role against that madness. That is why people like Brecht and the AFSC had to be monitored: Because few people outside the FBI were aware of the danger. They had, on the other hand, experienced the shortcomings of capitalism. Remember the great depression? It was a _major_ failure of extreme right capitalism. Wrong. There was a minor stock market correction in October, 1929 (roughly like the wobbles NASDAQ has been having the last few days). The market recovered within a few weeks, and not until years later was the correction mythologized by revisionists into a "crash". The economy was fine until 1933, when FDR, having lied his way into office, dictatorially closed the banks and threw the economy into a tailspin. That was the start of the Great Depression: Government interference on a massive scale. The "history" you've been taught was, of course, written by the "victors". It is not even remotely accurate.
This is without a doubt the most high-quality troll I've seen in months. You r0x0r, d00d... -- "HORSE."
You added a unnecessary step. If you want to record your own version of Dark Side of the Moon, you do NOT get permission and pay royalties, you simply pay royalties. Permission is strictly optional. This doesn't work in the case of computer games, although most likely it would be better if it did, since there's no mechanism in place for it. -- "HORSE."
One thing you do have to consider here is that we're not talking about a zero-sum game by any stretch of the imagination. Simply because some other company is making money off of your R+D does not mean that you're not, even if the amount of money you're making is less than the amount they're making, due to the cost of the R+D itself. I suppose a situation in which there is no intellectual property law resembles the iterated prisoner's dilemma that keeps popping up in economy affairs, where the equivalent of "cooperating" is doing your own research, and "defecting" is waiting for others to do it for you. Note that in a massive iterated prisoner's dilemma like this one, always defecting is not a stable strategy. -- "HORSE."
Everyone else has already, erm, shredded (or close) your Edison example, so I'd just like to mention that the purpose of patents isn't to "protect" something until every possible trace of profitability in the patented item has been used up, it's to make sure that the idea is released to the public while it's still worth something. I've always understood it as a sort of compromise between the public and the inventor - release the idea to us, and we'll make sure no one else uses it without your permission for a few years. -- "HORSE."
Incidentally, has anyone ever tried punching in every single hole? Has anyone here ever been in charge of one of the ballot counting machines? Would a "lace ballot" even slow them down? Here in Washington, the cards we use have enough "unpunchable" space that I doubt anyone could really fux0r them up that badly, but maybe somewhere...
of course, presumably the only time anyone would punch a lace ballot is if all the candidates for every position, and all the measures presented, were just too dire to even consider...sadly, this situation ACTUALLY HAPPENS... -- "HORSE."
Bah. Don't think of the movie as an adaptation of the novel, because the movie works MUCH better as a standalone piece. And the "trippy blinking", as you say, is just perfect, with or without drugs. Presumably the reason why Kubrick dropped the "my god, it's full of stars" is because, although it's a decent tagline, it just doesn't really fit Bowman's character at that point of the story. Bowman is pretty much completely silent after he kills off HAL...he's sorta stopped being entirely human. -- "HORSE."
Wow... Moderation Totals:Flamebait=1, Insightful=8, Interesting=2, Informative=1, Overrated=6, Underrated=1, Total=19. That's gotta be some kind of record?
Not at all. If I recall correctly, there was a (several page long) hot grits compilation post a few months ago that drew over 100 moderator points. -- "HORSE."
Slashdot Mirror
IE's not that good for low-end machines either, truth be told. Have you given Opera a try recently? My god, that browser (er, *this* browser, considering as how I'm posting from it) is sweet.
--
"HORSE."
--
"HORSE."
That aside, sometimes the purpose of an advertisement isn't to be seen, but just to be known about. I for one would greatly respect anyone who'd pay money to help keep Mir in space. Anyone. Microsoft, McDonald's, anyone (okay, maybe not Phillip-Morris, but anyone short of that). All of those wannabe-geeks who think it'd be a "tragedy" if those silly Iridium satellites came down need to get their priorities straight. Satellites, no matter how much money was blown on them, are a dime a dozen, but space stations are something different altogther. If I were to make a list of reasons why the human race isn't a complete waste of time, keeping Mir manned and in orbit for over 14 years now would probably be near the top of the list. Look! There! *points up*. People!
It's a pity we haven't gone further ..we SO need to go back to the moon, if just to check Tycho for magnetic anomalies :) ...but at the very least there's Mir.
*whine*I wanna be a cosmonaut! *whine* *whine*
--
"HORSE."
I can't speak for OS/2, but if you're claiming BeOS sucks, that strongly suggests you haven't ever used it.
--
"HORSE."
DISCORDIANS....IN....SPACE....
--
"HORSE."
--
"HORSE."
--
"HORSE."
next!
Hm? How do you define "specific" in this case? Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is only applicable to a very small domain. Generalize beyond this domain at your own peril.--
"HORSE."
That aside, I still think "Douglas Hofstadter" would make a decent band name, but nowhere near as good as "W.V.O. Quine and the Formal Logics" (since "'Is the name of this band' is the name of this band" isn't nearly catchy enough)
--
"HORSE."
Second, even discounting the example of game-playing machines better than their creators, what reason, other than religious faith, or a "gut feeling", do you have to believe that the level of complexity of creations "tops out" at the level of complexity of their creator? I simply don't see it. At first it kinda sounds right, but then when you look at it it just falls apart.
--
"HORSE."
Dude, human beowulfs DO SO exist...if they didn't, how could you explain the Slashdot Hivemind?
--
"HORSE."
In any case. I don't see how the three sentences quoted above hang together. The first (ignoring the 'not' for a moment) seems to state that any tool crafted by humans is necessarily inferior to those humans, which is of course complete nonsense, given, among many other examples, chess playing programs that can consistently outplay their authors. Perhaps the not was supposed to negate /that/, so that you're saying that obviously humans can create things that outperform them. The second sentence is a statement that it is possible that that which 'created' humanity, to use an imprecise but evocative term, may be so superior to humanity that humans can't hope to match it in any way. From these two disparate statements you come to the conclusion that therefore humanity has more "potential" than any of its own creations. This seems like a complete non-sequitur to me, no matter how you interpret the first sentence, but since I am having a bit of trouble figuring out what you're trying to say my confusion may not reflect on the soundness of your reasoning.
On a tangent, I suspect (judging from the overall tack you seem to be taking) that you would enjoy reading some of the science fiction author Stanislaw Lem's stuff. I'm especially thinking of a part of Imaginary Magnitude where GOLEM, a nth generation sentient computer, expounds upon a line similar in flavor to yours, although of course GOLEM's conclusions are wildly different than the ones you seem to be making. Well, I certainly found it interesting, I don't know about you.
--
"HORSE."
Oh, and that toilet thing's just dumb.
--
"HORSE."
heh. People are trying to save iridium. Despite the fact that the satellites are totally useless for anything but voice communication, and despite the fact that they're not very good at that, oh, and there's other satellite systems that have taken over everything iridium used to do, oh, and don't forget that they mess up radio astronomers hardcore...but we've got to save IRIDIUM! I mean, think of the POOR IRIDIUM SATELLITES...feh
--
"HORSE."
Interesting. Everyone seems to love them, though, which suggests that what they're doing is right in some subtle way. I suppose the reasoning is that introducing lawyers into the company in any way would sour the atmosphere, no matter how much they tried to cordon them off from the rest of the employees.
--
"HORSE."
I can't remember the details, but I know back in the 1800s someone tripped across a what looked to be a short and elegant proof of FLT, but which turned out to be subtly wrong. Most likely this almost-proof is what Fermat found.
--
"HORSE."
I am admittedly naive about economic matters, so feel free to mod down. Um, how do economists cope with things that are innately enjoyable? ESR aside, I suspect that the main reason people code, just judging from what appear to me to be my motivations to write the little things I do, is because after a long coding session I feel like I've just played a particularly satisfying game of chess, or maybe solved a knotty logic problem. It's disturbingly addictive.
--
"HORSE."
--
"HORSE."
You added a unnecessary step. If you want to record your own version of Dark Side of the Moon, you do NOT get permission and pay royalties, you simply pay royalties. Permission is strictly optional. This doesn't work in the case of computer games, although most likely it would be better if it did, since there's no mechanism in place for it.
--
"HORSE."
One thing you do have to consider here is that we're not talking about a zero-sum game by any stretch of the imagination. Simply because some other company is making money off of your R+D does not mean that you're not, even if the amount of money you're making is less than the amount they're making, due to the cost of the R+D itself. I suppose a situation in which there is no intellectual property law resembles the iterated prisoner's dilemma that keeps popping up in economy affairs, where the equivalent of "cooperating" is doing your own research, and "defecting" is waiting for others to do it for you. Note that in a massive iterated prisoner's dilemma like this one, always defecting is not a stable strategy.
--
"HORSE."
Everyone else has already, erm, shredded (or close) your Edison example, so I'd just like to mention that the purpose of patents isn't to "protect" something until every possible trace of profitability in the patented item has been used up, it's to make sure that the idea is released to the public while it's still worth something. I've always understood it as a sort of compromise between the public and the inventor - release the idea to us, and we'll make sure no one else uses it without your permission for a few years.
--
"HORSE."
of course, presumably the only time anyone would punch a lace ballot is if all the candidates for every position, and all the measures presented, were just too dire to even consider...sadly, this situation ACTUALLY HAPPENS...
--
"HORSE."
I guess it's just me, but I'd rather live in pre-rudy new york than in new york today.
--
"HORSE."
Bah. Don't think of the movie as an adaptation of the novel, because the movie works MUCH better as a standalone piece. And the "trippy blinking", as you say, is just perfect, with or without drugs. Presumably the reason why Kubrick dropped the "my god, it's full of stars" is because, although it's a decent tagline, it just doesn't really fit Bowman's character at that point of the story. Bowman is pretty much completely silent after he kills off HAL...he's sorta stopped being entirely human.
--
"HORSE."
--
"HORSE."