the US will have to cope with a huge overhead to keep up in the world of connected societies.
Says who?
The US could just accept that there will be a higher percentage of Americans without broadband access than, say, Koreans. There's nothing wrong with that - people who want broadband can live in areas where there is broadband. If there is an economically sufficient number of people outside those areas, someone may develop a new technoogy to serve those areas.
But the US doesn't have to "cope with a huge overhead" to maintain broadband parity with other nations anymore than Finland has to "cope with a huge overhead" to maintain summer vacation resort parity with Spain.
Rural areas will always have lower broadband penetration than urban areas. The US has a higher rural population than most other developed countries. Pointing out that the US has a lower penetration of broadband is stating the obvious.
Lots of people tell you that lots of things are deductable - but you must keep in mind that things that must be itemized to be deducted (like tax preparation software) really are not deductable AT ALL unless the TOTAL amount of all your itemized deductions exceeds your standard deduction. And even then, you're really only getting to "deduct" the amount in excess of the standard deduction.
For example, my standard deduction is around $4,250. If I don't spend ANY money on tax-deductible items, I can still deduct $4,250.
If I spend $5,000 instead, how much of that do I get to deduct?
$750.
For most people, "tax-deductable" items are NOT really tax deductable, because most people can't afford to spend enough money on tax deductable things to actually exceed their standard deduction.
I just ran it on my system and got 0 infected files; so it's probably not jus padding itself for the sake of padding itself. (I don't install lots of crap, so I'm not surprised it didn't find anything.)
The point isn't how trivial (or not) a complete P2P solution is.
The point is that the DIFFERENCE between a networking application that has nothing to do with P2P and a P2P application is 15 lines. Thus, if you write a law that "bans something that allows peer-to-peer file sharing", you've probably just banned the standard distribution of Python since, being only 15 lines short of being a full P2P app, it pretty much allows peer to peer file sharing.
I also have the Dell 2001FP, and a 21" CRT at work. The Dell is by far clearer, and has a better viewing angle - as long as the frame of the monitor isn't in the way, you can see the screen from any angle. Bonus: Takes up very little of my desk space, and runs perfectly clear 1600x1200 resolution (and is just as large as your 21").
Also MUCH easier on the eyes. I still have my old CRT one desk over, and I have no idea how I managed with it for so many years.
There are a LOT of cheap LCDs out there - poor viewing angles, big pixel gaps, bad contrast, (like my cheapo laptop screen). But these things are SWEEET.
It's funny to see people spend an extra $800 to $1000 on a computer that won't be noticably faster than a lower model for what they're doing, yet balk at spending $800 on something that will actually make a significant difference to their experience.
A "potential well" has no thoughts or emotions or magical powers, and the concept of "potential well" can be communicated by a straightforward equation.
I don't think the measurement is provided as a predictor of how many watts you'll need to send a signal a given distance with the equipment; it's just a ratio normalized to one watt for the sake of comprehension.
You can't have it both ways. Either God doesn't have the *ability* to elimiate evil or he doesn't have the *will* to eliminate evil.
Exactly - ability and will are different. Just because God has the ABILITY to eliminate evil doesn't mean he HAS to eliminate evil. And if God chooses not to eliminate all evil, that doesn't necessarily mean he's not kind and loving. Evil is a necessary consequence of free will, which God, as a kind and loving God, has decided is more important.
Your problem is your interpretation of "kind and loving". "Kind and loving" does not mean "protects you from all potential harm and hardship". If that were true, "kind and loving" parents would lock their kids up in the basement and never let them out.
A "kind and loving" God gives you the ability to experience life through your choices, even though that will expose you to some undesirable consequences.
Evil is temporary anyway, once you're dead you get to spend eternity in the wonderful afterlife. I think you can tough it out for a few decades.
Here, you have an electron. It does something. You can guess a good reason for why it does something. You don't have to add much in your guess.
Over here, you invent a mythical being whose presence can not be detected yet is supposed to be able to know and modify everything in the universe (and therefore must not be part of the universe).
You can make anything complicated, and it's obvious you've added considerable unnecessary verbage to your God part in order to do so.
You could have just as easily said:
God controls everything.
God is no less mythical than a potential well, which is itself just a MODEL for attempting to explain the behavior of an electron.
Now, trying to make useful predictions by pretending electrons reside in potential wells will probably be more useful to you than trying to make useful predictions by pretending God controls the universe, but God controls the universe is the simpler explanation.
Anyway, I'm agnostic at best, the point isn't that God is valid, the point is that trying to apply the Razor in this argument is not appropriate, as "simple" is at best as subjective as the faith you're trying to prove/disprove.
You (conveniently) left out the EVIDENCE part. God loses.
Evidence has nothing to do with it - the question is, according to the Razor, which explanation is simpler?
Even if we were to consider evidence, you have any tangible evidence that sub-atomic particles reside in potential wells? Can we get water out of them?
The question isn't intelligence, the question is intent. Chronically stupid means he didn't INTEND to bring down an airliner. We've always gone lighter on people when they didn't have intent, and sometimes if you didn't have intent, an act isn't criminal at all. Whether or not an act is criminal, and how criminal an act is, isn't just determined by the act itself, but also by the INTENT behind the act, and the SUCCESS of the act.
That's why there's 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder, Manslaughter, Reckless Homicide, and Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Defect. If you committed the ACT of boobytrapping your door to have a swolrd come down on someone's head if opened, any of the above could be the correct end result, depending on whether you knew your wife was coming home within 30 minutes of setting the trap, or you saw a door salesman coming to the door so you impulsively chose to set the trap then, or you just always leave the trap set because you're super-anal about property defense, or you set the trap because you believe little green men are trying to get in your front door.
And even if you intended to kill someone, if your boobytrap fails and only injures them, your charge/sentence will not be as harsh as it would if you were a smarter criminal and built a more effective trap.
A laser beam is a laser beam. 99.9% of laser beams are not destructive to anything other than MAYBE a retina, or a piece of paper with properly applied toner.
I think most people understand that if anyone has a laser small enough to track a helicopter with that it's not going to do any damage to the helicopter. Unless there's a rash of laser rifles running around that I'm not aware of....
If an ISP maintains a directory, or a web page, with links to offending material, that could be contributory infringement.
Link here means relaying information by providing the physical link to the end user - I send a request from my computer destined for a remote computer, the ISP is not liable if they merely forward my request, and/or return the reply.
That's different than "Here's a list of copywritten stuff you can download without the owner's permission!"
Trying to learn a language through a book that teaches the parts of programming can be a pain. I'd suggest that you instead find an existing program that you can modify to work on.
For me, I learned most of my C (which I later transalted to C++) coding on a MUD. I didn't code the MUD from scratch, but editted one that already existed.
Find some open source code that does something you're interested in and start hacking away. It's much easier to pick up things one item as a time through editing something that's already there than to try and think of (and implement) a whole new package to program from scratch, especially when you're still a novice.
In the 50's, 60's and 70's. "tinkerers" gravitated towards cars, something a tinkerer could work on. In the 80's and 90's, cars got too complicated (read: required too much equipment) to mess with, and the new toy became computers.
Computers are going through the same transformation. It's only thorugh very direct daily contact with computer design that I maintain any familiarity, and a kid today would have a tough time getting thorugh the numerous abstraction layers of OS in order to see real hardware and, say, code assembly.
But that's ok. There are things on computers kids can mess with now that were not available to us then - like SQL backends to webpages, or using reporgrammable microcontrollers for... whatever. Just because what we USED to tinker on has become so advanced that kids can't really tinker on it anymore doesn't mean there isn't something else that's taken it's place.
This "We don't need spy satalites in the current climate so we shouldn't develop them" is EXACTLY the kind of "get what we need for right now" thinking that got us in trouble with 9/11 in the first place.
We can't just react to the situation we're in now. We need a broad base of capabilities to address needs we have now, AND needs we may have in the future, AND needs we have no idea we'll have in the future.
We got burned on 9/11 because our entire system was still moving from being extremely focused on fighting the cold war to being extremely focused on being able to fight two regional conflicts. So we got hit where we were vulnerable - global terrorist conflict.
Just as ignoring that threat was a mistake in the past, deciding to scrap any equipment related to threats not currently present would be just as grave of an error, one we should hopefully avoid discovering in hindsight.
Slashdot Mirror
the US will have to cope with a huge overhead to keep up in the world of connected societies.
Says who?
The US could just accept that there will be a higher percentage of Americans without broadband access than, say, Koreans. There's nothing wrong with that - people who want broadband can live in areas where there is broadband. If there is an economically sufficient number of people outside those areas, someone may develop a new technoogy to serve those areas.
But the US doesn't have to "cope with a huge overhead" to maintain broadband parity with other nations anymore than Finland has to "cope with a huge overhead" to maintain summer vacation resort parity with Spain.
Rural areas will always have lower broadband penetration than urban areas. The US has a higher rural population than most other developed countries. Pointing out that the US has a lower penetration of broadband is stating the obvious.
Just not charitable to OTHERS. Giving them money so they can buy gold altars is very charitable to them though.
Lots of people tell you that lots of things are deductable - but you must keep in mind that things that must be itemized to be deducted (like tax preparation software) really are not deductable AT ALL unless the TOTAL amount of all your itemized deductions exceeds your standard deduction. And even then, you're really only getting to "deduct" the amount in excess of the standard deduction.
For example, my standard deduction is around $4,250. If I don't spend ANY money on tax-deductible items, I can still deduct $4,250.
If I spend $5,000 instead, how much of that do I get to deduct?
$750.
For most people, "tax-deductable" items are NOT really tax deductable, because most people can't afford to spend enough money on tax deductable things to actually exceed their standard deduction.
I just ran it on my system and got 0 infected files; so it's probably not jus padding itself for the sake of padding itself. (I don't install lots of crap, so I'm not surprised it didn't find anything.)
If you buy a copy of XP, you'll get SP2 included now.
Just because you don't know who fixed it and they may not have pushed back their fixes doesn't mean it ain't fixed.
And, worse case, you could always fix it yourself if it's such a big deal to you.
The point isn't how trivial (or not) a complete P2P solution is.
The point is that the DIFFERENCE between a networking application that has nothing to do with P2P and a P2P application is 15 lines. Thus, if you write a law that "bans something that allows peer-to-peer file sharing", you've probably just banned the standard distribution of Python since, being only 15 lines short of being a full P2P app, it pretty much allows peer to peer file sharing.
If the emergency becomes the normal condition, then it's not an emergency anymore, and people will revert back to their normal pace.
You're confusing 'simple' with 'useful'.
I also have the Dell 2001FP, and a 21" CRT at work. The Dell is by far clearer, and has a better viewing angle - as long as the frame of the monitor isn't in the way, you can see the screen from any angle. Bonus: Takes up very little of my desk space, and runs perfectly clear 1600x1200 resolution (and is just as large as your 21").
Also MUCH easier on the eyes. I still have my old CRT one desk over, and I have no idea how I managed with it for so many years.
There are a LOT of cheap LCDs out there - poor viewing angles, big pixel gaps, bad contrast, (like my cheapo laptop screen). But these things are SWEEET.
It's funny to see people spend an extra $800 to $1000 on a computer that won't be noticably faster than a lower model for what they're doing, yet balk at spending $800 on something that will actually make a significant difference to their experience.
A "potential well" has no thoughts or emotions or magical powers, and the concept of "potential well" can be communicated by a straightforward equation.
Straightforward to who?
I don't think the measurement is provided as a predictor of how many watts you'll need to send a signal a given distance with the equipment; it's just a ratio normalized to one watt for the sake of comprehension.
You can't have it both ways. Either God doesn't have the *ability* to elimiate evil or he doesn't have the *will* to eliminate evil.
Exactly - ability and will are different. Just because God has the ABILITY to eliminate evil doesn't mean he HAS to eliminate evil. And if God chooses not to eliminate all evil, that doesn't necessarily mean he's not kind and loving. Evil is a necessary consequence of free will, which God, as a kind and loving God, has decided is more important.
Your problem is your interpretation of "kind and loving". "Kind and loving" does not mean "protects you from all potential harm and hardship". If that were true, "kind and loving" parents would lock their kids up in the basement and never let them out.
A "kind and loving" God gives you the ability to experience life through your choices, even though that will expose you to some undesirable consequences.
Evil is temporary anyway, once you're dead you get to spend eternity in the wonderful afterlife. I think you can tough it out for a few decades.
Here, you have an electron. It does something. You can guess a good reason for why it does something. You don't have to add much in your guess.
Over here, you invent a mythical being whose presence can not be detected yet is supposed to be able to know and modify everything in the universe (and therefore must not be part of the universe).
You can make anything complicated, and it's obvious you've added considerable unnecessary verbage to your God part in order to do so.
You could have just as easily said:
God controls everything.
God is no less mythical than a potential well, which is itself just a MODEL for attempting to explain the behavior of an electron.
Now, trying to make useful predictions by pretending electrons reside in potential wells will probably be more useful to you than trying to make useful predictions by pretending God controls the universe, but God controls the universe is the simpler explanation.
Anyway, I'm agnostic at best, the point isn't that God is valid, the point is that trying to apply the Razor in this argument is not appropriate, as "simple" is at best as subjective as the faith you're trying to prove/disprove.
You (conveniently) left out the EVIDENCE part. God loses.
Evidence has nothing to do with it - the question is, according to the Razor, which explanation is simpler?
Even if we were to consider evidence, you have any tangible evidence that sub-atomic particles reside in potential wells? Can we get water out of them?
The question isn't intelligence, the question is intent. Chronically stupid means he didn't INTEND to bring down an airliner. We've always gone lighter on people when they didn't have intent, and sometimes if you didn't have intent, an act isn't criminal at all. Whether or not an act is criminal, and how criminal an act is, isn't just determined by the act itself, but also by the INTENT behind the act, and the SUCCESS of the act.
That's why there's 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder, Manslaughter, Reckless Homicide, and Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Defect. If you committed the ACT of boobytrapping your door to have a swolrd come down on someone's head if opened, any of the above could be the correct end result, depending on whether you knew your wife was coming home within 30 minutes of setting the trap, or you saw a door salesman coming to the door so you impulsively chose to set the trap then, or you just always leave the trap set because you're super-anal about property defense, or you set the trap because you believe little green men are trying to get in your front door.
And even if you intended to kill someone, if your boobytrap fails and only injures them, your charge/sentence will not be as harsh as it would if you were a smarter criminal and built a more effective trap.
So, yeah, we generally are easier on the stupid.
God is kind enough to provide you with free will. God cannot both provide you with free will *AND* not allow you to fuck up.
What's simpler:
"The electron lies in a potential well"
Or:
"God did it."
Looks like God is winning this one.
A laser beam is a laser beam. 99.9% of laser beams are not destructive to anything other than MAYBE a retina, or a piece of paper with properly applied toner.
I think most people understand that if anyone has a laser small enough to track a helicopter with that it's not going to do any damage to the helicopter. Unless there's a rash of laser rifles running around that I'm not aware of....
Or was just just chronically stupid?
I'd vote for the later.
Until I bid higher than the government for the Marines. I hope you welcome your new overlord.
If an ISP maintains a directory, or a web page, with links to offending material, that could be contributory infringement.
Link here means relaying information by providing the physical link to the end user - I send a request from my computer destined for a remote computer, the ISP is not liable if they merely forward my request, and/or return the reply.
That's different than "Here's a list of copywritten stuff you can download without the owner's permission!"
Trying to learn a language through a book that teaches the parts of programming can be a pain. I'd suggest that you instead find an existing program that you can modify to work on.
For me, I learned most of my C (which I later transalted to C++) coding on a MUD. I didn't code the MUD from scratch, but editted one that already existed.
Find some open source code that does something you're interested in and start hacking away. It's much easier to pick up things one item as a time through editing something that's already there than to try and think of (and implement) a whole new package to program from scratch, especially when you're still a novice.
It's not really that different than, say, cars.
In the 50's, 60's and 70's. "tinkerers" gravitated towards cars, something a tinkerer could work on. In the 80's and 90's, cars got too complicated (read: required too much equipment) to mess with, and the new toy became computers.
Computers are going through the same transformation. It's only thorugh very direct daily contact with computer design that I maintain any familiarity, and a kid today would have a tough time getting thorugh the numerous abstraction layers of OS in order to see real hardware and, say, code assembly.
But that's ok. There are things on computers kids can mess with now that were not available to us then - like SQL backends to webpages, or using reporgrammable microcontrollers for... whatever. Just because what we USED to tinker on has become so advanced that kids can't really tinker on it anymore doesn't mean there isn't something else that's taken it's place.
This "We don't need spy satalites in the current climate so we shouldn't develop them" is EXACTLY the kind of "get what we need for right now" thinking that got us in trouble with 9/11 in the first place.
We can't just react to the situation we're in now. We need a broad base of capabilities to address needs we have now, AND needs we may have in the future, AND needs we have no idea we'll have in the future.
We got burned on 9/11 because our entire system was still moving from being extremely focused on fighting the cold war to being extremely focused on being able to fight two regional conflicts. So we got hit where we were vulnerable - global terrorist conflict.
Just as ignoring that threat was a mistake in the past, deciding to scrap any equipment related to threats not currently present would be just as grave of an error, one we should hopefully avoid discovering in hindsight.