Interesting. Thanks for clearing up that piece of medical marketing jargon. I'll have to remember it; there is way to much of that particular species of jargon in use.
Encrypted VPN tunnelling man. Just tunnel the control instructions through the internet, and have the bot automatically pick up whatever open WiFi connection is avalible for it's internet connection
It limits the range outside of cities, but there are enough open hotspots to roam quite a ways. And if it had some way of returning to a hotspot when it dropped connection (eg: backup on no signal) you could quite easily explore the edges of the signals. Strap on a GPS unit and you could even map them, down to the meter or so.
The problem with making scientifically vaild studies to faith healing and the like is trying to account for variables that science has no way of measuing: The faith of the individual, the will of the god, etc.
I'm willing to believe faith healing can work. No problem: an all-powerful god can manipulate quantum probablities so that unlikely but possible occurances come up in specific cases. I'm not going to rely on them, since I don't know if that's a good idea in any specific case, and most religions will state that it is a bad idea in the general case. But it could happen.
Of course, computing the probablity of any particular random cure and seeing what the percentage get cured randomly could be interesting, if you could work it out.
The "Swing Vote" is the person who didn't have an obvious voting record. In almost all cases, 4 of the justices are likely to vote one way, and 4 the other. (One side being very conservative in it's reading of the law, the other being very liberal.) That is, most of the justices will read the laws in predicatible ways.
Sandra was the one who was most likely to change groups she voted with on any issue; therefore she was the swing voter. And therefore this is a very important position for Bush to fill: If he can get someone who will vote the way Bush wants, Bush can likely get the whole SCOTUS weight on his side.
Of course, Justices are not known for doing what the people who appointed them want them to do. Sandra, for instance, was appointed by Reagan, who was a very conservative president...
Bottom-end used computer at the local used computer store: $20. OpenBSD (Buy the CD, support the project!): $45 Extra NIC (If you don't have one lying around): $5~$15
Federal policy does trump city policy, but Federal policy does not trump contract terms. Federal law can invalidate contract terms, if it requires otherwise. In this case it only allows otherwise, so contract terms would hold.
If the city insisted in the contract that other services could lease the lines, then the argument would be about prices.
I can't find my link at the moment, but there is already a group set up that has purchased a kit and is selling testing services. (You ship them your code/app, and they test it for you.)
He agrees with you. That quote was the last paragraph of the last answer in the interview. Here's the full question/answer:
If we consider the Internet as a big local network, we will see that some of our neighbours keep getting exploited by spyware, virus, and so on. Who should we blame? OS producers? Or our neighbours that chose that particular software and then run it without an appropriate secure setup?
There's enough blame for everyone.
Blame the users who don't secure their systems and applications.
Blame the vendors who write and distribute insecure shovel-ware.
Blame the sleazebags who make their living infecting innocent people with spyware, or sending spam.
Blame Microsoft for producing an operating system that is bloated and has an ineffective permissions model and poor default configurations.
Blame the IT managers who overrule their security practitioners' advice and put their systems at risk in the interest of convenience. Etc.
Truly, the only people who deserve a complete helping of blame are the hackers. Let's not forget that they're the ones doing this to us. They're the ones who are annoying an entire planet. They're the ones who are costing us billions of dollars a year to secure our systems against them. They're the ones who place their desire for fun ahead of everyone on earth's desire for peace and [the] right to privacy.
His point: there is pleny of blame to go around, if you want to spread the blame. The hackers who break in are the reason the rest of the blame matters, but the rest is still there.
Just in case someone thought you disagreed with him. And because now everyone has read the full context of the quote we are discussing, which will be a rarity on/.
And why couldn't they, if they really wanted to? If they dedicated themselves to actually doing it?
They might not be the baddest, but they could probably get close.
Really, the difference between Bruce Wane and the most of us with that dream is that he decided it was more important than anything and everything else in his life. His life is filled with exactly two things: maintaining his cover, and being Batman. Nothing else matters, and nothing else exists.
He never has time to watch a movie, or read a book. To try to meet a girl (outside of maintaining his cover, or another superhero). The company is run by others. He has no life.
You may admire the choice, but admit the cost. Maybe you could have made that choice, if you had really wanted to. But could you have paid the personal cost?
If you think it would be worth it, try it. A few have. They didn't start with the resources Bruce Wane did, but I've read articles about a few. (Sorry, can't find them at the moment.) People who dedicated themselves to being the best hero they can be.
Most are trying to figure out how to have a normal life, how to fit in to the world.
The democratic or republican forms of government are not designed to be the best form of government: a benevolent, wise, dictator/king is a far better system. What they are designed for is to limit the downside. While a good dictator/king is the probably the best form of government, a bad dictator/king is probably the worst.
The point of a democratic or representative system is that the worst case is limited, because no one person has the power to totally screw everything up. Presumably, therefore, at least some people will be decent, keeping the system from total failure.
So, yes, a planned economy can outperform a non planned one, if the planners are very good. A controlled political system can out perform a non planned one, if the planners are good.
But you have to have good planners. And they have to stay good, and operate in the interest of the system, not themselves.
An uplanned system, where everyone operates in their own best intrest, works fairly well, and does not depend on finding exeptional people to run it.
(My personal feeling, by the way, is that their economic growth has been more the result of technology upgrades than anything else. The US/Europe leads the world in productivity-enhancing tech, and a country that can jump a few grades closer to us will grow a lot faster than we will because we have to develop the next steps.)
Just wanted to say the server is taking longer than expected. (Postfix will do everything but recieve, and that has to work before Apache gets set up.)
I like it. Though a swift kick in the pants, delivered too often, would most likely get me thrown out of the Capitol...
If I had some other gift, say a stack of letters or a pettition (or campaign funds, of course), that would probably be more effective. (Hey, it wouldn't be hard to wine and dine the interns who actually make all the policy decisions.)
Not usually, because it is hard to make hydrogen(1) fuse. Usually you fuse hydrogen(2), or even hydrogen(3) if you can get it. Those are hydrogen atoms with one or two nuetrons as well as a proton. Makes the whole thing much easier.
Of course they are hard to find. (Hydrogen(3) is radioactive...), but they are better fuel for fusion.
I actually agree with you. I said volunteers for practical reasons: This fund has been accumulating for a year, and has only raised $125k. With full-time pay that probably ends up with only $20k for developers. Split that a couple of ways, and all of a sudden we're not really talking about any money. (And that's assuming you don't have to pay anything but salaries.)
Of course, it is possible that acutally having people run the fund will enable it to grow faster.
Whether this should be volunteers or full-timers is really dependent on this: How full-time is the organization? At the moment, not very. Maybe that should be changed; maybe it shouldn't. How likely is it to grow?
So, we need to set up an organization/council to do the distrobution. A handful of people the Linux community trusts, who will agree to volunteer (probably for a small stipend) to evaluate proposals and say who gets which money.
The people would need enough techincal background to tell when someone's blowing smoke, and enough legal/finacial background to actually handle the money.
So: Suggestions? I'd nomiate myself, but no-one would take me seriously.
Linus is probably too busy. Stallman, too political. EFF? Heads of Red Hat/SuSE/Yellow Dog/Knoppix?
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. Thanks for clearing up that piece of medical marketing jargon. I'll have to remember it; there is way to much of that particular species of jargon in use.
Maybe you should have read the paper: They've already done a small-scale clinical trial.
Encrypted VPN tunnelling man. Just tunnel the control instructions through the internet, and have the bot automatically pick up whatever open WiFi connection is avalible for it's internet connection
It limits the range outside of cities, but there are enough open hotspots to roam quite a ways. And if it had some way of returning to a hotspot when it dropped connection (eg: backup on no signal) you could quite easily explore the edges of the signals. Strap on a GPS unit and you could even map them, down to the meter or so.
The problem with making scientifically vaild studies to faith healing and the like is trying to account for variables that science has no way of measuing: The faith of the individual, the will of the god, etc.
I'm willing to believe faith healing can work. No problem: an all-powerful god can manipulate quantum probablities so that unlikely but possible occurances come up in specific cases. I'm not going to rely on them, since I don't know if that's a good idea in any specific case, and most religions will state that it is a bad idea in the general case. But it could happen.
Of course, computing the probablity of any particular random cure and seeing what the percentage get cured randomly could be interesting, if you could work it out.
The "Swing Vote" is the person who didn't have an obvious voting record. In almost all cases, 4 of the justices are likely to vote one way, and 4 the other. (One side being very conservative in it's reading of the law, the other being very liberal.) That is, most of the justices will read the laws in predicatible ways.
Sandra was the one who was most likely to change groups she voted with on any issue; therefore she was the swing voter. And therefore this is a very important position for Bush to fill: If he can get someone who will vote the way Bush wants, Bush can likely get the whole SCOTUS weight on his side.
Of course, Justices are not known for doing what the people who appointed them want them to do. Sandra, for instance, was appointed by Reagan, who was a very conservative president...
Bottom-end used computer at the local used computer store: $20.
OpenBSD (Buy the CD, support the project!): $45
Extra NIC (If you don't have one lying around): $5~$15
Building your own firewall... GEEK!
Federal policy does trump city policy, but Federal policy does not trump contract terms. Federal law can invalidate contract terms, if it requires otherwise. In this case it only allows otherwise, so contract terms would hold.
If the city insisted in the contract that other services could lease the lines, then the argument would be about prices.
I can't find my link at the moment, but there is already a group set up that has purchased a kit and is selling testing services. (You ship them your code/app, and they test it for you.)
He agrees with you. That quote was the last paragraph of the last answer in the interview. Here's the full question/answer:
His point: there is pleny of blame to go around, if you want to spread the blame. The hackers who break in are the reason the rest of the blame matters, but the rest is still there.
Just in case someone thought you disagreed with him. And because now everyone has read the full context of the quote we are discussing, which will be a rarity on /.
Actually, I'm 27. Make of that what you will. :)
If they were to want it badly enough, they would look for a way to make what they are good at enough.
Can't run fast? Work on range weapons. Can't see well? Work on other senses. Etc.
The magnitude of difficulty has not really changed.
She's one of the ones I remember, though I think I read about her in Smithsonian.
;)
She wanted to be a spy, like James Bond. She got all the skills, but the CIA wouldn't take her.
(And the normal response she gets from guys who hear her story is a marriage proposal.)
And why couldn't they, if they really wanted to? If they dedicated themselves to actually doing it?
They might not be the baddest, but they could probably get close.
Really, the difference between Bruce Wane and the most of us with that dream is that he decided it was more important than anything and everything else in his life. His life is filled with exactly two things: maintaining his cover, and being Batman. Nothing else matters, and nothing else exists.
He never has time to watch a movie, or read a book. To try to meet a girl (outside of maintaining his cover, or another superhero). The company is run by others. He has no life.
You may admire the choice, but admit the cost. Maybe you could have made that choice, if you had really wanted to. But could you have paid the personal cost?
If you think it would be worth it, try it. A few have. They didn't start with the resources Bruce Wane did, but I've read articles about a few. (Sorry, can't find them at the moment.) People who dedicated themselves to being the best hero they can be.
Most are trying to figure out how to have a normal life, how to fit in to the world.
The democratic or republican forms of government are not designed to be the best form of government: a benevolent, wise, dictator/king is a far better system. What they are designed for is to limit the downside. While a good dictator/king is the probably the best form of government, a bad dictator/king is probably the worst.
The point of a democratic or representative system is that the worst case is limited, because no one person has the power to totally screw everything up. Presumably, therefore, at least some people will be decent, keeping the system from total failure.
So, yes, a planned economy can outperform a non planned one, if the planners are very good. A controlled political system can out perform a non planned one, if the planners are good.
But you have to have good planners. And they have to stay good, and operate in the interest of the system, not themselves.
An uplanned system, where everyone operates in their own best intrest, works fairly well, and does not depend on finding exeptional people to run it.
(My personal feeling, by the way, is that their economic growth has been more the result of technology upgrades than anything else. The US/Europe leads the world in productivity-enhancing tech, and a country that can jump a few grades closer to us will grow a lot faster than we will because we have to develop the next steps.)
Just wanted to say the server is taking longer than expected. (Postfix will do everything but recieve, and that has to work before Apache gets set up.)
Well, I'm setting up a new webserver this weekend, so I'll see if I can get a wiki running on it for the website. Any ideas for the url/title?
The P.O. Box will have to wait a bit, I don't usually get into the District that often. (Despite it being only a half-hour trip.)
I like it. Though a swift kick in the pants, delivered too often, would most likely get me thrown out of the Capitol...
If I had some other gift, say a stack of letters or a pettition (or campaign funds, of course), that would probably be more effective. (Hey, it wouldn't be hard to wine and dine the interns who actually make all the policy decisions.)
So, how de we get started?
Heh. I said D.C. area, I'm actually just outside of D.C. proper, so I still get senate and congress votes.
Besides, I think D.C. can actually vote in the presidential election. (Though I may be wrong.)
I do love the 'Taxation Without Representation' D.C. bumper sticker though.
So, we keep it to the tech topics (where we are informed) and limit it to topics we mostly agree on.
There are enough of those for good-sized political action committee.
I live in the D.C. area. Any way I can help?
Not usually, because it is hard to make hydrogen(1) fuse. Usually you fuse hydrogen(2), or even hydrogen(3) if you can get it. Those are hydrogen atoms with one or two nuetrons as well as a proton. Makes the whole thing much easier.
Of course they are hard to find. (Hydrogen(3) is radioactive...), but they are better fuel for fusion.
I didn't think it was. :) (And I didn't think it was worth responding to him.)
The Mac version is discontinued.
I actually agree with you. I said volunteers for practical reasons: This fund has been accumulating for a year, and has only raised $125k. With full-time pay that probably ends up with only $20k for developers. Split that a couple of ways, and all of a sudden we're not really talking about any money. (And that's assuming you don't have to pay anything but salaries.)
Of course, it is possible that acutally having people run the fund will enable it to grow faster.
Whether this should be volunteers or full-timers is really dependent on this: How full-time is the organization? At the moment, not very. Maybe that should be changed; maybe it shouldn't. How likely is it to grow?
So, we need to set up an organization/council to do the distrobution. A handful of people the Linux community trusts, who will agree to volunteer (probably for a small stipend) to evaluate proposals and say who gets which money.
The people would need enough techincal background to tell when someone's blowing smoke, and enough legal/finacial background to actually handle the money.
So: Suggestions? I'd nomiate myself, but no-one would take me seriously.
Linus is probably too busy. Stallman, too political. EFF? Heads of Red Hat/SuSE/Yellow Dog/Knoppix?
See the comment directly above you: BBC is the world's 9th busiest site, /. is the 32nd.