No troll at all- I was dumbing down the information to the level I thought the article writer was at. A NAND is an AND with an inverter- and many early computers used AND instead of NAND logic. Many more modern ones use NOR gates instead.
There is a flaw in your argument. All boolean algebra can be built from NAND gates or NOR gates since these two gate types can be used to create the classic AND, OR, and NOT gates.
Thanks for the opportunity to explain this- I had dumbed down the original for the article writer. I originally put NAND gate in there- and then realized that very few people outside of the computer hardware world (including, sadly, most of the IIT graduates I've worked with) know what a NAND gate is. So I dropped the N- because after all, what's a NAND gate if not an AND gate with an inverter?
Yes, but not all trolls have negative reasons for existing. I actually do believe that the original reasons for several constitutional concpets have been outstripped by technology- and I'm a supporter of a new Continental Congress to rewrite the damned thing and bring it more in line with reality as it exists today.
The Right to Privacy wasn't "invented" in the 1970s. In the early 1800s the USSC ruled that privacy was part of the First Admendment's Freedom of Speech, specifically that democracy required anonymous speech.
I don't see covering up illegal actions as being anonymous speech. Nor do I see information put out in the public sphere of the world of commerce as being anonymous anything.
There have been other USSC ruling also saying there is a right to privacy in the 1800s and 1900s including one in 1969.
But it wasn't until 1973 that transactions in the public sphere were considered a part of privacy at all; and for the most part that was a disconnect between the law and reality.
Exactly, so you posted a remark you knew to be false and thus helped to spread disinformation.
No, I posted a remark I consider to be true but which is currently considered heretical by some in hopes of sparking a more productive debate on the topic.
Thank you for proving my point that the concept is heretical, but I'd rather you joined in the debate on the subject of how information in the public sphere of commerce can be considered private.
Think of what this sort of thing would do at home - not just to the people you've never seen that you see as being so unlike you that you think as being worth sacrificing. People at home that don't quite fit in with the status quo would get sacrificed to this ideal as well - most likely people you do know or associate with - so it is worth thinking about these things before you advocate something as thoughtless as killing innocent people you do not see any personal connection with.
You're wrong. I actually feel a *very* personal connection with the Islamic fundamentalists. As a Roman Catholic, I share many of their beliefs, and see modern society quite often insulting my religion. But I also recognize this: Conversion at the point of a sword to a religion that believes all law must come from God and no other form of lawmaking should be allowed to compete with it is incompatible at a very *basic* level with democracy.
Instead of doing a Godwin on you I'll point you once again to Stalin's USSR or to "1984" which was inspired by the early USSR. I'll also ask what ideal or deity you would serve by the sacrifice of billions or are you just angry and want to see the current state of the world destroyed and replaced by totalitarian states ruling over the ashes.
No diety is ever served by genocide- but I'll remind you that the firebombing of Dresden was neccessary to save Jewish lives, and thus pull a reverse Godwin on myself. The USSR was to atheism the same as the Islamics you support are to Islam- conversion at the point of the sword- and I'll repeat once again that defending them is treason to democracy.
If you want to rid the world of these kind of people, feel free to start with yourself.
And what good will that do for say, the Anabaptist Amish? The key is to protect some basic western values here: freedom of speech and freedom of religion for two. The irony is that to protect those freedoms for the majority, certain minorities that are not compatible with those freedoms must be outcast.
100 years ago, if we were smart, we could have simply not developed their oil resources from them- and today they'd be nomadic tribes in the desert, with the same beliefs but with no ability to attack their neighbors. Today however, thanks to that great mistake, we're faced with a genocidal enemy hell bent on destroying 99% of human life on this planet.
The consequence if we do is about 1.5 billion lives lost. The consequence if we don't is 4-5 billion lives lost, perhaps as much as 6.5 billion lives lost (remember, we're talking about sects of less that 10 million who are hell bent on genocide as a method of spreading their religion). To which set do we owe the greater responsibility? I'd argue that the 1.5 billion will have to be sacrificed. Seeing as how many of them are *not* of the sect that wins if we do nothing- chances are they'll be part of the 4-5 billion anyway *even if we withdrew tomorrow and did nothing more*.
What I'm saying is that we've already lost the chance to save the Middle East. The real question is- will the conflaguration that destroys the Middle East also be allowed to destroy Europe and the United States and Canada and Japan and South America and Africa and East Asia? If this is truly the war for our lives, it's about damned time we act like it is, instead of pussy-footing around with tactics that haven't worked in the past and won't work in the future.
Numerical Methods. It's usually taught as an advanced, post calculus course for computer science majors. But it gives alternative methods for all sorts of things from trigonometry to calculus, and it does so in methods that can be programmed in Basic or even Assembly (you do know, don't you, that at a very basic level the most complex math any computer can do is 1 And 1 is 1, right? And that all the other math computers do is built up from simple AND gates?)
In addition to this, I also recommend Godel, Escher, and Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid for a totally different way to think about mathematics, philosophy, and religion.
Depends on your point of view- I honestly think it's closer to the truth, but the courts do disagree.
The funny thing is from the technological standpoint- who ever promised you that information stored in a public network deserved any more privacy than shouting it in the park through a megaphone?
No, my understanding of language and technology is that great. It appears this so-called "right to privacy" was invented in the 1970s, and a little more than 30 years later, technology has advanced to the point where private spaces and private information have been de facto wiped out.
That wasn't the question. The question is, have we now advanced technologically to a point where unreasonable searches and seizures are totally unneccessary, because all information about you is already in the public sphere rather than the private sphere?
Which only accelerates the problem. Solves it for you personally- but destroys your friends and neighbors to the point that they become desparate, armed, and willing to kill you for food.
I'm looking at the history of this area of the world- and that's where I get the point that the only way to have any sort of victory will be the victory and peace of the grave. The longer we delay, the longer we try not to be the terrorists who will be needed to end this war, the more horrific the final solution will be.
If there's one lesson from history, it's that you cannot defeat an enemy without becoming that enemy. the most vile terrorist act of all time. is EXACTLY what will be needed to win this war- because nothing less will disuade a group of people who believe they can bring justice to an unjust world by forcing conversion at the point of a sword.
Jupiter sized planets are what we can see- there may be smaller ones closer to the stars. But you're right on "life in what form"- in the denser galactic center, Asimov's Nightfall Planet would be common, planets that have no night or only very rare eclipse nightfalls. The life on such planets would evolve to be used to daytime only.
Well, there's an option now- watch the full hour. The Colbert Report is exactly the opposite- strong right wing bias, same reporting.
How many times do we really need to hear that Bush is a dumbfuck, or see Stewart shilling for the latest Democratic candidate?
Likely until enough people believe it to replace the Republican dumbfucks. At which point, if Stewart is more true to his comedy than to politics, TDS will become a right wing comedy show- because you make fun of who is in power.
That's where Distributism comes in- small communities, protected markets, and you get the religion and the self-actualization because you have a personal relationship with your customers, as they do with you. Economies make a lot more sense that way- where nobody is anonymous, cheating becomes non-existant, because the loss of the relationship matters more than the profit gained.
So what do these troops do to your own country when they come home? In France after a brutal war in Algeria they tried to assassinate the President. If you can't think of history at least rent "Rambo" on video for a dumbed down version. Our soldiers are not barbarians although there is an argument that there is a deliberate move to create a "warrior culture" to head in that direction and turn them into something different to professional soldiers.
It seems to me that any government with a standing army of barbarians is going to be a whole lot more honest of a government- and any corporation working in such a society is also going to have to become more honest. That's a BIG plus to me.
As for your other points, take a look at Saddams Idol whose birthplace was actually only a few hundred miles north - Josef Stalin put some of your ideas into action in a more limited form at a huge cost to his country.
I contend that neither went far enough, which is why they failed. There are two routes to peace- armed surrender and victory. In neither case will we be able to save the lives of anybody in the middle east.
Slashdot Mirror
The other difference is the likelyhood of having sex with the chosen population at all- teenagers hate nerds more than adults do.
No troll at all- I was dumbing down the information to the level I thought the article writer was at. A NAND is an AND with an inverter- and many early computers used AND instead of NAND logic. Many more modern ones use NOR gates instead.
There is a flaw in your argument. All boolean algebra can be built from NAND gates or NOR gates since these two gate types can be used to create the classic AND, OR, and NOT gates.
Thanks for the opportunity to explain this- I had dumbed down the original for the article writer. I originally put NAND gate in there- and then realized that very few people outside of the computer hardware world (including, sadly, most of the IIT graduates I've worked with) know what a NAND gate is. So I dropped the N- because after all, what's a NAND gate if not an AND gate with an inverter?
Yes, but not all trolls have negative reasons for existing. I actually do believe that the original reasons for several constitutional concpets have been outstripped by technology- and I'm a supporter of a new Continental Congress to rewrite the damned thing and bring it more in line with reality as it exists today.
The Right to Privacy wasn't "invented" in the 1970s. In the early 1800s the USSC ruled that privacy was part of the First Admendment's Freedom of Speech, specifically that democracy required anonymous speech.
I don't see covering up illegal actions as being anonymous speech. Nor do I see information put out in the public sphere of the world of commerce as being anonymous anything.
There have been other USSC ruling also saying there is a right to privacy in the 1800s and 1900s including one in 1969.
But it wasn't until 1973 that transactions in the public sphere were considered a part of privacy at all; and for the most part that was a disconnect between the law and reality.
Exactly, so you posted a remark you knew to be false and thus helped to spread disinformation.
No, I posted a remark I consider to be true but which is currently considered heretical by some in hopes of sparking a more productive debate on the topic.
Thank you for proving my point that the concept is heretical, but I'd rather you joined in the debate on the subject of how information in the public sphere of commerce can be considered private.
Think of what this sort of thing would do at home - not just to the people you've never seen that you see as being so unlike you that you think as being worth sacrificing. People at home that don't quite fit in with the status quo would get sacrificed to this ideal as well - most likely people you do know or associate with - so it is worth thinking about these things before you advocate something as thoughtless as killing innocent people you do not see any personal connection with.
You're wrong. I actually feel a *very* personal connection with the Islamic fundamentalists. As a Roman Catholic, I share many of their beliefs, and see modern society quite often insulting my religion. But I also recognize this: Conversion at the point of a sword to a religion that believes all law must come from God and no other form of lawmaking should be allowed to compete with it is incompatible at a very *basic* level with democracy.
Instead of doing a Godwin on you I'll point you once again to Stalin's USSR or to "1984" which was inspired by the early USSR. I'll also ask what ideal or deity you would serve by the sacrifice of billions or are you just angry and want to see the current state of the world destroyed and replaced by totalitarian states ruling over the ashes.
No diety is ever served by genocide- but I'll remind you that the firebombing of Dresden was neccessary to save Jewish lives, and thus pull a reverse Godwin on myself. The USSR was to atheism the same as the Islamics you support are to Islam- conversion at the point of the sword- and I'll repeat once again that defending them is treason to democracy.
If you want to rid the world of these kind of people, feel free to start with yourself.
And what good will that do for say, the Anabaptist Amish? The key is to protect some basic western values here: freedom of speech and freedom of religion for two. The irony is that to protect those freedoms for the majority, certain minorities that are not compatible with those freedoms must be outcast.
100 years ago, if we were smart, we could have simply not developed their oil resources from them- and today they'd be nomadic tribes in the desert, with the same beliefs but with no ability to attack their neighbors. Today however, thanks to that great mistake, we're faced with a genocidal enemy hell bent on destroying 99% of human life on this planet.
The consequence if we do is about 1.5 billion lives lost. The consequence if we don't is 4-5 billion lives lost, perhaps as much as 6.5 billion lives lost (remember, we're talking about sects of less that 10 million who are hell bent on genocide as a method of spreading their religion). To which set do we owe the greater responsibility? I'd argue that the 1.5 billion will have to be sacrificed. Seeing as how many of them are *not* of the sect that wins if we do nothing- chances are they'll be part of the 4-5 billion anyway *even if we withdrew tomorrow and did nothing more*.
What I'm saying is that we've already lost the chance to save the Middle East. The real question is- will the conflaguration that destroys the Middle East also be allowed to destroy Europe and the United States and Canada and Japan and South America and Africa and East Asia? If this is truly the war for our lives, it's about damned time we act like it is, instead of pussy-footing around with tactics that haven't worked in the past and won't work in the future.
Arguably, that case only affects private property. What about credit card records for hydroponic equipment, which is arguably in the public sphere?
Numerical Methods. It's usually taught as an advanced, post calculus course for computer science majors. But it gives alternative methods for all sorts of things from trigonometry to calculus, and it does so in methods that can be programmed in Basic or even Assembly (you do know, don't you, that at a very basic level the most complex math any computer can do is 1 And 1 is 1, right? And that all the other math computers do is built up from simple AND gates?)
In addition to this, I also recommend Godel, Escher, and Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid for a totally different way to think about mathematics, philosophy, and religion.
Depends on your point of view- I honestly think it's closer to the truth, but the courts do disagree.
The funny thing is from the technological standpoint- who ever promised you that information stored in a public network deserved any more privacy than shouting it in the park through a megaphone?
Especially since it doesn't physically exist anymore anyway- it isn't THAT hard to get, say, your medical insurance records.
No, my understanding of language and technology is that great. It appears this so-called "right to privacy" was invented in the 1970s, and a little more than 30 years later, technology has advanced to the point where private spaces and private information have been de facto wiped out.
Given the advance of technology to peer into every possible aspect of your life without a physical search, where does this mythical right exist?
That wasn't the question. The question is, have we now advanced technologically to a point where unreasonable searches and seizures are totally unneccessary, because all information about you is already in the public sphere rather than the private sphere?
Here's the story- if you can follow it
Basically, CBS created Paramount, which split off back in the 1970s, which was eventually aquired by Viacomm, which got swallowed back up by CBS.
Since corporate splits and mergers rarely make sense to me- go read the wikipedia article instead.
There is no guarantee of privacy anywhere in the Constitution- only a requirement that the evidence gathered can't be used against you in court.
Which only accelerates the problem. Solves it for you personally- but destroys your friends and neighbors to the point that they become desparate, armed, and willing to kill you for food.
This way leads to depression and rebellion.
I'm looking at the history of this area of the world- and that's where I get the point that the only way to have any sort of victory will be the victory and peace of the grave. The longer we delay, the longer we try not to be the terrorists who will be needed to end this war, the more horrific the final solution will be.
If there's one lesson from history, it's that you cannot defeat an enemy without becoming that enemy. the most vile terrorist act of all time. is EXACTLY what will be needed to win this war- because nothing less will disuade a group of people who believe they can bring justice to an unjust world by forcing conversion at the point of a sword.
Jupiter sized planets are what we can see- there may be smaller ones closer to the stars. But you're right on "life in what form"- in the denser galactic center, Asimov's Nightfall Planet would be common, planets that have no night or only very rare eclipse nightfalls. The life on such planets would evolve to be used to daytime only.
Less text= less to analyze. Expect to see the one-liners shrink to three words.
Well, there's an option now- watch the full hour. The Colbert Report is exactly the opposite- strong right wing bias, same reporting.
How many times do we really need to hear that Bush is a dumbfuck, or see Stewart shilling for the latest Democratic candidate?
Likely until enough people believe it to replace the Republican dumbfucks. At which point, if Stewart is more true to his comedy than to politics, TDS will become a right wing comedy show- because you make fun of who is in power.
That's where Distributism comes in- small communities, protected markets, and you get the religion and the self-actualization because you have a personal relationship with your customers, as they do with you. Economies make a lot more sense that way- where nobody is anonymous, cheating becomes non-existant, because the loss of the relationship matters more than the profit gained.
So what do these troops do to your own country when they come home? In France after a brutal war in Algeria they tried to assassinate the President. If you can't think of history at least rent "Rambo" on video for a dumbed down version. Our soldiers are not barbarians although there is an argument that there is a deliberate move to create a "warrior culture" to head in that direction and turn them into something different to professional soldiers.
It seems to me that any government with a standing army of barbarians is going to be a whole lot more honest of a government- and any corporation working in such a society is also going to have to become more honest. That's a BIG plus to me.
As for your other points, take a look at Saddams Idol whose birthplace was actually only a few hundred miles north - Josef Stalin put some of your ideas into action in a more limited form at a huge cost to his country.
I contend that neither went far enough, which is why they failed. There are two routes to peace- armed surrender and victory. In neither case will we be able to save the lives of anybody in the middle east.