things have a color only insomuch as they reflect a spectrum of colors. 'white' objects reflect in relatively equal amounts the full spectrum of light so they appear white.
hmmm, I'm not quite satisfied with that answer. Maybe some experts reading this thread can help out?
By my argument, we would need to assume that objects that we call white are a little more absorbent of light in the yellow end of the spectrum. Could be true, I guess.
I wasn't supporting ocean reflection;-) The Ocean reflection theory is ridiculous. However, your theory was also wrong.
My point was that you were explaining the color by refraction, but the effect is actually caused by scatterring. There is a difference. Just after sunrise and just before sunset, there is a refractory effect as well, but the color change is still predominantly caused by scattering.
you're right, the sun emits the full spectrum of light, but it does have a predominant color, and it is yellow-orange.
Assuming that you are right and refraction is the cause, then consider the following case:
I look directly up at a noon day sun and see white, yellow, whatever. Then I look ten degrees down toward the horizon. You say I am seeing light refracted (bent) to my eye and that is why I see blue. Well, If I now look down 20 degrees from the sun, I would have to see light refracted at a different angle, so it would have to a color other than blue right? What if I looked right at the horizon? Would I still see blue sky? How is that Blu sky is so nonuniformly refracted in your explanation?
I think there is just a confusion by what is meant by scattering, and what refraction really is.
So do you have any examples of how the tech community has been politically active 'all along'? Or is it that techies with libertarian leanings are a smaller group or raise less waves?
I think that the point of the article was that there is now a registered blip on the radar and that politicians are starting to take notice. The article didn't say that there was no political awareness before but rather there was awareness with apathy before and there is now awareness with action and motivation. In fact it mentions both the left and right heritage of the movement. The 'new' bit is the strength of the voice, regardless of left or right.
If your claim is true that left minded techies are somehow late to the game on issues like the environment, wouldn't it also be true then that lefties are more likely to actually do something about an issue, as that would explain the recent explosions of activism? So libertarians are the early adopters but lefties are the ones who take action, right?
Plus, why do you include something like:
The same thing happened in the environmental community. The pioneers of the conservation movement originally came from the Republican side of things. They were people who were profoundly distressed by the environmental destruction by big government and big business.
When the left realized that protecting the environment was kewl, they infiltrated and turned environmentalism into a call for bigger government poised against small business.
So, if you care about something it is because you are 'profoundly distressed', but when someone you consider to the left of you has the same concerns, it is only because they think it is 'kewl', and we use it to 'infiltrate' movements?
That's nice because then you can disagree with people who have an opposing view AND people who share the same view as long as you can attribute their motivations to something silly.
If you're interested in logically flawed writing, you might want to look up 'straw man fallacy'.
All they did was present the actual facts (the bad bit from the dead British guy ended up mattering little
first of all, Kelly ( i assume the dead guy you are referring to ) was not responsible for the 'bad bit', but for blowing the whistle on the 'bad bit'.
Plus, I require a little bit more from my president. Ever look at a newstand and see all the outrageous tabloid headlines? They get away with it because they have a source. They're not saying that there is a 'batboy'. They're just saying that someone told them there was. Does that make it right?
Besides, this is hardly the only weak bit of evidence. How about those fictional aluminum tubes, or the mobile weapon factories that turned out be for filling artillery balloons, or the SCUDS that were never used or discovered, or the link to Al-Queda that seems to have been invented out of thin air? Or, the the 'hint' that Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
Most people who were against the war were not saying that Saddam was a good guy, but that we wanted an international approach that was not thinly disguised coercion. It may have meant some compromise which is a hard pill to swallow for those drunk on the power of the US military, but in the end it leads to a more multilateral aproach that is good for everybody.
I thought it was funny that you seem frustrated with stereotypes of conservatives while enforcing said stereotypes with your name-calling, insults and threats of violence.
There are a lot of people out there that would like to see more emphasis placed on diplomacy and multilateralism abroad and more concentration on social programs like health care at home. I don't see how this makes them suck weasels, circle-jerkers, or small-minded.
I didn't fill out a form because someone told me to, but I can recognize a good suggestion when I see it, and that doesn't mean that I'm patting myself on the back either. I realize it is something of small value, but it is also of minimal cost, so why not?
The only reasonable criticisms have been that it may cause more harm, but I find that highly dubious. For example, if my congressman gets 500,000 letters from constituents, I do not think that he discounts them because some are written poorly.
BTW, I'm sorry I attacked you personally, but it irks me when people who want to contribute democratically, even in small ways, are called 'stupid'.
God, I despise pricks like you, trying to denigrate anyone who gets off his ass to do anything about something they care about. What the fuck do you care if people go and fill out a form?
Your can't-do attitude is probably also the reason you're a 35 year old virgin living in your parents' basement.
Mass activism like this does have an affect and just as it will likely annoy someone, it will also promote some action. Having been a participant in some online activism, I can say that it can indeed work, and it is very satisfying to watch it work.
Not only will you take advantage of the inevitable profit taking, the large slashdo community will likely help drive the stock down.
More money for us, less for SCO.
I haven't seen the whole thing because it is sooo slowly paced. At first I thought it was, as you say, 'save the third world from evil capitalists' yada yada, but now 3/4 through the last episode it seems to be about a lunatic who, in his quest to rid the world of evil capitalist nations and corrupt military powers, has sunk to deeper level of evil.
This makes it much more of an Orwellian type of tale in that it describes how parties in the search for 'noble' revolutions can sometimes deliver regimes much worse than the ones they are replacing.
So in that sense, I don't think it is the kind of leftist propaganda that some imagine, because even if you believe that some injustices are done by large multinational corporations and powerful military industrial complexes, it does not justify creating evil mind rays to sanitize the human race. At least that's what I think the guy in the end has created, but it's hard to tell because the whole story appears to be a long string of 'near-coherent-kinda-cool-sounding-I-just-got-a-de gree-in-Poetry-and-I-really-like-william-s-burroug hs-but-can't-write-as-well' slogans
This will eventually close the markets to products like Oracle's Collaboration Suite. The main advantage to keeping files in a Relational DB layer is that changes can be related to transactions and can be rolled back without having to resort to a restore from tape. This is handy if you're developing code or keeping track of a huge number of user files and restore requests. When this functionality is built into the OS, it will put the nail in the coffin of anybody offering Content Management Systems.
yeah, i didn't mean that it was necesarily 'love', but some human type of emotion that was not present in previous incarnations. Plus, it would fit into the Adam and Eve theme because in that old tale it was Eve who got us thrown out of the garden.
As a matter aof fact imagine that in the end, they are thrown out of the matrix/zion an into the real world and become our 'real' adam and eve. And their story gets corrupted over time until we only have the allegorical portions left.
Furthermore, assume that neo finally 'wakes up' out of zion/matrix and comes into the 'real' world of people/creatures who programmed the whole thing.
Neo asks them how he can be sure that this is now the 'real' real world and they tell him that no one knows, but they suspect there may be several more levels.
It's like that zen parable:
A student comes before the master and asks him, 'Master what is the world?'.
The Master answers, 'The world rests on the back of an immense turtle'.
The student ponders this and then asks, 'What does the turtle stand upon?'.
The Master pauses and then answers, " The Turtle stands upon the back of a giant elephant."
The student then asks, "Well, what does the elephant stand on?"
The master says, "He stands on the back of an even larger elephant."
"And that elephant stands on...?", asks the student.
The master pauses and thinks for a moment and then replies, 'It's basically Elephants all the way down from there."
Well, take it one step farther and assume that the 'true' real world is not a bad place run by machines keeping human bodies in stasis at all. Assume that the true 'programmers' are external to the Matrix and to zion and they're ultimate goal is to 'help' Neo. Neo is then essentially a computer program that is underging multiple iterations until it achieves perfection. In six tries they have only seen slight improvement. That is why the the Architect says he himself is irrellevant. Only Neo matters. We hear that again and again from various characters like the oracle.
In this sense the story is a retelling of genesis with Neo as Adam. Agent smith is Lucifer. God's first but failed attempt to create sentience. Trinity is Eve. The architect says that a female stumbled upon the solution and we are led to believe it was theOracle but it seemed to me that the architect dismissed that notion. Perhaps the female that 'stumbled upon it' was Trinity.
Adam (Neo) is the next generation and is envied by Smith, who has been cast out from heaven ( matrix).
The architect is just another construct in the system to continue Neo on his regenerative cycle of improvement. When Neo finally realizes this loop, he might obtain a trancendance to the 'next level'
Think of it like this: what happens if some AI guys get together and they want to create artificial intelligence with free will, self determination, emotion.
Maybe the true creators are just humans running a big simulation designed to eventually produce a sentient life form with free will, self determination, emotions, etc.
It had failed 5 times until Trinity stumbled upon the solution: Love.
The problem with an encrypted network is that a Neo-Conservative government would immediately label it as a refuge of terrorists. This would lead to more strict control of encryption technology.
In general the problem is very hard to combat because any boycotts that suck money out of the control of the RIAA or the MPAA just further the argument that filesharing is hurting their industry. Even if techies as a whole had the self-control to limit their filesharing, the RIAA will likely use the same argument. They hold up a graph with declining profits and say: 'The techies did it!. Prove that they didn't!'
Adding encryption would make their claim harder to prove, but also harder to disprove. How would we argue that encrypted P2P was being used legitimately? I'm sure the argument would go something like: 'Well, they obviously have something to hide.'
There are many things today that suffer from the same type of logical flaw.
If weapons are found in Iraq, then the the US government can say 'see we told you so'. If it turns out they were destroyed before the war started, they will say 'only the real threat of war caused them to disarm'. If we don't find any, they will say 'we eliminated the threat of WMD production by an evil regime.'
I mean, what's done is done, so how can anyone prove to them that there may have been alternate solutions?
Likewise, if a terrorism declines, the government could claim that our aggression and serious use of military force was and is justified. If terrorism increases, they would use the exact same argument and likely push for even tougher stance.
What we should do is look to the past and see how these 'logical-loops' and doctrines of fear have been undone in the past. How did McCarthy-ism decline?
Slashdot Mirror
continuing to inspire long after death
It seems to me that if the RIAA position is valid then we should see sales of CD's up. Is this the case now?
hmmm, I'm not quite satisfied with that answer. Maybe some experts reading this thread can help out?
By my argument, we would need to assume that objects that we call white are a little more absorbent of light in the yellow end of the spectrum. Could be true, I guess.
My point was that you were explaining the color by refraction, but the effect is actually caused by scatterring. There is a difference. Just after sunrise and just before sunset, there is a refractory effect as well, but the color change is still predominantly caused by scattering.
you're right, the sun emits the full spectrum of light, but it does have a predominant color, and it is yellow-orange.
Assuming that you are right and refraction is the cause, then consider the following case:
I look directly up at a noon day sun and see white, yellow, whatever. Then I look ten degrees down toward the horizon. You say I am seeing light refracted (bent) to my eye and that is why I see blue. Well, If I now look down 20 degrees from the sun, I would have to see light refracted at a different angle, so it would have to a color other than blue right? What if I looked right at the horizon? Would I still see blue sky? How is that Blu sky is so nonuniformly refracted in your explanation?
I think there is just a confusion by what is meant by scattering, and what refraction really is.
Ocean reflection, is right out
you might want to goole for 'raleigh scattering'
you are right about the refraction causing sunset colors however. During the day, though scattering is what causes the blue sky.
http://www.gnu.org/graphics/babygnu.html
I think that the point of the article was that there is now a registered blip on the radar and that politicians are starting to take notice. The article didn't say that there was no political awareness before but rather there was awareness with apathy before and there is now awareness with action and motivation. In fact it mentions both the left and right heritage of the movement. The 'new' bit is the strength of the voice, regardless of left or right.
If your claim is true that left minded techies are somehow late to the game on issues like the environment, wouldn't it also be true then that lefties are more likely to actually do something about an issue, as that would explain the recent explosions of activism? So libertarians are the early adopters but lefties are the ones who take action, right?
Plus, why do you include something like: The same thing happened in the environmental community. The pioneers of the conservation movement originally came from the Republican side of things. They were people who were profoundly distressed by the environmental destruction by big government and big business. When the left realized that protecting the environment was kewl, they infiltrated and turned environmentalism into a call for bigger government poised against small business.
So, if you care about something it is because you are 'profoundly distressed', but when someone you consider to the left of you has the same concerns, it is only because they think it is 'kewl', and we use it to 'infiltrate' movements?
That's nice because then you can disagree with people who have an opposing view AND people who share the same view as long as you can attribute their motivations to something silly.
If you're interested in logically flawed writing, you might want to look up 'straw man fallacy'.
ideally it would be a google-type sponsored link so you could could search for a few words and guarantee their link at the top of the results.
first of all, Kelly ( i assume the dead guy you are referring to ) was not responsible for the 'bad bit', but for blowing the whistle on the 'bad bit'.
Plus, I require a little bit more from my president. Ever look at a newstand and see all the outrageous tabloid headlines? They get away with it because they have a source. They're not saying that there is a 'batboy'. They're just saying that someone told them there was. Does that make it right?
Besides, this is hardly the only weak bit of evidence. How about those fictional aluminum tubes, or the mobile weapon factories that turned out be for filling artillery balloons, or the SCUDS that were never used or discovered, or the link to Al-Queda that seems to have been invented out of thin air? Or, the the 'hint' that Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
Most people who were against the war were not saying that Saddam was a good guy, but that we wanted an international approach that was not thinly disguised coercion. It may have meant some compromise which is a hard pill to swallow for those drunk on the power of the US military, but in the end it leads to a more multilateral aproach that is good for everybody.
yeah because that Napoleon guy was a real loser...
There are a lot of people out there that would like to see more emphasis placed on diplomacy and multilateralism abroad and more concentration on social programs like health care at home. I don't see how this makes them suck weasels, circle-jerkers, or small-minded.
You are the one here being intolerant.
That is certainly a good doctrine to live by, but it hardly applies here since the energy 'thrown' was absolutely minimal.
I'm all for the best solution, but why not go for potential 'quick-wins' that cost us little or nothing while better solutions are engineered.
Sometimes pessismism is just a gross overestimation of the energy required or an underestimation of the potential returns.
I didn't fill out a form because someone told me to, but I can recognize a good suggestion when I see it, and that doesn't mean that I'm patting myself on the back either. I realize it is something of small value, but it is also of minimal cost, so why not?
The only reasonable criticisms have been that it may cause more harm, but I find that highly dubious. For example, if my congressman gets 500,000 letters from constituents, I do not think that he discounts them because some are written poorly.
BTW, I'm sorry I attacked you personally, but it irks me when people who want to contribute democratically, even in small ways, are called 'stupid'.
Do both.
Your can't-do attitude is probably also the reason you're a 35 year old virgin living in your parents' basement.
Mass activism like this does have an affect and just as it will likely annoy someone, it will also promote some action. Having been a participant in some online activism, I can say that it can indeed work, and it is very satisfying to watch it work.
Not only will you take advantage of the inevitable profit taking, the large slashdo community will likely help drive the stock down.
More money for us, less for SCO.
This makes it much more of an Orwellian type of tale in that it describes how parties in the search for 'noble' revolutions can sometimes deliver regimes much worse than the ones they are replacing.
So in that sense, I don't think it is the kind of leftist propaganda that some imagine, because even if you believe that some injustices are done by large multinational corporations and powerful military industrial complexes, it does not justify creating evil mind rays to sanitize the human race. At least that's what I think the guy in the end has created, but it's hard to tell because the whole story appears to be a long string of 'near-coherent-kinda-cool-sounding-I-just-got-a-de gree-in-Poetry-and-I-really-like-william-s-burroug hs-but-can't-write-as-well' slogans
This will eventually close the markets to products like Oracle's Collaboration Suite. The main advantage to keeping files in a Relational DB layer is that changes can be related to transactions and can be rolled back without having to resort to a restore from tape. This is handy if you're developing code or keeping track of a huge number of user files and restore requests. When this functionality is built into the OS, it will put the nail in the coffin of anybody offering Content Management Systems.
yeah, i didn't mean that it was necesarily 'love', but some human type of emotion that was not present in previous incarnations. Plus, it would fit into the Adam and Eve theme because in that old tale it was Eve who got us thrown out of the garden.
As a matter aof fact imagine that in the end, they are thrown out of the matrix/zion an into the real world and become our 'real' adam and eve. And their story gets corrupted over time until we only have the allegorical portions left.
It's like that zen parable:
A student comes before the master and asks him, 'Master what is the world?'.
The Master answers, 'The world rests on the back of an immense turtle'.
The student ponders this and then asks, 'What does the turtle stand upon?'.
The Master pauses and then answers, " The Turtle stands upon the back of a giant elephant."
The student then asks, "Well, what does the elephant stand on?"
The master says, "He stands on the back of an even larger elephant."
"And that elephant stands on...?", asks the student.
The master pauses and thinks for a moment and then replies, 'It's basically Elephants all the way down from there."
In this sense the story is a retelling of genesis with Neo as Adam. Agent smith is Lucifer. God's first but failed attempt to create sentience. Trinity is Eve. The architect says that a female stumbled upon the solution and we are led to believe it was theOracle but it seemed to me that the architect dismissed that notion. Perhaps the female that 'stumbled upon it' was Trinity.
Adam (Neo) is the next generation and is envied by Smith, who has been cast out from heaven ( matrix).
The architect is just another construct in the system to continue Neo on his regenerative cycle of improvement. When Neo finally realizes this loop, he might obtain a trancendance to the 'next level'
Think of it like this: what happens if some AI guys get together and they want to create artificial intelligence with free will, self determination, emotion.
Maybe the true creators are just humans running a big simulation designed to eventually produce a sentient life form with free will, self determination, emotions, etc. It had failed 5 times until Trinity stumbled upon the solution: Love.
In general the problem is very hard to combat because any boycotts that suck money out of the control of the RIAA or the MPAA just further the argument that filesharing is hurting their industry. Even if techies as a whole had the self-control to limit their filesharing, the RIAA will likely use the same argument. They hold up a graph with declining profits and say: 'The techies did it!. Prove that they didn't!'
Adding encryption would make their claim harder to prove, but also harder to disprove. How would we argue that encrypted P2P was being used legitimately? I'm sure the argument would go something like: 'Well, they obviously have something to hide.'
There are many things today that suffer from the same type of logical flaw. If weapons are found in Iraq, then the the US government can say 'see we told you so'. If it turns out they were destroyed before the war started, they will say 'only the real threat of war caused them to disarm'. If we don't find any, they will say 'we eliminated the threat of WMD production by an evil regime.' I mean, what's done is done, so how can anyone prove to them that there may have been alternate solutions?
Likewise, if a terrorism declines, the government could claim that our aggression and serious use of military force was and is justified. If terrorism increases, they would use the exact same argument and likely push for even tougher stance. What we should do is look to the past and see how these 'logical-loops' and doctrines of fear have been undone in the past. How did McCarthy-ism decline?
I wish I knew, but, IANAH
dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe Annoying, isn't it?