And to those other posters who are afraid electronic voting will subvert the democratic process, a nine-fingered man who started on the bottom rung of society just managed to achieve the highest post in the land. He didn't need a Harvard education or a rich dad. Sure, he had to try and try again (and try, and try:) ), but when a man with his roots makes it to the presidency, you know democracy is alive and well.
Joe with a stable job and plenty of disposable income will buy a new computer with all the bells and whistles. Joe who is afraid of becoming another of those increasingly bad unemployment statistics doesn't want to spend on anything unless his life depends on it. And companies unable to measure risks due to the ambiguous nature of economic data these days won't spend.
Plus, Microsoft did a very good job with 2000. The 9x/ME series were crap, practically unusable compared to the NT series, but 2000 really does anything you want in a much more stable environment. People might actually be satisfied.
So in 5 years, all AMD and Intel chips will have DRM enabled, and Windows will have it on by default. There is absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening.
The problem here is that there isn't enough competition, both on the hardware side and the software side. Features like this would normally be added as compliance to some law, like the pollution filter on cars. Only in this industry can a totally unnecessary, unwanted, and dangerous feature be shoved down people's throats without contest.
I always thought that it would have been a better to line to say that they were using humans for processing power (a beowulf cluster of billions of humans brains). They could have even made a comment about how most humans only use, what like 10% of the brain, because the other 90% was taken by the machines.
Don't forget, they need recruits. Say what you want about terrorists, they are still a purely voluntary service. The motivation behind they're decision to blow themselves up needs to be addressed, as well (the real ones, not the stuff they preach).
But that's what companies such as Redhat use as their business model. They don't only sell support, they also sell responsibility, and provide a target for managers to blame so they can tell they're managers it's an outside problem, and then they can say that any other delays they're having (whether related or not) stem from that.
Taking the multiverse theory at face value, therefore, means accepting that virtual worlds are more numerous than "real" ones.
Even is this were a reason to be concerned (even if it's true, what are you going to do about it?), what the hell does this have to do with the multiverse theory? How is this virtual world conundrum dependent on it? Can't we start the whole virtual world chain of deception right here on Earth, without anybody else's assistance anyway? Why do we have to believe in the multiverse theory in order for the idea of this reality being virtual to be true?
The rest of his argument is a bit much for a Saturday afternoon, anyway. There is an article in Scientific American that talks about this very topic. There are many theories about the multiverse, and only some assume different basic laws. One of them allows for different constants , but occuring with the same laws (i.e., everything works exactly the same, except, oh, I don't know, the weak nuclear force is 2% weaker).
Ah, it's nice out, I quit the rant now. But this shouldn't have gotten past the NyC editors, much less Slashdot's. His argument is since we can't confirm it by seeing it, it's pointless. Heh, most of physics today falls into that realm.
Eh, in the end, this is such a personal issue, that people will hardly ever agree completely on how much leeway to give their children.
Personally, I feel that cutting them some slack, and seeing them achieve on their own merits and learning from their mistakes, builds character. The key is, as always, to maintain enough trust and respect so they come to you for counseling on hard decisions and in the inevitable hard times.
I guess what I want to get away from is the motivation that the child isn't studying in order to please you, but because it benefits them. That they know this. If they do, constant monitoring isn't necessary. If they try and stil have a hard time, they should feel comfortable approaching you about it (e.g., tutoring).
While they're in high school and living under your roof, monitoring of their school work is definitely essential. However, once their environment changes completely and they start fending for themselves in college, start living alone, paying some (or all) of their bills, etc., I feel that parents should try as hard as they can to fight back that almost irresistible urge to protect your offspring from all the bad things you know better than they do that are out there and let me feel their way alone. Not completely, of course, but enough so they see that their actions give them more control over their lives. And always with the implicit trust that you are their to offer guidance when needed.
Yes, but college is also the period in a child's life where they start to do things, not because your parents tell you, but because they need to be done. That is when you learn responsibility.
If you can't learn on your own to do your homework, then even with all the education in the world you're dead meat in real life anyway. And you only really, really learn when you f**k up. Kids need that independence. I'm not advocating being totally laissez-faire, but this is getting closer to the other extreme of total control. There should be a point when kids learn that the parent's nagging is for their own good, and that is when they are old enough to see the consequences of their own actions.
It's not an American tank. It's an Israeli Merkava, I think. Besides the shape of the tank, American tanks don't have reactive armor (explosive plates that are intended to divert the hot plasma jet from HEAT weapons, like anti-tank missles), which is those big blocks you see strewn all over the tank.
Besides, as 9-11 and the videos instructing terrorists on how to make explosives from common household items proved, many, many, MANY things can be used as terrible weapons.
What does time to impact have to do with accuracy? It's not as if people can dodge bullets. The increase in accuracy comes from the lack of tragectory, which means you don't need to account for range.
It affects trying to hit a moving target.
But we need to see the bigger picture, here. This spells the end of action movies for all time, since now the bad guys will actually HIT someone when they shoot.
As a side note do you really think Iran wouldwillingly give up their nuclear program while Saddam is still in power? Isreal?
Do you prefer more countries with nukes or less? The less model has worked pretty well so far...
You're right, they won't. But they also won't if they see the US as an invasion threat. With the pre-emption policy, they probably do feel like the next target, especially being part of the "axis of evil".
Removing Saddam isn't wrong, but the method currently being employed is likely to motivate more of these outlaw regimes to arm themselves because they have no way of knowing if the US will come after them or not.
Can you think of any other way to convince North Korea not to build, and later possibly sell nukes?
Would that convince them them? Or would it make them more anxious to get their hands on a possible deterrant to invasion since the US seems bent on going to war with no proof to offer for the crime it is acusing the invaded country of?
And you'll be eating your when people start throwing rocks at our troops after trying to dig our the burnt pieces that use to be their children from their "collateral damaged" house.
Still, I hope they bring in a ton of child psychologists with post-traumatic stress disorder experience after this is over. There are going to be many children with very ugly nightmares when this is through.
Actually, it would probably make life a lot worse for the average Iraqi. A man like Saddam stays in power by having his "lieutenants" share the power in a competitive fashion. That way they work to please the leadership, but can't unite to overthrow him. If you assassinate Hussein, all you do is substitute one single nut with all the guns for several nuts with all the guns who will probably be so busy fighting over themselves they'll care even less about the population than the current government does.
Or look at Afghanistan, which had a brutal regime replaced by a "democracy" that only exists in the capital, so that all that was replaced was stability for chaos.
The US is terrible at nation-building, and Iraq is the biggest and most divided country they have yet tried. Without a well-thought out post-Iraq plan, which we DON'T have, we aren't doing the people any favors.
Slashdot Mirror
And to those other posters who are afraid electronic voting will subvert the democratic process, a nine-fingered man who started on the bottom rung of society just managed to achieve the highest post in the land. He didn't need a Harvard education or a rich dad. Sure, he had to try and try again (and try, and try :) ), but when a man with his roots makes it to the presidency, you know democracy is alive and well.
Joe with a stable job and plenty of disposable income will buy a new computer with all the bells and whistles. Joe who is afraid of becoming another of those increasingly bad unemployment statistics doesn't want to spend on anything unless his life depends on it. And companies unable to measure risks due to the ambiguous nature of economic data these days won't spend.
Plus, Microsoft did a very good job with 2000. The 9x/ME series were crap, practically unusable compared to the NT series, but 2000 really does anything you want in a much more stable environment. People might actually be satisfied.
It's backwards. What incentive does a company have to change, when its current habits have netted it $52.9 billion in cash?
So in 5 years, all AMD and Intel chips will have DRM enabled, and Windows will have it on by default. There is absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening.
The problem here is that there isn't enough competition, both on the hardware side and the software side. Features like this would normally be added as compliance to some law, like the pollution filter on cars. Only in this industry can a totally unnecessary, unwanted, and dangerous feature be shoved down people's throats without contest.
I always thought that it would have been a better to line to say that they were using humans for processing power (a beowulf cluster of billions of humans brains). They could have even made a comment about how most humans only use, what like 10% of the brain, because the other 90% was taken by the machines.
Don't forget, they need recruits. Say what you want about terrorists, they are still a purely voluntary service. The motivation behind they're decision to blow themselves up needs to be addressed, as well (the real ones, not the stuff they preach).
Would this also make hydrogen power more viable, since one of the seemingly insurmountable problems is the expense of extracting it?
This abundant, unavailable hydrogen thing make me laugh, kind of like "water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink".
But that's what companies such as Redhat use as their business model. They don't only sell support, they also sell responsibility, and provide a target for managers to blame so they can tell they're managers it's an outside problem, and then they can say that any other delays they're having (whether related or not) stem from that.
Taking the multiverse theory at face value, therefore, means accepting that virtual worlds are more numerous than "real" ones.
Even is this were a reason to be concerned (even if it's true, what are you going to do about it?), what the hell does this have to do with the multiverse theory? How is this virtual world conundrum dependent on it? Can't we start the whole virtual world chain of deception right here on Earth, without anybody else's assistance anyway? Why do we have to believe in the multiverse theory in order for the idea of this reality being virtual to be true?
The rest of his argument is a bit much for a Saturday afternoon, anyway. There is an article in Scientific American that talks about this very topic. There are many theories about the multiverse, and only some assume different basic laws. One of them allows for different constants , but occuring with the same laws (i.e., everything works exactly the same, except, oh, I don't know, the weak nuclear force is 2% weaker).
Ah, it's nice out, I quit the rant now. But this shouldn't have gotten past the NyC editors, much less Slashdot's. His argument is since we can't confirm it by seeing it, it's pointless. Heh, most of physics today falls into that realm.
Eh, in the end, this is such a personal issue, that people will hardly ever agree completely on how much leeway to give their children.
Personally, I feel that cutting them some slack, and seeing them achieve on their own merits and learning from their mistakes, builds character. The key is, as always, to maintain enough trust and respect so they come to you for counseling on hard decisions and in the inevitable hard times.
I guess what I want to get away from is the motivation that the child isn't studying in order to please you, but because it benefits them. That they know this. If they do, constant monitoring isn't necessary. If they try and stil have a hard time, they should feel comfortable approaching you about it (e.g., tutoring).
While they're in high school and living under your roof, monitoring of their school work is definitely essential. However, once their environment changes completely and they start fending for themselves in college, start living alone, paying some (or all) of their bills, etc., I feel that parents should try as hard as they can to fight back that almost irresistible urge to protect your offspring from all the bad things you know better than they do that are out there and let me feel their way alone. Not completely, of course, but enough so they see that their actions give them more control over their lives. And always with the implicit trust that you are their to offer guidance when needed.
Yes, but college is also the period in a child's life where they start to do things, not because your parents tell you, but because they need to be done. That is when you learn responsibility.
If you can't learn on your own to do your homework, then even with all the education in the world you're dead meat in real life anyway. And you only really, really learn when you f**k up. Kids need that independence. I'm not advocating being totally laissez-faire, but this is getting closer to the other extreme of total control. There should be a point when kids learn that the parent's nagging is for their own good, and that is when they are old enough to see the consequences of their own actions.
It's good that the universe is so much bigger than our minds. We'll never stop being amazed.
Add to that slap my lovely, non-redundant, "hot plasma jet" comment, which is, as we all know much deadlier than the puny cold plasma jet weapons. :)
*slaps forehead*
:)
Damn, you're right, of course. It was a long day yesterday, and I wasn't even thinking of anything older than an M1
It's not an American tank. It's an Israeli Merkava, I think. Besides the shape of the tank, American tanks don't have reactive armor (explosive plates that are intended to divert the hot plasma jet from HEAT weapons, like anti-tank missles), which is those big blocks you see strewn all over the tank.
Besides, as 9-11 and the videos instructing terrorists on how to make explosives from common household items proved, many, many, MANY things can be used as terrible weapons.
What does time to impact have to do with accuracy? It's not as if people can dodge bullets. The increase in accuracy comes from the lack of tragectory, which means you don't need to account for range.
It affects trying to hit a moving target.
But we need to see the bigger picture, here. This spells the end of action movies for all time, since now the bad guys will actually HIT someone when they shoot.
As a side note do you really think Iran wouldwillingly give up their nuclear program while Saddam is still in power? Isreal? Do you prefer more countries with nukes or less? The less model has worked pretty well so far...
You're right, they won't. But they also won't if they see the US as an invasion threat. With the pre-emption policy, they probably do feel like the next target, especially being part of the "axis of evil".
Removing Saddam isn't wrong, but the method currently being employed is likely to motivate more of these outlaw regimes to arm themselves because they have no way of knowing if the US will come after them or not.
Can you think of any other way to convince North Korea not to build, and later possibly sell nukes?
Would that convince them them? Or would it make them more anxious to get their hands on a possible deterrant to invasion since the US seems bent on going to war with no proof to offer for the crime it is acusing the invaded country of?
I'm sorry, i'm a troll? Read the first story in this link about the bombing in 1998. This bombing is much worse.
And you'll be eating your when people start throwing rocks at our troops after trying to dig our the burnt pieces that use to be their children from their "collateral damaged" house.
Still, I hope they bring in a ton of child psychologists with post-traumatic stress disorder experience after this is over. There are going to be many children with very ugly nightmares when this is through.
Uh, if you leave on any land West of the original 13 colonies, you're living on conquered land (not counting the Louisana purchase, of course).
Of course, if you're a Texan, you're comment was pretty ironic.
Actually, it would probably make life a lot worse for the average Iraqi. A man like Saddam stays in power by having his "lieutenants" share the power in a competitive fashion. That way they work to please the leadership, but can't unite to overthrow him. If you assassinate Hussein, all you do is substitute one single nut with all the guns for several nuts with all the guns who will probably be so busy fighting over themselves they'll care even less about the population than the current government does.
Or look at Afghanistan, which had a brutal regime replaced by a "democracy" that only exists in the capital, so that all that was replaced was stability for chaos.
The US is terrible at nation-building, and Iraq is the biggest and most divided country they have yet tried. Without a well-thought out post-Iraq plan, which we DON'T have, we aren't doing the people any favors.