Okay, lemme see... Integrating under the curve... Multiply by a few million shares... and we get... Holy crap! Forget $550 an hour, where do I sign up to be a Darl McBride???
In my experience, and from what I have read of those who have studied humor (talk about sucking the fun out of something), humor is about getting the brain to expect one thing, then giving it another.
Puns play on this in a linguistic sense (i.e., the brown-and-sticky joke another poster made. We parse "sticky" the usual way, then the punchline forces us to go back to make sense of it and reparse it as "stick-y" or stick-like.) Jokes about other's misfortunes (including slap-stick) play on it in an emotional sense. That is why the way the joke is told is so important. If the teller doesn't do an adequate job of leading the audience to expect a particular situation, then the punchline won't carry its full force.
Paul Graham was spot-on in that people like to be suprised. It is the essence of humor.
This case could have huge implications for free speech online if the French courts are successful in forcing Yahoo to remove this content.
How so? This case would only have jursidiction in France. If worse comes to worst, just don't do business in France. It sets no legal precedent anywhere else.
I would argue that it's not necessarily because they are more receptive to technology, but more likely because the barrier to entry is lower. It's less expensive and more practical to deploy cutting-edge and sometimes risky technologies in population-dense areas like Japan and Europe than in the sprawling suburbia that is the United States. Once that infrastructure is in place, it then becomes that much easier to provide new services over that infrastructure. Any mobile blogging service would be doomed to fail in the US right now because of the relatively low number of users with mobile internet access and the still fewer who actually use it for something more than the occasional instant message.
I didn't read that in what he wrote. How I read it is that the government will never be better parents than parents. That is, if any part of the resulting adult is influenced by nurture, then a parent would be more appropriate for that than the government. If, as you imply, there are significant non-nurture factors, then the government is mostly irrelevant. Either way, the responsibility should fall to the parents, not the government, up to the societal definition of adult.
I agree. I got that out of the first part of his original post. It was just the part I originally quoted where he was essentially stating that the government should be responsible for making parents parent. I don't think that is necessary or advisable.
Ok. And if they raise a child that is consistently casusing problems (killing neighborhood animals, setting the house down the street on fire, throwing rocks at cars on the highway), then the parents, as the legal guardians, should be held responsible for criminal negligence for letting their evil little child out into the world. The demon seed is their responsibility, just as a dog is. If they don't keep their dog in check and it bites people, they can be held responsible. They should be held to no less standard for their children.
Then punish the child for his repeat offenses. I'm pretty sure the law has escalating punishments for repeat offenders. How should the parent prevent their "evil little child" from going out into the world? Lock him in his room? Chain him in the backyard? The parents will be arrested for child abuse. Not a win-win situation, is it? Besides, the child has to go to school eventually. It is essentially impossible for a parent to maintain physical control over their child 24 hours a day. If the parents were ACTUALLY negligent, then yes, punish them for it. But you can not assume that this is the case, even for a child who has committed multiple crimes. Prove that they were negligent, then punish them for negligence. Don't punish them for vandalism when it was their kid that threw a rock through the neighbor's window. Besides, in the extreme cases you are posing, I would be surprised if you couldn't find any history of some kind of abuse/negligence or at least mental illness. If mental illness, the child should be in an institution. If abuse, punish the parents for abuse--the crime they actually committed.
Also, your analogy comparing a child to a dog isn't very apt. Dogs are animals. Children are human. Humans are capable of independent and critical thought. Dogs are not. A human can be held responsible for choices it makes. Dogs can not.
We will likely have to just agree to disagree on your last point. To me, the status of "legal adult," while useful in some aspects of law, but is just an artificial milestone that has no bearing on reality. Any additional control a parent has over a child at 8 than at 18 is more the result of physical and financial circumstances than the age and mental development of the child. You may disagree, but this is how I see it.
What we need is to start prosecuting parents for the crimes of their children so that parents will start taking responsibility for their kids again. At least that's my opinion. Parents can be much better parents than any government, if they have the incentive.
That's making a very dangerous (and entirely unproven) assumption that the behavior of the child is solely the result of how they were raised by their parents. The child committed the crime, so punish the child. This may warrant looking into the child's home life, and if the authorities discover a history of abuse or neglect, then charge the parents with that. People should only be punished for the crimes they have committed. It's entirely possible that a child could be raised by loving and caring parents who are only concerned with the welfare of their child, and yet the child will still commit a crime. There are many more factors that play into the behavior of any person than your simplistic system would suggest.
I'm pretty sure they're operating under the assumption that the terrorists don't have quantum computing. It would be easy for quantum computer to decrypt any encryption we have today because of quantum computing's unparalleled ability for parallel processing (pun intended).
At the same time, quantum encryption (via the very nature of quantum mechanics) would be pretty much unbreakable, since any attempt to capture the data would destroy it.
"vi" and "emacs" are both still in critical condition at St. Mary's Hospital, downtown, after a vicious street-fight. Notepad claims throne of "best text editor." More at eleven...
I imagine a system similar to AWACS, but for snipers. Imagine you're in an urban war-zone, enemy combatants hiding in bombed out buildings all over the place. You have a network of these radar devices (airborne or land units) connected to the scopes of sniper rifles. The scope feeds information about location and where the gun is pointing to the radar system and the system gives it a real-time image of what the gun is pointing at. As an added bonus, this location information can be used to identify friendly units in the scope, reducing unwanted casualties. A smart enough system could even provide automatic target acquisitioning--prioritizing targets based on either location, or direction of travel (i.e., hit the guy trying to blow up the embassy before he even rounds the corner).
On second thought, more than just snipers would benefit from this. If every soldier had this built in to their equipment, they reduce the risk of being ambushed.
These are just my non-sensical ramblings, but in all seriousness this could do for urban warfare what radar did for air combat and sonar for naval combat.
Not all of us have the luxury of living somewhere where we can have RJ-45 jacks in every room we may want to use the internet in. I live in an apartment and I am not allowed to go putting holes in the wall to put in my own sockets. For wired access, my only option would be to drape a large quantity of cables to get from my living room where the cable modem connection is (only one cable jack in the apartment), in addition to my TiVo and XBox, which are both networked, to my office down the hall where it would then have to go through another hub or a switch to then connect to the 4 computers in the office. I'm also then limited in that I could not work in the kitchen, for example, if I wanted the large table space to spread out papers and books and the like. This is a huge hassle to set up and I would have to redo it every time I moved. Instead, I hook up my wireless router to my cable modem and I instantly have my entire network set up.
If I was building my own home, I would have ethernet installed from the get-go and connect most of my devices that way, since it is cheaper and more reliable as you said. However I would still use wireless for my laptops. The convenience just can't be beat.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. :)
Okay, lemme see... Integrating under the curve... Multiply by a few million shares... and we get... Holy crap! Forget $550 an hour, where do I sign up to be a Darl McBride???
Thanks :). I swear I'll start testing my code one of these days.
1984? I think I remember that book. Was it really like that back then? I'll have to ask my mom. She's almost done packing my lunch for school today.
Just have the robot's tongue look like a check for $699 made out to "cash" and they'll walk right in :)
In my experience, and from what I have read of those who have studied humor (talk about sucking the fun out of something), humor is about getting the brain to expect one thing, then giving it another.
Puns play on this in a linguistic sense (i.e., the brown-and-sticky joke another poster made. We parse "sticky" the usual way, then the punchline forces us to go back to make sense of it and reparse it as "stick-y" or stick-like.) Jokes about other's misfortunes (including slap-stick) play on it in an emotional sense. That is why the way the joke is told is so important. If the teller doesn't do an adequate job of leading the audience to expect a particular situation, then the punchline won't carry its full force.
Paul Graham was spot-on in that people like to be suprised. It is the essence of humor.
Shouldn't that be in scientific notation?
How so? This case would only have jursidiction in France. If worse comes to worst, just don't do business in France. It sets no legal precedent anywhere else.
That's 'cause they outsource it to... Oh crap. I dunno then.
I would argue that it's not necessarily because they are more receptive to technology, but more likely because the barrier to entry is lower. It's less expensive and more practical to deploy cutting-edge and sometimes risky technologies in population-dense areas like Japan and Europe than in the sprawling suburbia that is the United States. Once that infrastructure is in place, it then becomes that much easier to provide new services over that infrastructure. Any mobile blogging service would be doomed to fail in the US right now because of the relatively low number of users with mobile internet access and the still fewer who actually use it for something more than the occasional instant message.
I agree. I got that out of the first part of his original post. It was just the part I originally quoted where he was essentially stating that the government should be responsible for making parents parent. I don't think that is necessary or advisable.
Then punish the child for his repeat offenses. I'm pretty sure the law has escalating punishments for repeat offenders. How should the parent prevent their "evil little child" from going out into the world? Lock him in his room? Chain him in the backyard? The parents will be arrested for child abuse. Not a win-win situation, is it? Besides, the child has to go to school eventually. It is essentially impossible for a parent to maintain physical control over their child 24 hours a day. If the parents were ACTUALLY negligent, then yes, punish them for it. But you can not assume that this is the case, even for a child who has committed multiple crimes. Prove that they were negligent, then punish them for negligence. Don't punish them for vandalism when it was their kid that threw a rock through the neighbor's window. Besides, in the extreme cases you are posing, I would be surprised if you couldn't find any history of some kind of abuse/negligence or at least mental illness. If mental illness, the child should be in an institution. If abuse, punish the parents for abuse--the crime they actually committed.
Also, your analogy comparing a child to a dog isn't very apt. Dogs are animals. Children are human. Humans are capable of independent and critical thought. Dogs are not. A human can be held responsible for choices it makes. Dogs can not.
We will likely have to just agree to disagree on your last point. To me, the status of "legal adult," while useful in some aspects of law, but is just an artificial milestone that has no bearing on reality. Any additional control a parent has over a child at 8 than at 18 is more the result of physical and financial circumstances than the age and mental development of the child. You may disagree, but this is how I see it.
That's making a very dangerous (and entirely unproven) assumption that the behavior of the child is solely the result of how they were raised by their parents. The child committed the crime, so punish the child. This may warrant looking into the child's home life, and if the authorities discover a history of abuse or neglect, then charge the parents with that. People should only be punished for the crimes they have committed. It's entirely possible that a child could be raised by loving and caring parents who are only concerned with the welfare of their child, and yet the child will still commit a crime. There are many more factors that play into the behavior of any person than your simplistic system would suggest.
Get this monkey a typewriter! I'm in the mood for some new Shakespeare.
But a 32 bit integer can only be in one state at a time. For a 32 qubit integer, in can be in all 2^32 states at once.
I'm pretty sure they're operating under the assumption that the terrorists don't have quantum computing. It would be easy for quantum computer to decrypt any encryption we have today because of quantum computing's unparalleled ability for parallel processing (pun intended).
At the same time, quantum encryption (via the very nature of quantum mechanics) would be pretty much unbreakable, since any attempt to capture the data would destroy it.
Ahh, you just winged him and made him a Unitarian. :)
"vi" and "emacs" are both still in critical condition at St. Mary's Hospital, downtown, after a vicious street-fight. Notepad claims throne of "best text editor." More at eleven...
wh47 ru ta1kin6 4b0ut? im fr0m gh4n4 n am c0mpl3t1y 1it3r4t3. A0L t4u6ht m3 2 r33d!
I imagine a system similar to AWACS, but for snipers. Imagine you're in an urban war-zone, enemy combatants hiding in bombed out buildings all over the place. You have a network of these radar devices (airborne or land units) connected to the scopes of sniper rifles. The scope feeds information about location and where the gun is pointing to the radar system and the system gives it a real-time image of what the gun is pointing at. As an added bonus, this location information can be used to identify friendly units in the scope, reducing unwanted casualties. A smart enough system could even provide automatic target acquisitioning--prioritizing targets based on either location, or direction of travel (i.e., hit the guy trying to blow up the embassy before he even rounds the corner).
On second thought, more than just snipers would benefit from this. If every soldier had this built in to their equipment, they reduce the risk of being ambushed.
These are just my non-sensical ramblings, but in all seriousness this could do for urban warfare what radar did for air combat and sonar for naval combat.
Since a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, it won't be much different from high-cost labor in the US combined with Microsoft technologies.
I'm with the Dept of Homeland Security. What do you know about these conspiracies? You will come with me for questioning.
Not all of us have the luxury of living somewhere where we can have RJ-45 jacks in every room we may want to use the internet in. I live in an apartment and I am not allowed to go putting holes in the wall to put in my own sockets. For wired access, my only option would be to drape a large quantity of cables to get from my living room where the cable modem connection is (only one cable jack in the apartment), in addition to my TiVo and XBox, which are both networked, to my office down the hall where it would then have to go through another hub or a switch to then connect to the 4 computers in the office. I'm also then limited in that I could not work in the kitchen, for example, if I wanted the large table space to spread out papers and books and the like. This is a huge hassle to set up and I would have to redo it every time I moved. Instead, I hook up my wireless router to my cable modem and I instantly have my entire network set up.
If I was building my own home, I would have ethernet installed from the get-go and connect most of my devices that way, since it is cheaper and more reliable as you said. However I would still use wireless for my laptops. The convenience just can't be beat.
He must be in marketing :)
I'm going as fast as I can, but that movable type is a pain in the ass.
If you can think of a more efficient way to print a book, I'd like to hear it.
Are you trying to imply that Linus does not undergo mitosis?
Fie, a pox on thee!