Before covering it with the rubber be sure to have a bunch of friends jump in and run around in a circle to create a whirlpool effect like what might easily be seen if you had the vast majority of galactic mass swirling around in a galaxy.
Unless they put a smiley face at the end... regardless how crazy things are they are indistinguishable from real beliefs.
I have actually overheard Scientologists talking about some specific thetans bothering them. I think they are on the level... which means I suppose that they are off their rockers.
No. I'm saying that if they happen to have 3TB of porn and movies, mp3s and TV shows... they can put it on the slower cheaper drive that doesn't load up lots random files all the time.
Yeah, certainly I'd pay double for storage for a reasonable 20-30 gig SSD. The seek times and lack of instant crashes out are great. For the speed and reliability, I'd replace my harddrive with a downright tiny drive just to run my OS. Their clicky cousins can store my massive amounts of non-critical data. I'm fine using magnetic drives I just don't want to use them for data I access all the fricking time.
I think we'll start seeing the drop off of magnetic drives well preceding the the overtake. We'll see people buying cheap 4 TB drives a couple years from now, but as is most basic users can't fill the 40 gigs. Why do they need more than a few gigs for a few dollars? If they have storage needs... that'll be your MM's job.
Can I get this sucker to cool my CPU? Hotter, more power, faster the fan spins. I bet it draws down the heat when it extracts energy (required by laws of thermodynamics) and equalizing the heat between the CPU and surrounding air should provide power rather than take it. Really hot here, not hot here... that screams power.
Oh, I want that. Seriously the ability to monitor every wall socket and tell how much power drain each one is taking. Code up some optimization routines, give access to the power company to certain appliances in my house and get a little kickback money-wise.
So long as they don't know what they are turning off, I get something for the added inconvenience, and I specifically give them access rights myself: I have no qualms with that.
Though a massive solar array in death valley would probably be easier... it gets really hot... it's sunny and we have extra peak power flowing in. Honestly, California should buy up some rights to that new mass producing solar panel tech and setup a shop and start producing. Pave that hot (drive through during the night) part of the state with enough panels to provide peak power to the western part of the country. That, and eastern Washington should just be a windfarm.
Well, calculating out everything suggested and the effect which the CO2 should have, the only thing that comes even slightly close to explaining the heating trend we are seeing is the CO2.
The fact that CO2 should have a given impact far larger than anything we've looked at and we are seeing a massive heating trend which nothing else comes close to explaining is part of the argument certainly worth mentioning. The greenhouse gas nature of CO2 is based on physics the fact we're putting massive amounts in the atmosphere is undisputed. The impact of other factors is nowhere close to explaining the impact we've seen. -- That argument is remarkably hard to avoid.
Insofar as there is a shift in the moral zeitgeist it does exclude the corporations but includes the artists. Corporations are viewed as pathetic middlemen who want 15 dollars for something I can burn for a dime. Artists however are to be praised and loved. If anything, the young people tend to want the artists to be the sole beneficiary of the work even when they legally don't own the rights themselves. I've heard many a diatribe against the RIAA on the grounds of artists rights. That above the 10 cents the product costs 100% of that should go to the artist. Though, even that goes back to freedom of information, rather than the non-moral agency of corporations. So the question becomes how does an artist make money on a product which, due to a moral paradigm shift, is no longer required to be bought to be enjoyed and could only be sold by the artists themselves? How does one make money off an army of followers who don't pay for their information?
It has nothing to do with trust or respect or about cheating artists out of money. In fact, the response is flipped in this regard. If it is a good artistic work (movie, song, album) people are more likely to give away more copies for free. How does one make money off a system where the spread of information is directly related to the information's merit, and the popularity thereof is viewed as the reward rather than profit?
Yeah, generally it seems to be a pretty common idea. The laws and morality in people's heads does not include corporations. They aren't people and people do not think of them as people. So, it seems as though information should always be free... but if you want to make a penny on it you can't unless you own the property rights. Seriously, rather than asking them about if they think downloading copyrighted material is acceptable, toss in a question about selling downloaded media and see the objections flow.
However, if anybody is going to make any money on the product it is the corporations and this is iron clad.
As for the comments about Shakespeare, it was all security by obscurity. Play houses would steal other people's work by sending somebody with a good memory to go and write down the play as performed. This is where most of our records actually come from with the exception of Romeo and Juliet which was butchered so badly that it was published in order to get it right. If you look at the current ethic that the money making ability of IP goes to the owner, then it would allow people to have access to the plays but prohibit somebody else performing it. The article description of it as "immoral" is uncalled for. It certainly isn't as legally allowed, but the prohibition against sharing is non-existent whereas the prohibition against making money off somebody else's work without the owner getting a fair share is iron clad.
They are moral. They just do not respect the rights of corporations to do anything but make money. In fact, one could easily make the argument that torrents often get ratios above 1 (up/down), because it is required for the torrent to continue and as a moral imperative. What would happen if everybody stopped seeding after they had the file? The torrent would collapse. So morally (and I've actually seen that word used in this context) one needs to seed a torrent. Also, seeding is seen as giving respect to the torrent. That this is a good show/movie/album so *MORE* people should have it.
Based on a cut scene they put this same crap out all the time, over the last decade!
They should have made 10 games by now. Honestly, cut your losses. A decade? I have a nephew who was born after they started making this game. He's in Junior High!
You're probably right on all your points. But the idea that this is human self-selection is wrong. I didn't evolve the ability to select for myself. Humans need to evolve faster and faster because one generations culture is little like the next generations culture. And our big brains and ability to evolve our own culture forces us to adapt more and more. We have considerable advantages of potentially occupying every niche, but, our own little niche changes all the time. Punctuated equilibrium indeed. Humans don't have an equilibrium anymore.
Yeah, as far as I'm concerned we should put those little robots any place we can. We should have a dozen on the moon and let people pay to control them. At the very least they'd make a great welcome party for the Chinese.
A lot of people, and I mean a lot of people are genetic dead ends. They are happy and fine with producing no children. Simply because we live in time when everybody can have some amazingly high number of children and have all of the survive to adulthood doesn't mean we actually do that. Frankly, I would be astounded if the last fifty years didn't see a large amount of adaptation. If any genes control long life and reproduction in long life, non-obesity, many forms of cancer, or any of the vast array of things we now die from which could not have had any selection pressure in the past, they are getting that pressure now. Culture is changing faster than we can adapt. Which isn't to say we fall short, rather, we have a lot to adapt to, and more is coming all the time. Sure, we might be letting myopia genes escape the general give and take of nearly blind death in the wilderness, but our genes to provide us with the ingenuity to build glasses or dodge all the exotic forms of cancer we might get cannot adapt fast enough.
There's a number of P2P sites, and P2P programs which don't allow connections to MediaDefender or other such P2P sites. Personally I've seen their IPs end up in the blocked list of Peer Guardian more than a few times.
I think perhaps they are experiencing a little bit of Heisenberg's at the macrolevel: By observing it, they are changing it. Send enough annoying letters saying X had Y media on X's computer on a P2P site as discovered by this IP address: Z, well, you're going to get programs cropping up to prevent any connections to Z.
To: Glenn Branch From: Glenn Branch Subject: Barbara Forrest in Austin 11/2 Cc: Bcc: [redacted]
Dear Austin-area friends of NCSE,
I thought that you might like to know that Barbara Forrest will be speaking on "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse" in Austin on November 2, 2007. Her talk, sponsored by the Center for Inquiry Austin, begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Monarch Event Center, Suite 3100, 6406 North IH-35 in Austin. The cost is $6; free to friends of the Center.
In her talk, Forrest will provide a detailed report on her expert testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board trial as well as an overview of the history of the "intelligent design" movement. Forrest is a Professor of Philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at Southeastern Louisiana University; she is also a member of NCSE's board of directors.
You honestly think that having seen a cop steal a donut doesn't prove that they could? I understand that the claims themselves don't establish anything as proved, but even as anecdotal evidence the claim that you've seen it first hand (brother in retail store) vs the suspicion that it never happens is much much stronger.
I mean to say that offering a counterexample is more than an anecdotal claim. If somebody says "everybody loves blueberries" and you say "I don't" -- that's a complete refutation. Even if they are a bit more distant such as "blueberries are so good that everybody likes them" with a response that "my aunt hates them". Even if both claim aren't proven in any sense, the anecdotal evidence of "my aunt hates them" is devastating to the claim "everybody likes them".
Your problem is obviously that you're equating a counter example with "That's possible, but not necessarily true." It isn't. My store doesn't do that and I'm sure other don't either isn't just "not necessarily true" in light of the brother who does exactly that, it's false. Not likely to happen? Well it clearly does. Those anecdotal claims are not held equal.
I'm always scoffing at IDiots and nutter creationists who think God poofed the universe into existence having themselves poofed God into existence for this specific purpose.
However, such experiences have given me the ability to spot arguments waiting to be made. A lot of the research into abiogenesis actually involves clay. It turns out to be a fantastic material for early abiotic evolving molecules. There's a shoe here just waiting to be dropped. Genesis says that God made man out of clay... abiogenesis suggest that life was formed out of clay. It's going to be one crappy crappy argument... but it's going to be made many many times.
Okay, back to figuring out how to bring about Stalinism. As an atheist, that's obviously where I'm going with all this 'question your preconceived notions', and 'ask for evidence for things before believing them' stuff. Because rational thinking is sure to bring about soviet state dogma. I just wish the religious hadn't figure this out so adeptly.
Slashdot Mirror
Before covering it with the rubber be sure to have a bunch of friends jump in and run around in a circle to create a whirlpool effect like what might easily be seen if you had the vast majority of galactic mass swirling around in a galaxy.
My poor boy, your priorities are all out of whack.
Hail Xenu!
Please don't sue.
Unless they put a smiley face at the end... regardless how crazy things are they are indistinguishable from real beliefs.
I have actually overheard Scientologists talking about some specific thetans bothering them. I think they are on the level... which means I suppose that they are off their rockers.
True, but 2^31-1 is so much cooler. It's prime after all.
See... he's the messiah!
No. I'm saying that if they happen to have 3TB of porn and movies, mp3s and TV shows... they can put it on the slower cheaper drive that doesn't load up lots random files all the time.
Yeah, certainly I'd pay double for storage for a reasonable 20-30 gig SSD. The seek times and lack of instant crashes out are great. For the speed and reliability, I'd replace my harddrive with a downright tiny drive just to run my OS. Their clicky cousins can store my massive amounts of non-critical data. I'm fine using magnetic drives I just don't want to use them for data I access all the fricking time.
I think we'll start seeing the drop off of magnetic drives well preceding the the overtake. We'll see people buying cheap 4 TB drives a couple years from now, but as is most basic users can't fill the 40 gigs. Why do they need more than a few gigs for a few dollars? If they have storage needs... that'll be your MM's job.
Can I get this sucker to cool my CPU? Hotter, more power, faster the fan spins. I bet it draws down the heat when it extracts energy (required by laws of thermodynamics) and equalizing the heat between the CPU and surrounding air should provide power rather than take it. Really hot here, not hot here... that screams power.
Oh, I want that. Seriously the ability to monitor every wall socket and tell how much power drain each one is taking. Code up some optimization routines, give access to the power company to certain appliances in my house and get a little kickback money-wise.
So long as they don't know what they are turning off, I get something for the added inconvenience, and I specifically give them access rights myself: I have no qualms with that.
Though a massive solar array in death valley would probably be easier... it gets really hot... it's sunny and we have extra peak power flowing in. Honestly, California should buy up some rights to that new mass producing solar panel tech and setup a shop and start producing. Pave that hot (drive through during the night) part of the state with enough panels to provide peak power to the western part of the country. That, and eastern Washington should just be a windfarm.
I actually kind of want reallyreallyuseless now.
So whose already scripted the bot to check random names just to abuse the frontload?
Not that I couldn't I'm just overly lazy to bother.
Registrant:
This Domain is available at NetworkSolutions.com
Domain Name: LSJDFLKSDJFSDLKFJSDLFSD.COM
But, can it blend?
Well, calculating out everything suggested and the effect which the CO2 should have, the only thing that comes even slightly close to explaining the heating trend we are seeing is the CO2.
The fact that CO2 should have a given impact far larger than anything we've looked at and we are seeing a massive heating trend which nothing else comes close to explaining is part of the argument certainly worth mentioning. The greenhouse gas nature of CO2 is based on physics the fact we're putting massive amounts in the atmosphere is undisputed. The impact of other factors is nowhere close to explaining the impact we've seen. -- That argument is remarkably hard to avoid.
Insofar as there is a shift in the moral zeitgeist it does exclude the corporations but includes the artists. Corporations are viewed as pathetic middlemen who want 15 dollars for something I can burn for a dime. Artists however are to be praised and loved. If anything, the young people tend to want the artists to be the sole beneficiary of the work even when they legally don't own the rights themselves. I've heard many a diatribe against the RIAA on the grounds of artists rights. That above the 10 cents the product costs 100% of that should go to the artist. Though, even that goes back to freedom of information, rather than the non-moral agency of corporations. So the question becomes how does an artist make money on a product which, due to a moral paradigm shift, is no longer required to be bought to be enjoyed and could only be sold by the artists themselves? How does one make money off an army of followers who don't pay for their information?
It has nothing to do with trust or respect or about cheating artists out of money. In fact, the response is flipped in this regard. If it is a good artistic work (movie, song, album) people are more likely to give away more copies for free. How does one make money off a system where the spread of information is directly related to the information's merit, and the popularity thereof is viewed as the reward rather than profit?
You honestly think that a future where only the artists can reap huge profits from their work is one you'd be okay living in?
Hm. I would too.
Yeah, generally it seems to be a pretty common idea. The laws and morality in people's heads does not include corporations. They aren't people and people do not think of them as people. So, it seems as though information should always be free... but if you want to make a penny on it you can't unless you own the property rights. Seriously, rather than asking them about if they think downloading copyrighted material is acceptable, toss in a question about selling downloaded media and see the objections flow.
However, if anybody is going to make any money on the product it is the corporations and this is iron clad.
As for the comments about Shakespeare, it was all security by obscurity. Play houses would steal other people's work by sending somebody with a good memory to go and write down the play as performed. This is where most of our records actually come from with the exception of Romeo and Juliet which was butchered so badly that it was published in order to get it right. If you look at the current ethic that the money making ability of IP goes to the owner, then it would allow people to have access to the plays but prohibit somebody else performing it. The article description of it as "immoral" is uncalled for. It certainly isn't as legally allowed, but the prohibition against sharing is non-existent whereas the prohibition against making money off somebody else's work without the owner getting a fair share is iron clad.
They are moral. They just do not respect the rights of corporations to do anything but make money. In fact, one could easily make the argument that torrents often get ratios above 1 (up/down), because it is required for the torrent to continue and as a moral imperative. What would happen if everybody stopped seeding after they had the file? The torrent would collapse. So morally (and I've actually seen that word used in this context) one needs to seed a torrent. Also, seeding is seen as giving respect to the torrent. That this is a good show/movie/album so *MORE* people should have it.
Based on a cut scene they put this same crap out all the time, over the last decade!
They should have made 10 games by now. Honestly, cut your losses. A decade? I have a nephew who was born after they started making this game. He's in Junior High!
Concrete date? My ass.
You're probably right on all your points. But the idea that this is human self-selection is wrong. I didn't evolve the ability to select for myself. Humans need to evolve faster and faster because one generations culture is little like the next generations culture. And our big brains and ability to evolve our own culture forces us to adapt more and more. We have considerable advantages of potentially occupying every niche, but, our own little niche changes all the time. Punctuated equilibrium indeed. Humans don't have an equilibrium anymore.
Yeah, as far as I'm concerned we should put those little robots any place we can. We should have a dozen on the moon and let people pay to control them. At the very least they'd make a great welcome party for the Chinese.
A lot of people, and I mean a lot of people are genetic dead ends. They are happy and fine with producing no children. Simply because we live in time when everybody can have some amazingly high number of children and have all of the survive to adulthood doesn't mean we actually do that. Frankly, I would be astounded if the last fifty years didn't see a large amount of adaptation. If any genes control long life and reproduction in long life, non-obesity, many forms of cancer, or any of the vast array of things we now die from which could not have had any selection pressure in the past, they are getting that pressure now. Culture is changing faster than we can adapt. Which isn't to say we fall short, rather, we have a lot to adapt to, and more is coming all the time. Sure, we might be letting myopia genes escape the general give and take of nearly blind death in the wilderness, but our genes to provide us with the ingenuity to build glasses or dodge all the exotic forms of cancer we might get cannot adapt fast enough.
There's a number of P2P sites, and P2P programs which don't allow connections to MediaDefender or other such P2P sites. Personally I've seen their IPs end up in the blocked list of Peer Guardian more than a few times.
I think perhaps they are experiencing a little bit of Heisenberg's at the macrolevel: By observing it, they are changing it. Send enough annoying letters saying X had Y media on X's computer on a P2P site as discovered by this IP address: Z, well, you're going to get programs cropping up to prevent any connections to Z.
To: Glenn Branch
From: Glenn Branch
Subject: Barbara Forrest in Austin 11/2
Cc:
Bcc: [redacted]
Dear Austin-area friends of NCSE,
I thought that you might like to know that Barbara Forrest will be speaking on "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse" in Austin on November 2, 2007. Her talk, sponsored by the Center for Inquiry Austin, begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Monarch Event Center, Suite 3100, 6406 North IH-35 in Austin. The cost is $6; free to friends of the Center.
In her talk, Forrest will provide a detailed report on her expert testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board trial as well as an overview of the history of the "intelligent design" movement. Forrest is a Professor of Philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at Southeastern Louisiana University; she is also a member of NCSE's board of directors.
For further details, visit: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/austin/events/barbara_forrest_inside_creationisms_trojan_horse_lecture/
Sincerely,
Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
You honestly think that having seen a cop steal a donut doesn't prove that they could? I understand that the claims themselves don't establish anything as proved, but even as anecdotal evidence the claim that you've seen it first hand (brother in retail store) vs the suspicion that it never happens is much much stronger.
I mean to say that offering a counterexample is more than an anecdotal claim. If somebody says "everybody loves blueberries" and you say "I don't" -- that's a complete refutation. Even if they are a bit more distant such as "blueberries are so good that everybody likes them" with a response that "my aunt hates them". Even if both claim aren't proven in any sense, the anecdotal evidence of "my aunt hates them" is devastating to the claim "everybody likes them".
Your problem is obviously that you're equating a counter example with "That's possible, but not necessarily true." It isn't. My store doesn't do that and I'm sure other don't either isn't just "not necessarily true" in light of the brother who does exactly that, it's false. Not likely to happen? Well it clearly does. Those anecdotal claims are not held equal.
You don't need more than one to point out that something happens. You need a lot to make an anecdotal case for a universal positive.
I'm always scoffing at IDiots and nutter creationists who think God poofed the universe into existence having themselves poofed God into existence for this specific purpose.
However, such experiences have given me the ability to spot arguments waiting to be made. A lot of the research into abiogenesis actually involves clay. It turns out to be a fantastic material for early abiotic evolving molecules. There's a shoe here just waiting to be dropped. Genesis says that God made man out of clay... abiogenesis suggest that life was formed out of clay. It's going to be one crappy crappy argument... but it's going to be made many many times.
Okay, back to figuring out how to bring about Stalinism. As an atheist, that's obviously where I'm going with all this 'question your preconceived notions', and 'ask for evidence for things before believing them' stuff. Because rational thinking is sure to bring about soviet state dogma. I just wish the religious hadn't figure this out so adeptly.