Returning the compliment, let me interject some comments again.
Suppose you have a vested interest in seeing certain policies maintained in a democracy regardless of the will of the people.
Okay...but I also have to suppose that others have opposing interests of approximately equal strength, and that they also have no regard for the will of the people (who are going to be split about the same as me and my hypothetical opposition)
The trick then is persuading people not to vote. From this perspective, apathy is not the problem - apathy becomes the solution.
But anyone could use that same solution. Manufactured apathy is no more useful a tool than any other in manipulating elections or voting.
So how would you foster apathy in an electorate? Spreading the meme (prevalent in this debate) that your vote makes no difference would be one approach; broken election promises without consequence, gerrymandered electoral boundaries... there are a lot of ways to persuade an electorate that their votes make no difference.
Yes, but all of that has been occurring for generations, and is well understood by politicians great and small. There are other ways to persuade an electorate not to vote, like telling them that their candidate is a sure thing, there's no possible way for the other guy to win, etc, etc. That particular arms race is already well understood
That doesn't mean that apathy is not a problem. However too many politicians use voter apathy to justify obviously unpopular policies for which they have nothing resembling a mandate.
Exactly. That's the entire reason that apathy is a problem. The extent of most activism is someone saying "this sucks". Politicians lie because they know most people won't look hard enough to see the lie. They pork-barrel spend because they know people won't read more than a few paragraphs before their eyes glaze over. They rely on apathy, and the results make more people throw their hands up in defeat.
I don't think making "apathy" the root concept in our analysis is particularly useful.
I appreciate your insight. I disagree, but I appreciate it anyway.
So, not only could someone steal your money with you not noticing (imagine how wardriving evolves to cashwalking), they could steal your identity without even having to go through your trash or sending you to a phishing site.
I'm sorry, but there are some extremely big problems with this technology being tied to people. All you have to do is put your own reader in a snowcone stand, next to an ATM machine, at a bus stop, in a toilet, etc, and start cloning cards.
There's plenty you can do. The fact is that if 50% of the population decided against the top 1%, they'd be done. That's 50% of everybody, though , not just 50% of everybody that gives a damn.
Apathy is the word of the day. It's a creeping, sublime disease that permeates the psyche of more people in the US every day. Very occasionally, (9/11/01, more recently in the early days of the hurricane flooding), large numbers of people awaken from their malaise, and try to do something...feel like taking action...for a while.
So many people fail to get involved and fail to feel the need to get involved (what difference am I going to make, anyway, it's all done behind closed doors, money talks, etc, etc.), that they royally fuck up the system.
So, your government doesn't represent you, and you feel as if you have no voice? How much of the voting-age population feels that way? A bit over 40 percent would be my guess...maybe closer to 70 percent *feel* that way (the 30% that voted for the guy that lost, plus the 40% that didn't bother voting). The only solution is to go out and fill out a ballot when given the opportunity to do so.
I definitely don't do it on every issue, but I definitely *do* vote on issues that I feel are important, or where I want my voice to be heard. I talk to friends about things, and let them know why I feel a certain way. I ask people what they think about different issues.
Most people really don't care. They just don't. Either it's too much work to think about, or they are embarrassed that they haven't read more, or they go with whatever the newspapers, TV, or talk-radio tell them to think.
We have exactly the government we've asked for. We pay nearly no attention to it, unless there's some supremely obvious benefit or detriment to us personally. Like mold, it grows in the dark, while we ignore it on one hand and wail about it being such a corrupt, stinking mess on the other.
The problem is not corruption, that's a symptom. The problem is not our percieved lack of representation, that's a symptom, too. The problem is as simple as one boring word that 40 percent or more of the voting-age population in the US needs to look up and understand intimately.
To be fair, I think they only condone shooting commuters that ignore repeated warnings to stop, happen to be seriously overdressed for the weather, and are heading for recently-bombed commuter trains at a high rate of speed...
Nah, if you're talking about an open-source streaming media server, and asking slashdotters which one worked for them, you're talking about cheap, not dogmatic. I vote for your initial fake quote.
The question wouldn't have ever been asked by a kool-aid drinker with money to burn...he'd have either paid somebody to make some particular OS project work, or would have gutted it out and made it work himself (or paid somebody, taken notes and *said* (s)he gutted it out).
Discovering something elegant doesn't seem to me the same process as creating something. The scientist isn't expressing something in the same way and science is bound by trying to model the universe, you can't change the equation to express something different.
That's easy to agree with, but doesn't marry science and writing code in some unextricable way.
If you look at programming through a scientist's eyes (in your definition), anything beyond binary instructions would be a pointless abstraction.
A programmer choosing different abstractions (programming languages) to create software is not a scientific necessity...in most programming languages, you can accomplish the same tasks as in the others, albeit with differing levels of difficulty. Choosing a programming language is choosing a tool by which to create your work.
Programming (writing software code) using a language other than that understood by the machine that the code will run on is an art. There are multiple ways to approach most tasks, and there are multiple aesthetic ideals that a programmer can aspire to. The difference between an obfuscated Perl code snippet and a web server written in Visual Basic (hey, you *could* do it) are probably at opposite ends of the spectrum in one aspect. A "Hello World" in a DOS batch file, and the Linux kernel are at opposite ends in another aspect.
Artists and programmers both begin with an idea, work out a concept, use their own favorite techniques and tools, and create something unique, while occassionally borrowing from the works of others in ways both large and small.
Appreciating the craft of a well-written algorithm is like appreciating the glint of light in the eye of a painted face. The glint of light isn't art, it's an example of the artist's skill, and it's part of the work.
If you can appreciate 3 chords and an emotion-laden voice, have you ever appreciated a crafty shell script?
Sure, music, poetry, and C++ have many differences, but the works that are produced in their respective spheres are equally worthy of being called "art", some good, some bad.
Kids are smart...why not let them drink a beer, have sex with adults, drive cars, and get jobs at McDonald's?
Yes, a movie's purpose is to get a reaction from its audience. That doesn't mean that all movies are geared towards an audience of all ages. I like to watch Natural Born Killers every once in a while. That doesn't mean I'm going to tell my 6-year old "hey, come watch this movie with daddy!".
It's not a positive thing to expose a child *on purpose* to things that negative. Sure, I can explain to her that it's fantasy, and that it's a movie, and that Juliette Lewis didn't *really* just kill the man that was giving her oral sex, but why would I want to put either of us into a situation where I had to? I wouldn't, it's called "parenting".
Kids always try to stretch the limits of what they're allowed to see and do. Parents always try to reign the kids in and keep them from doing things that might cause them pain. It's the same today as it was in 2005 B.C.
Saying that "As long as you explain to the child the differences between real and fake, there should be no reason you will need to censor them from violence in media." is like saying "As long as you tell a child what the controls on a car do, there's no reason not to let them drive". It's overly-simplistic, and it ignores the reality that is child-rearing.
Why should we stay tuned? From all appearances, "The Developers" have done their best to marginalize themselves.
...riiiiight. *All* of the core developers leave a popular project that's been downloaded over 5 million times, and it's *them* being marginalized?
This is pretty simple.
Miro: we don't want to transfer the copyrights. We want an open source "foundation" that will "control" the project, but the copyright to everything will still be ours.
Developers: screw that, we're outta here! Oh, and we're going to work on our own version of it. Good luck.
Miro: (whispering to each other) They can just leave like that? But who's gonna...(loudly) Wait! Wait! We'll transfer the copyrights...we were wrong, and we understand now! Please come back and work for us again!
Miro realized that you probably shouldn't alienate *all* of your core developers for a popular project, if you want to keep that project alive and similarly popular. I'd stay tuned.
In TFA, the "100 times smaller" comes from the length of the nanotube transistor being 1/10th that of its silicon counterpart. Cellphone-losing should increase by no more than a factor of 100 (unless 3-d chips become commonplace).
Right...I was just saying that drawing attention to [the two licences both being copyrighted] didn't seem to be the point of the statement (and is also not a difference).
another question is why a big-battle multiplayer shooter would need all those graphic goodies they advertize
They were pretty up front about that, honestly. They want to make a cinematic epic game for next-gen hardware (paraphrasing). To go epic, you need lots of characters, and places for them to run around in and do things. To go cinematic, you need "all those graphics goodies". Then they specifically say "to run on next-gen hardware"...
What is there to not understand?
What they should focus on is making an amazing game. I've wanted a game like that (RTS/FPS with realistic graphics) for as long as there have been computer games, really. If they succeed, they'll make AMD and Intel, and whatever graphics vendors are around at the time very, very happy.
"He asked IBM to deprecate its open-source license and instead put it under the General Public License, the most popular license for free software that gives users the freedom run the program for any purpose, to study how it works, to modify and improve it and distribute copies. In contrast, an open-source license, like IBM's, is copyrighted..."
Unless I'm mistaken, and I don't think that's the case this time around, copyright remains in effect under the GPL. All it is is a license that says you have more rights than those permitted under copyright law as long as you abide by the terms of the license.
...unless he's actually saying that IBM's license, itself, is copyrighted (which doesn't seem like what was being compared).
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate the correction, and rest assured, you're not the only person who will read this.
Suppose you have a vested interest in seeing certain policies maintained in a democracy regardless of the will of the people.
Okay...but I also have to suppose that others have opposing interests of approximately equal strength, and that they also have no regard for the will of the people (who are going to be split about the same as me and my hypothetical opposition)
The trick then is persuading people not to vote. From this perspective, apathy is not the problem - apathy becomes the solution.
But anyone could use that same solution. Manufactured apathy is no more useful a tool than any other in manipulating elections or voting.
So how would you foster apathy in an electorate? Spreading the meme (prevalent in this debate) that your vote makes no difference would be one approach; broken election promises without consequence, gerrymandered electoral boundaries... there are a lot of ways to persuade an electorate that their votes make no difference.
Yes, but all of that has been occurring for generations, and is well understood by politicians great and small. There are other ways to persuade an electorate not to vote, like telling them that their candidate is a sure thing, there's no possible way for the other guy to win, etc, etc. That particular arms race is already well understood
That doesn't mean that apathy is not a problem. However too many politicians use voter apathy to justify obviously unpopular policies for which they have nothing resembling a mandate.
Exactly. That's the entire reason that apathy is a problem. The extent of most activism is someone saying "this sucks". Politicians lie because they know most people won't look hard enough to see the lie. They pork-barrel spend because they know people won't read more than a few paragraphs before their eyes glaze over. They rely on apathy, and the results make more people throw their hands up in defeat.
I don't think making "apathy" the root concept in our analysis is particularly useful.
I appreciate your insight. I disagree, but I appreciate it anyway.
So, not only could someone steal your money with you not noticing (imagine how wardriving evolves to cashwalking), they could steal your identity without even having to go through your trash or sending you to a phishing site.
I'm sorry, but there are some extremely big problems with this technology being tied to people. All you have to do is put your own reader in a snowcone stand, next to an ATM machine, at a bus stop, in a toilet, etc, and start cloning cards.
Apathy is the word of the day. It's a creeping, sublime disease that permeates the psyche of more people in the US every day. Very occasionally, (9/11/01, more recently in the early days of the hurricane flooding), large numbers of people awaken from their malaise, and try to do something...feel like taking action...for a while.
So many people fail to get involved and fail to feel the need to get involved (what difference am I going to make, anyway, it's all done behind closed doors, money talks, etc, etc.), that they royally fuck up the system.
So, your government doesn't represent you, and you feel as if you have no voice? How much of the voting-age population feels that way? A bit over 40 percent would be my guess...maybe closer to 70 percent *feel* that way (the 30% that voted for the guy that lost, plus the 40% that didn't bother voting). The only solution is to go out and fill out a ballot when given the opportunity to do so.
I definitely don't do it on every issue, but I definitely *do* vote on issues that I feel are important, or where I want my voice to be heard. I talk to friends about things, and let them know why I feel a certain way. I ask people what they think about different issues.
Most people really don't care. They just don't. Either it's too much work to think about, or they are embarrassed that they haven't read more, or they go with whatever the newspapers, TV, or talk-radio tell them to think.
We have exactly the government we've asked for. We pay nearly no attention to it, unless there's some supremely obvious benefit or detriment to us personally. Like mold, it grows in the dark, while we ignore it on one hand and wail about it being such a corrupt, stinking mess on the other.
The problem is not corruption, that's a symptom. The problem is not our percieved lack of representation, that's a symptom, too. The problem is as simple as one boring word that 40 percent or more of the voting-age population in the US needs to look up and understand intimately.
The problem is apathy.
I ain't saying it's necessarily right, but...
The question wouldn't have ever been asked by a kool-aid drinker with money to burn...he'd have either paid somebody to make some particular OS project work, or would have gutted it out and made it work himself (or paid somebody, taken notes and *said* (s)he gutted it out).
Of course, it *could* be a troll...those damn AC's can be so sneaky sometimes...
Discovering something elegant doesn't seem to me the same process as creating something. The scientist isn't expressing something in the same way and science is bound by trying to model the universe, you can't change the equation to express something different.
That's easy to agree with, but doesn't marry science and writing code in some unextricable way.
If you look at programming through a scientist's eyes (in your definition), anything beyond binary instructions would be a pointless abstraction.
A programmer choosing different abstractions (programming languages) to create software is not a scientific necessity...in most programming languages, you can accomplish the same tasks as in the others, albeit with differing levels of difficulty. Choosing a programming language is choosing a tool by which to create your work.
Programming (writing software code) using a language other than that understood by the machine that the code will run on is an art. There are multiple ways to approach most tasks, and there are multiple aesthetic ideals that a programmer can aspire to. The difference between an obfuscated Perl code snippet and a web server written in Visual Basic (hey, you *could* do it) are probably at opposite ends of the spectrum in one aspect. A "Hello World" in a DOS batch file, and the Linux kernel are at opposite ends in another aspect.
Artists and programmers both begin with an idea, work out a concept, use their own favorite techniques and tools, and create something unique, while occassionally borrowing from the works of others in ways both large and small.
Appreciating the craft of a well-written algorithm is like appreciating the glint of light in the eye of a painted face. The glint of light isn't art, it's an example of the artist's skill, and it's part of the work.
If you can appreciate 3 chords and an emotion-laden voice, have you ever appreciated a crafty shell script?
Sure, music, poetry, and C++ have many differences, but the works that are produced in their respective spheres are equally worthy of being called "art", some good, some bad.
Kids are smart...why not let them drink a beer, have sex with adults, drive cars, and get jobs at McDonald's?
Yes, a movie's purpose is to get a reaction from its audience. That doesn't mean that all movies are geared towards an audience of all ages. I like to watch Natural Born Killers every once in a while. That doesn't mean I'm going to tell my 6-year old "hey, come watch this movie with daddy!".
It's not a positive thing to expose a child *on purpose* to things that negative. Sure, I can explain to her that it's fantasy, and that it's a movie, and that Juliette Lewis didn't *really* just kill the man that was giving her oral sex, but why would I want to put either of us into a situation where I had to? I wouldn't, it's called "parenting".
Kids always try to stretch the limits of what they're allowed to see and do. Parents always try to reign the kids in and keep them from doing things that might cause them pain. It's the same today as it was in 2005 B.C.
Saying that "As long as you explain to the child the differences between real and fake, there should be no reason you will need to censor them from violence in media." is like saying "As long as you tell a child what the controls on a car do, there's no reason not to let them drive". It's overly-simplistic, and it ignores the reality that is child-rearing.
That's not a troll, it's "+1 Funny"...well, maybe it's both.
If you've never heard that before, you need to read more Dilbert.
That's the reason that the copyright transfer is so pointless (now).
...riiiiight. *All* of the core developers leave a popular project that's been downloaded over 5 million times, and it's *them* being marginalized?
This is pretty simple.
Miro: we don't want to transfer the copyrights. We want an open source "foundation" that will "control" the project, but the copyright to everything will still be ours.
Developers: screw that, we're outta here! Oh, and we're going to work on our own version of it. Good luck.
Miro: (whispering to each other) They can just leave like that? But who's gonna...(loudly) Wait! Wait! We'll transfer the copyrights...we were wrong, and we understand now! Please come back and work for us again!
Miro realized that you probably shouldn't alienate *all* of your core developers for a popular project, if you want to keep that project alive and similarly popular. I'd stay tuned.
I'll keep my eyes peeled...who was the publisher?
It is...I said "inductance", though. Just trying to do my best to add to the confusion ;)
No, the nanotube-enabled computer you're using will be replaced by one with twice as many nanotubes per square mm in 18 months.
Now I have to go Google Slapout's Corollary...thanks for putting an end to any productivity for me today...
In TFA, the "100 times smaller" comes from the length of the nanotube transistor being 1/10th that of its silicon counterpart. Cellphone-losing should increase by no more than a factor of 100 (unless 3-d chips become commonplace).
The impedance of the Earth (according to the Tesla mailing list, is 400uf.
When did the Tesla mailing list decide that inductance should be specified in farads instead of henries? I'm pretty sure Nicola would not approve...
Right...I was just saying that drawing attention to [the two licences both being copyrighted] didn't seem to be the point of the statement (and is also not a difference).
I start out with a scene looking down on my team (army, band, whatever) from above, Warcraft III-style, but nicely rendered.
I click on a guy to directly control, and the scene zomms and pans until I'm looking at the same scene through his/her eyes.
There are so many things that could be done that haven't been (at least not well)...someday, my game will find me. Maybe it'll be this one.
They were pretty up front about that, honestly. They want to make a cinematic epic game for next-gen hardware (paraphrasing). To go epic, you need lots of characters, and places for them to run around in and do things. To go cinematic, you need "all those graphics goodies". Then they specifically say "to run on next-gen hardware"...
What is there to not understand?
What they should focus on is making an amazing game. I've wanted a game like that (RTS/FPS with realistic graphics) for as long as there have been computer games, really. If they succeed, they'll make AMD and Intel, and whatever graphics vendors are around at the time very, very happy.
Any links to similarly impressive realtime captures from UE3. If I see one that looks better, I'll agree, but for now, this is freaking cool.
Unless I'm mistaken, and I don't think that's the case this time around, copyright remains in effect under the GPL. All it is is a license that says you have more rights than those permitted under copyright law as long as you abide by the terms of the license.
...unless he's actually saying that IBM's license, itself, is copyrighted (which doesn't seem like what was being compared).
Including me. I'm pro-choice, but not before responsibility...