Adam's an intelligent human. And, looking at society as cellular automata, he's usually right about anything he pops his two cents in about. Looking at society from an integrated cooperative strategy point of view (for example), though, a lot of his ideas fall apart. Too self-interested, you understand. Adam's a bit of a rugged individualist.
Not that that's a bad thing; the world needs both perspectives (individualist and societist), as well as other aspects (like liberal and conservative) to work correctly. Almost any idea can be broken or work well depending on the position of the observer (even things like mutually beneficial trade break down when you get down to the individual level; in any change, someone loses).
So, yeah: if someone constructs an argument that makes sense, but that you don't like - well, you can either shut it out or shift your perspective. Either way, calling someone an idiot for disagreeing with your 'obviously right' stance is blatantly pigheaded (not you, spun, but GP Poster).
If the argument doesn't make sense (and you've tried - at least a little bit - to see how one could come to the opposing opinion), then feel free to make addendums, etc. in order to help the poor guy make sense out of his mislead life (no one in particular here).
Unless, of course, you're trolling. Everyone needs to troll a litle now and again. Just don't make it your life.
'course, I'm no anarcho-capitalist. I'm pragmatic about things; ie: capitalism has its rewards vis a vis QoL growth in capitalist vs. socialist nations: when taken as percent QoL growth per-year (based on wealth per capita increase, adjusted to the value of gold and for inflation), center 50% used as the sample, and geometric mean of the sample taken (as 1.xx, rather than xx%; let's be properly accurate here), capitalist still wins out over socialism. This may be because capitalism just works better, or it may be that communist nations are plagued by coincidentally bad apples.
However, I don't really belive in the concept of posession. If someone else needs something more than you do, give it to them; if you need something more than someone else, ask them to give it to you.
I like to think of my flavor of anarchist as similar to that of Bernardo De La Paz in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"; i.e. I do as I please, take responsibility for what I do, and if a law is too inconvenient to abide by, I simply don't abide by it. An aspect of taking responsibility means that if I get caught, I rather have to fight the specific law in question, tooth and nail. (Lots of other aspects; there's a sort of zen necessary to get the whole concept. Sort of an 'Apply it with proper thought, common sense, and a feel for what's right'.)
Yeah. All three are needed; common sense is often nonsensical, thought is often mislead, and what's 'right' is subjective, and therefore not always what's socially beneficial. Getting the three working together is a process of discovery.
For one thing, you do not own you. You have been paid for by your parents, the work of countless others, and the money of whatever regime you live under. Just as you hold a stake in those around you, everyone else holds a stake in you. As such, you have a duty to be a socially responsible person (ie: 'good', as religions put it).
Meanwhile, you have to realise that nobody's perfect - not even you. So it's attempting to live ideally in an imperfect society, while accepting that your own behavior must, by definition, be flawed.
Also, 'socially responsible' changes with the times. Like being 'good', it's subjective to the situation. On the other hand, unlike the religious 'good', it's not subjective to arbitrary rules. Instead, it's formulaically derived from that which can be shown to be socially beneficial.
Mind you, 'socially beneficial' is also not always in the public interest - though, they are very often approximately the same.
Wow. I do go on. Feel free to ask me to shut the fuck up ^_^
Unfortunately, copyright in any system where campaign contributions and lobbying are legal will extend its own powers; ie: all a copyright collector needs is to have one smash hit.
That collector now has greatly increased power and influence (due to having gobs of money) and a motive to use it (extension of his own very profitable copyright). The collector will lobby and schmooze politicians as much as is most effective (s/he may do a cost/benefit analysis to determine this). S/he may even fail, but there is always a good percentage of any population with copyrights and there is always a percentage of those copyrights representing smash hits. As such, it's only ever a matter of time between a rational copyright and the irrational set of copyright laws we have today.
They're an economic addiction in any form, and the result, I predict, will be a barren, lifeless public domain, aside from open source and creative commons projects.
Meanwhile, even if it lost a thousand layers of point-stuff, it would still be plenty sharp enough to pass right through that tomato, enzymes and all.
Still, the point (ahem) is moot; it's to be used as an cathode emitter. As such, the resolution at which it can fire electrons is directly proportional to the sharpness of its point.
Tragedy of the Commons occurs when the population is given shared ownership but not shared authority. It's both a failing of communism (the bad apples rise to positions of power, thus spoiling the bunch) and capitalism (the bad apples rise to positions of mass ownership and influence, thus causing those in power to spoil the bunch).
In the event that a population is given both shared ownership and authority, bunch spoilage is mediated via the population; ie: as you said, the population can look after its collective interests and punish freeloaders. A good example of this in action is Wikipedia.
However, there is still a need for a basic administration; not a full-fledged government, per se, but a kind of system of social guidelines that are enforced by the population (including incentives for charity). Also, a fixed, stable currency is needed to allow for resource trading - even if its a one-bill paper money with a price that's fixed to the cost of counterfitting (though I prefer a silver standard in my idealist utopian anarcho-capitalist regime - it's cheap enough to still be useful as coins, and stable enough to use as savings.)
Additionally, this, like both capitalism and communism, can be damaged rather deeply via the scourge of imperfect information (ie: one party in a given transaction knows more than the other, and uses this in an effort to exploit the situation - or more expressly put, lying by word and lying by omission).
So you're telling me that the IT trolls that are faithful strictly to Microsoft technology would be up shit's crick?
Whoopdie do.
With all the Linux/BSD buzz, any admin that hasn't actually done at least some basic research into one POSIX-based system or another's administration is woefully remiss in his or her duties.
If you're not adaptable enough to replace your entire infrastructure within a year, given enough money, and operate it properly (part of that year being devoted to reading manuals), you've got no business being in IT.
Naw. Since the bonds holding the atom in place are stronger than, say, the bonds holding the skin of a tomato together, the tip would slide in and through the tomato skin almost as if it weren't there.
Additionally, Cringley seems to have a skewed opinion of how OS-X operates; Sure, Mach is a microkernel, but the performance issue they had with it was solved by running a monolithic HAL subsystem that is the only client to the kernel - essentially making the microkernel nature of Mach completely moot.
Though, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple switched to an L4 kernel with a componentized set of POSIX and HAL clients running on top of it (like the HURD - only, you know, implemented). Mostly I would guess this because virtualizing is relatively easy at that point, while you can somewhat easily build disparate APIs that operate cooperatively on the same framework.
It's a lot of work, but it's tedious work, not genius work.
There's a difference between universal 'truth' and human knowledge. Human knowlegde is based on the exact instance you query for it. Wikipedia deals in this, not truth.
If you're looking for some universal thruths, go find religion. Otherwise, take anything you read or hear with at least a grain of salt and at most a kilogram of driveway grit.
Re:Too recent & controversial for an encyclope
on
When Wikipedia Fails
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You're exactly right, you know. Anything recent and controversial on wikipedia is very likely inaccurate - and most users find this out pretty quickly, whether through common sense (ie: you have regular people editing articles) or through experience (such as this Ken Lay thing).
As a result, you quickly get the idea that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR NEWS. Meanwhile, the author of TFA seems to be under the impression that its information should always be bang-on accurate immediately. This ain't gonna happen. Just like the collective consciousness, any event that's got the masses riled up is going to be poorly portrayed in its opening hours. Fortunately, the strength of Wikipedia is that, soon enough, its accuracy is recovered.
A good example is the Ken Lay thing. Take a look at it today; it's pretty accurate at the moment. This may change; a lot people are still pissed about the guy, even years later.
The casmir effect is present, and at microchip scales, is strong enough to bend and break some circuit designs. So, if you're wondering about if it's possible to use it to drive, say, a nanogenerator, ask a microchip engineer.
Though, from what I know of the casmir effect, it's an attractive force between particles (also known as the van der waals force), so you'd have about as much luck driving a generator with static parts and gravity (already tried in many perpetual motion machine designs).
Meanwhile, I saw an article years ago about the use of spinning bose-einstien condensates in the application of gravity cancellation. I wonder if this ZPE soup has something to do with that (low energy levels in the BEC cause the spontaneous creation/annhiliation of VPP's, producing an effect similar, if not the same as, zero gravity).
Indeed, I wonder if the presence of matter interferes with VPP production/annhiliation - since this energy is present in all directions other than that of matter, it seems to be an attrative property of matter. If so, mastery of gravity would entail figuring out how to produce or restrict production of VPP's.
Wow, both the article and the summary are rediculously hype saturated. Wake me when Apple starts contributing to Darwine and includes it in OS-X (the Darwine crew are doing a fine job, but Apple's got a knack for sleek integration - and I'm not switching from Linux/Wine until 'sleek' and 'integrated' are in the Darwine project.)
Then I'll even spring for an OS-X of my own to hack onto my box.
I saw nothing that says they don't write fat32 out to the flash there. From what it says, it does distributed writes, changing the location of a written block each time it's written. Meanwhile, the system determines what is used as the FS (on mine, it's JFFS).
My question: in what form on the device (ie: flash, sram, cmos) is the block translation table stored, and won't that wear out first?
But does that answer the question of 'what conditions in a controlled quantum vacuum are necessary to generate the appropriate variables for a rational universe?'
Or even better: 'Is there some way to describe all the particle types in the universe using a single unified particle type?' - because this 24 elementary (6 quarks, 6 leptons, and their antiparticles) particles and their virtual friends (photons, nutrinos, 'gluons', etc) shit just seems way too arbitrary.
Meh. My girlfriend's mom is hooked on AOL. I've been trying for two years now to convince her that AOL is not where the internet comes from. They even got cable internet. It doesn't work. I put firefox on her machine, and while my girl uses it, her mom won't.
However, if AOL is offering their service for free, I think I'll wait a month and say, "You're not still paying for that, are you? AOL's offering it for free now." You know, just to be a good possibly future son-in-law.
Slashdot Mirror
"If you think dada21 provides anything like a good argument, then you've been the student in far too many 'getting hit on the head lessons.'"
Wait, this isn't trolling? Feh.
Well, it's like this:
Adam's an intelligent human. And, looking at society as cellular automata, he's usually right about anything he pops his two cents in about. Looking at society from an integrated cooperative strategy point of view (for example), though, a lot of his ideas fall apart. Too self-interested, you understand. Adam's a bit of a rugged individualist.
Not that that's a bad thing; the world needs both perspectives (individualist and societist), as well as other aspects (like liberal and conservative) to work correctly. Almost any idea can be broken or work well depending on the position of the observer (even things like mutually beneficial trade break down when you get down to the individual level; in any change, someone loses).
So, yeah: if someone constructs an argument that makes sense, but that you don't like - well, you can either shut it out or shift your perspective. Either way, calling someone an idiot for disagreeing with your 'obviously right' stance is blatantly pigheaded (not you, spun, but GP Poster).
If the argument doesn't make sense (and you've tried - at least a little bit - to see how one could come to the opposing opinion), then feel free to make addendums, etc. in order to help the poor guy make sense out of his mislead life (no one in particular here).
Unless, of course, you're trolling. Everyone needs to troll a litle now and again. Just don't make it your life.
Precisely.
'course, I'm no anarcho-capitalist. I'm pragmatic about things; ie: capitalism has its rewards vis a vis QoL growth in capitalist vs. socialist nations: when taken as percent QoL growth per-year (based on wealth per capita increase, adjusted to the value of gold and for inflation), center 50% used as the sample, and geometric mean of the sample taken (as 1.xx, rather than xx%; let's be properly accurate here), capitalist still wins out over socialism. This may be because capitalism just works better, or it may be that communist nations are plagued by coincidentally bad apples.
However, I don't really belive in the concept of posession. If someone else needs something more than you do, give it to them; if you need something more than someone else, ask them to give it to you.
I like to think of my flavor of anarchist as similar to that of Bernardo De La Paz in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"; i.e. I do as I please, take responsibility for what I do, and if a law is too inconvenient to abide by, I simply don't abide by it. An aspect of taking responsibility means that if I get caught, I rather have to fight the specific law in question, tooth and nail. (Lots of other aspects; there's a sort of zen necessary to get the whole concept. Sort of an 'Apply it with proper thought, common sense, and a feel for what's right'.)
Yeah. All three are needed; common sense is often nonsensical, thought is often mislead, and what's 'right' is subjective, and therefore not always what's socially beneficial. Getting the three working together is a process of discovery.
For one thing, you do not own you. You have been paid for by your parents, the work of countless others, and the money of whatever regime you live under. Just as you hold a stake in those around you, everyone else holds a stake in you. As such, you have a duty to be a socially responsible person (ie: 'good', as religions put it).
Meanwhile, you have to realise that nobody's perfect - not even you. So it's attempting to live ideally in an imperfect society, while accepting that your own behavior must, by definition, be flawed.
Also, 'socially responsible' changes with the times. Like being 'good', it's subjective to the situation. On the other hand, unlike the religious 'good', it's not subjective to arbitrary rules. Instead, it's formulaically derived from that which can be shown to be socially beneficial.
Mind you, 'socially beneficial' is also not always in the public interest - though, they are very often approximately the same.
Wow. I do go on. Feel free to ask me to shut the fuck up ^_^
Unfortunately, copyright in any system where campaign contributions and lobbying are legal will extend its own powers; ie: all a copyright collector needs is to have one smash hit.
That collector now has greatly increased power and influence (due to having gobs of money) and a motive to use it (extension of his own very profitable copyright). The collector will lobby and schmooze politicians as much as is most effective (s/he may do a cost/benefit analysis to determine this). S/he may even fail, but there is always a good percentage of any population with copyrights and there is always a percentage of those copyrights representing smash hits. As such, it's only ever a matter of time between a rational copyright and the irrational set of copyright laws we have today.
They're an economic addiction in any form, and the result, I predict, will be a barren, lifeless public domain, aside from open source and creative commons projects.
Meanwhile, even if it lost a thousand layers of point-stuff, it would still be plenty sharp enough to pass right through that tomato, enzymes and all.
Still, the point (ahem) is moot; it's to be used as an cathode emitter. As such, the resolution at which it can fire electrons is directly proportional to the sharpness of its point.
Tragedy of the Commons occurs when the population is given shared ownership but not shared authority. It's both a failing of communism (the bad apples rise to positions of power, thus spoiling the bunch) and capitalism (the bad apples rise to positions of mass ownership and influence, thus causing those in power to spoil the bunch).
In the event that a population is given both shared ownership and authority, bunch spoilage is mediated via the population; ie: as you said, the population can look after its collective interests and punish freeloaders. A good example of this in action is Wikipedia.
However, there is still a need for a basic administration; not a full-fledged government, per se, but a kind of system of social guidelines that are enforced by the population (including incentives for charity). Also, a fixed, stable currency is needed to allow for resource trading - even if its a one-bill paper money with a price that's fixed to the cost of counterfitting (though I prefer a silver standard in my idealist utopian anarcho-capitalist regime - it's cheap enough to still be useful as coins, and stable enough to use as savings.)
Additionally, this, like both capitalism and communism, can be damaged rather deeply via the scourge of imperfect information (ie: one party in a given transaction knows more than the other, and uses this in an effort to exploit the situation - or more expressly put, lying by word and lying by omission).
a while?
In a month, they've already been charged $(1Bi-1).
So you're telling me that the IT trolls that are faithful strictly to Microsoft technology would be up shit's crick?
Whoopdie do.
With all the Linux/BSD buzz, any admin that hasn't actually done at least some basic research into one POSIX-based system or another's administration is woefully remiss in his or her duties.
If you're not adaptable enough to replace your entire infrastructure within a year, given enough money, and operate it properly (part of that year being devoted to reading manuals), you've got no business being in IT.
Glass at that thickness wouldn't hold together very well. It would shatter rather quickly.
Naw. Since the bonds holding the atom in place are stronger than, say, the bonds holding the skin of a tomato together, the tip would slide in and through the tomato skin almost as if it weren't there.
Leonard Nimoy... is that the guy who made the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs at warp 9.5 by slingshotting around the sun?
Additionally, Cringley seems to have a skewed opinion of how OS-X operates; Sure, Mach is a microkernel, but the performance issue they had with it was solved by running a monolithic HAL subsystem that is the only client to the kernel - essentially making the microkernel nature of Mach completely moot.
Though, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple switched to an L4 kernel with a componentized set of POSIX and HAL clients running on top of it (like the HURD - only, you know, implemented). Mostly I would guess this because virtualizing is relatively easy at that point, while you can somewhat easily build disparate APIs that operate cooperatively on the same framework.
It's a lot of work, but it's tedious work, not genius work.
I somehow doubt that the licensing agreement allows for that particular use. Microsoft's lawyers aren't exactly brain-dead.
There's a difference between universal 'truth' and human knowledge. Human knowlegde is based on the exact instance you query for it. Wikipedia deals in this, not truth.
If you're looking for some universal thruths, go find religion. Otherwise, take anything you read or hear with at least a grain of salt and at most a kilogram of driveway grit.
You're exactly right, you know. Anything recent and controversial on wikipedia is very likely inaccurate - and most users find this out pretty quickly, whether through common sense (ie: you have regular people editing articles) or through experience (such as this Ken Lay thing).
As a result, you quickly get the idea that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR NEWS. Meanwhile, the author of TFA seems to be under the impression that its information should always be bang-on accurate immediately. This ain't gonna happen. Just like the collective consciousness, any event that's got the masses riled up is going to be poorly portrayed in its opening hours. Fortunately, the strength of Wikipedia is that, soon enough, its accuracy is recovered.
A good example is the Ken Lay thing. Take a look at it today; it's pretty accurate at the moment. This may change; a lot people are still pissed about the guy, even years later.
The casmir effect is present, and at microchip scales, is strong enough to bend and break some circuit designs. So, if you're wondering about if it's possible to use it to drive, say, a nanogenerator, ask a microchip engineer.
Though, from what I know of the casmir effect, it's an attractive force between particles (also known as the van der waals force), so you'd have about as much luck driving a generator with static parts and gravity (already tried in many perpetual motion machine designs).
Meanwhile, I saw an article years ago about the use of spinning bose-einstien condensates in the application of gravity cancellation. I wonder if this ZPE soup has something to do with that (low energy levels in the BEC cause the spontaneous creation/annhiliation of VPP's, producing an effect similar, if not the same as, zero gravity).
Indeed, I wonder if the presence of matter interferes with VPP production/annhiliation - since this energy is present in all directions other than that of matter, it seems to be an attrative property of matter. If so, mastery of gravity would entail figuring out how to produce or restrict production of VPP's.
Here's a comment:
Wow, both the article and the summary are rediculously hype saturated. Wake me when Apple starts contributing to Darwine and includes it in OS-X (the Darwine crew are doing a fine job, but Apple's got a knack for sleek integration - and I'm not switching from Linux/Wine until 'sleek' and 'integrated' are in the Darwine project.)
Then I'll even spring for an OS-X of my own to hack onto my box.
Meh. My last linux install was 500M. It still won't fit in 512k.
I saw nothing that says they don't write fat32 out to the flash there. From what it says, it does distributed writes, changing the location of a written block each time it's written. Meanwhile, the system determines what is used as the FS (on mine, it's JFFS).
My question: in what form on the device (ie: flash, sram, cmos) is the block translation table stored, and won't that wear out first?
How about a machine with 1024M of ram, 512M of it allocated as a RAM disk that has a single 512M loop device mounted as swap?
But does that answer the question of 'what conditions in a controlled quantum vacuum are necessary to generate the appropriate variables for a rational universe?'
Or even better:
'Is there some way to describe all the particle types in the universe using a single unified particle type?' - because this 24 elementary (6 quarks, 6 leptons, and their antiparticles) particles and their virtual friends (photons, nutrinos, 'gluons', etc) shit just seems way too arbitrary.
What's the dilemma?
The egg was born by something that wasn't quite yet a chicken.
Star Trek... that's the one with the laser swords, isn't it?
Meh. My girlfriend's mom is hooked on AOL. I've been trying for two years now to convince her that AOL is not where the internet comes from. They even got cable internet. It doesn't work. I put firefox on her machine, and while my girl uses it, her mom won't.
However, if AOL is offering their service for free, I think I'll wait a month and say, "You're not still paying for that, are you? AOL's offering it for free now." You know, just to be a good possibly future son-in-law.