No, it mocks people who believe in invisible things for which there is absolutely no evidence,
"Have evidence" and "able to show evidence to others" aren't the same thing. For example, if you see someone do a crime, you have good reasons to believe he is guilty of a crime, but that doesn't mean that you could prove it to anyone else.
This distinction seems to be a source of much confusion.
What is reincarnated however is the negative karma, the suffering you have caused yourself and others is recincarnated into the cycle of birth and death. The good karma is 'absorbed' into the Cosmic Buddha.
Everyone is a Buddha, no matter how "bad" or "wicked" they are. It is a matter of realizing your true Buddha nature, the perfection of yourself and others sans the delusional thinking.
Doing Zen meditation (maybe koan study) and following the ten precepts is the only way to realize your true Buddha nature.
The part which I've never understood is... why would you want to ? Why would anyone want to be absorbed into this Cosmic Buddha ?
The ten precepts are not too different than the ten commandments intrestingly enough.
Not really surprising. Communities which don't outlaw murder won't last long.
A cheap database is not necessarily a reliable database. Since an open-source (OS) database is not owned by any company, there is no final person who takes responsibility for any error in the database. By contrast, DB2 from IBM is a commercial database, and IBM guarantees error-free operation.
The world of databases must be very different from the world of every other kind of application, then, since every license I've ever seen has specifically denied any responsibility. Given this, I'd like to know if DB2 license guarantee means that, in the case of error, you'll get the license fee back, IBM pays some limited damages, or IBM pays all damages.
My personal opinion is that there's few things more worthwhile to do with your money than experiencing the incredible variation that this world has to offer.
Or you could exchange this world for those beyond, by buying a good book, comic or movie (manga or anime are especially good for that), and letting this world be led to Hell by its leaders as they're apparently trying to do, since there's not much you can do to stop it. The girls are sexier and wear skimpier clothes, you can't pick up a stomach bug, and there's no chance that some lunatic will capture and kill you due to religious or political fanaticism. Nor will you get hassled by overzealous security measures on the airport, or blown up when those security measures nonetheless fail to capture actual bad guys. On the bad side, you can still suffer from jet lag if you picked a good enough book;(.
I'm still debating if the scripts made the web better or worse?
Worse. I have a 1GHz computer that's regularly brought to its knee-equivalents because every open web page consumes processing power thanks to scripting. And I can't disable it either, since then the pages that have "onClick" scripts insteads of anchor tags for navigation won't work. Then there are all the wonderful exploits that dynamic content opens up, not to mention various particularly annoying ads that jump to the screen suddenly as I read the web page.
No, the only ones who benefit from scripting on the web are the spammers, scammers and malicious crackers.
Actually, I believe that true AI will be developed before fusion power. After all, it would be extremely usefull for Japanese dating sim games, and is thus getting far more funding than fusion power that can merely save us from extinction.
Of course giving a true AI into the hands of computer geeks may bring up some ethical issues...
The term "planet" will never be officially defined because no one besides some obsessive-compulsive grammar nazis cares whether some dead rock floating through outer space should be called "planet" or "planetoid".
Not a flamebait nor a troll, but the simple truth. Real scientists have better things to do than play around with semantics, and no one cares what the armchair astronomists say.
think of everyone technology will be saving and many stories will not even reach the evening news for US, EU... many.
A natural looking death by accident or illness is really best for everyone.
Except the person who was murdered, who may or may not be a terrorist - after all, if the story does not reach the evening news for the US and EU, there's little to stop various governments from eliminating people they simply don't happen to like, now is there ?
All according to Wikipedia, Windows had preemptive multitasking in Windows 3.0, which came out (as in a stable release version) in 1990, and Linus started work on the Linux kernel in 1991.
Windows 3.0 had cooperative multitasking. Windows 95 had pre-emptive multitasking.
Although it is rarely used in larger systems, Microsoft Windows prior to Windows 95 and Windows NT, and Mac OS prior to Mac OS X both used cooperative multitasking to enable the running of multiple applications simultaneously.
Not on this I'm not and I specifically noted that there was a difference between preemption and multi-threading. You should so some research on these subjects and here is one link to help you learn when Linux got preemption:
The post you referred to said that the kernel got pre-emption; that is, the patch it discusses allows a process to be pre-empted (task switched) in the middle of a system call. This is not the same as pre-emptive multitasking (which Linux has had from the beginning), which means that programs are task-switched by the kernel without them having to do anything to help (as opposed to cooperative multitasking, where a program is responsible to returning control to the kernel every now and then).
As a side note, when under load even a Linux kernel with in-kernel pre-emption disabled feels more responsive than Windows XP.
I don't think IBM is going to be so respectful; more likely they'd leave the festering corpse for the buzzards and coyote to feed on.
But then the damned thing won't be confused if it rises up again. If you bury it to the crossroads, it doesn't know which way to go.
But that brings up a more important question: Don't schools teach how to get rid of the undead anymore ? That would explain why we have so many pasty-skinned people who shy away from Sun here nowadays...
Even if you forget an experience, it is still a part of you. It has shaped your personality, who you really are. New experiences constantly modify the current whole, it's true, but it's a continuous matter. Changing a fundamental experience in the past would result in a remaking of the entire personality from that point on.
So if I suffer brain damage - for example, get a bullet through my brains and manage to survive - and as a result my personality is altered, am I now dead ? I seem to recall some guy working on a railroad construction having just that happen to him...
A complete replacement of the "self".
Um, no. Not unless my whole personality depended solely on that one thing. Of course it doesn't - my personality has many things similar to when I was, say, 7 years old, and from what my parents told me the core elements have always been there. I'm not just a sum of my memories, and even if I was, nothin sort of changing every last memory would cause a "complete replacement of the self".
It makes no difference that the genetic code is the same.
Do you have any proof of that, from studying identical twins for example ?
Off topic, I similarly hold the opinion that if reincarnation existed it would be completely irrelevant. If I can't remember anything from my previous life and I won't remember this life from my next one, then as far as I'm concerned this is the only life I have. The previous and next incarnations would be complete strangers, and I should care about their circumstances exactly as much as I would about a complete stranger's.
You are equating "reincarnation" with "reincarnation with permanent total memory loss". While I doubt that we have a season ticket to this world, your arguments won't hold for all models of reincarnation.
How about trying to answer my point instead - which is that since you accumulate new experiences all the time, your total store of experiences is different now than it was just a few moments ago, and therefore your past self is by your own definition dead ?
Someone gets irreversable amnesia and forgets everything about their life. Would you consider the original person dead? I would. And at how much memory loss do you draw the line between "this is a new person and the old one is dead" and "this is the same person"?
So where do you draw the line ? I can't remember much beyond my 6th birthday, so am I some weird parasite that has taken the place of that kid ?
People's past experiences are a huge part of the people themselves. If you change the past, it is equivalent to murdering every single person in the present who is affected by the change and replacing them with someone similar.
I guess you'd best rip your eyes out, then, before you see something that alters your store of past experiences and therefore kills you.
Ups, too late. If you'd read this message, then your total store of experiences is already different than it was beforehand. Kalirion (728907) is dead, long live Kalirion (728908) !
It would be immoral to do this to stop a major world war, much less "save" a few people's lives.
It is even less moral to declare something immoral without bothering to think it through.
I think we both agree that this tech is close to useless, and that our argument was because you were relating TCB with TC or DRM (and they are not but far related). If that's not the case, please let me know.
The argument, as far as I can tell, is because I thought this technology as something you'd use to access a Web mail or something with a public (library, net cafe, etc) computer. Obviously, in such a situation, you'd have no way of knowing if the computer actually implements any security technology. You, on the other hand, seem to be referring to computer you have physical control over, but which may have it's operating system compromised.
In any case, yes, this technology appears pretty useless against any kind of serious attempt at spying - or nonserious either: I'd imagine it being much easier to see what characters someone is clicking on screen than what characters he's typing.
The reason I jumped into conclusions is that I was trying to figure out a secure way of logging into my home server from a random computer a few years ago. Part of the stuff was trivial - put a Java SSH client on my webpage - but access control became a problem. The only really secure solution I came up with was a one-time pad, preferably prefixed with a static password check (to prevent someone from exhausting the pad and therefore denying me access by entering random garbage). I couldn't find a suitable program to use with Debian, so the project was a failure:(.
And even if I had succeeded, I'd still left myself open for a hacked Java runtime that would let me login and then hijacked the session. Sigh - I guess you just can't win against black hats:(.
Yeah - a chainsaw, a garbage compacter and a wood chipper. And a rocket to launch the fragments into space.
There's always the chance that someone might glue the fragments back together. Melt the darn thing, I say. If you don't have actual smelting utilities, I'd imagine that an arc welder would work fine too, if applied to the whole surface area of each plate. Or just coat it the plates with magnesium and set them ablaze.
I know you're trying to be extremist when you mention a computer in a net cafe, but to be clear, nothing is aimed at securing a computer in a net cafe. Not the TCB, not the mechanism proposed in the article.
The summary says that this is meant to keep the password from being spied by the machine I use to connect to the server. However, I trust my home machine - which I manage - more than any remote server which I don't manage. And a work computer is likely going to be managed by the same person who manages the server, so if he's incompetent the servers going to be compromised anyway.
So, I just don't see this having any use outside net cafes or other public computers.
Simply because you'd have a hell of an environment to secure. Even IF you could have a perfectly trusted (not DRM trusted) computer in a net cafe, someone could just put a video camera pointing at you keyboard and monitor, for instance.
True, but I was under the impression that we're talking about defeating casual spying, not a concentrated attempt to get the password from you specifically - and if we are, someone could just torture it out of you.
I wrote a patch that mostly fix the sound popping issues, find it here. Let me know if it works for you.
But it risks deadlocking the system. Yet another reason to get SCHED_ISO (soft realtime, gets reduced to normal scheduling after 3 consecutive seconds of > 70% CPU utilization, doesn't require root) into the vanilla kernel...
Games like WOW require a lot of silly repetive actions that *are* better for a machine to perform, so why would I want to perform them myself?
It's not what you want to do, it's what the game company wants you to do: spend months paying them the subscription fee. And really, in what game does the actual content last months ? None. That's why they need to add repetition, and take a dim view on anyone who automates performing that.
The standard model of handcrafted gameworld simply doesn't allow perpetual gameplay. As AI progresses, it's likely that we start seeing semi-dynamic worlds where new content is generated algorithmically; fully dynamic games would be possible even with today's technology, but would run the risk of upsetting the Horde or the Alliance if their side loses.
It's actually an example of social darwinism: government has the power to steal huge amounts of money from people as long as they say it is "to help them", so they do it.
Social darwinism refers to the attitude of "the poor deserve their lot and the rich deserve their lot" and justifying this attitude with a twisted parody of Darwin's theory of evolution. It has nothing to do with taxes; if anything, taxing people and using the acquired money to help the poor is the exact opposite of it.
They end up blowing the money on whatever government wants (anything to enrich and empower themselves, usually).
Perhaps. But what does that have to do with social security ?
Meanwhile, the system collapses: only due to the time delay effect we won't know about it for 30 years. Anyone who dares to try to repair the collapsed system is falsely accused of "you want to take away people's retirement!!!".
Social security systems have been in place for longer than 30 years, and the societies that have them aren't showing any signs of collapse. And a fix that includes taking away retirement - which logically means that you'll starve to death when you can't work anymore - is understandably reviled by anyone who is going to be affected by it; that includes anyone who doesn't die young and isn't wealthy enough to survive without working.
But perhaps you could explain how you'd fix these systems in such a way that the old people and unemployed won't starve ?
Or does it make much of a difference that the corp has to go to the government first, present a business plan, and then the government takes away your property, crying "eminent domain", and hands it over to the corp ?
In such a case, does the corporation in question deserve the lion's share of the blame?
Hell yes. A mob boss who hires thugs to do his dirty work is no less a criminal. Why on Earth would it be different when the thug being hired is the government ?
No, although they may be a villain. The blame lies with the government, the courts, and in ourselves.
I guess Stalin had less blame for the millions his regime murdered, then, than the people who did the dirty work ? I mean, it was on his orders, sure, but that doesn't mean he gets the lion's share of the blame, right ?
Slashdot Mirror
"Have evidence" and "able to show evidence to others" aren't the same thing. For example, if you see someone do a crime, you have good reasons to believe he is guilty of a crime, but that doesn't mean that you could prove it to anyone else.
This distinction seems to be a source of much confusion.
The part which I've never understood is... why would you want to ? Why would anyone want to be absorbed into this Cosmic Buddha ?
Not really surprising. Communities which don't outlaw murder won't last long.
The world of databases must be very different from the world of every other kind of application, then, since every license I've ever seen has specifically denied any responsibility. Given this, I'd like to know if DB2 license guarantee means that, in the case of error, you'll get the license fee back, IBM pays some limited damages, or IBM pays all damages.
I find the last option quite unlikely.
Or you could exchange this world for those beyond, by buying a good book, comic or movie (manga or anime are especially good for that), and letting this world be led to Hell by its leaders as they're apparently trying to do, since there's not much you can do to stop it. The girls are sexier and wear skimpier clothes, you can't pick up a stomach bug, and there's no chance that some lunatic will capture and kill you due to religious or political fanaticism. Nor will you get hassled by overzealous security measures on the airport, or blown up when those security measures nonetheless fail to capture actual bad guys. On the bad side, you can still suffer from jet lag if you picked a good enough book ;(.
Just offering a cynic's perspective on things...
Worse. I have a 1GHz computer that's regularly brought to its knee-equivalents because every open web page consumes processing power thanks to scripting. And I can't disable it either, since then the pages that have "onClick" scripts insteads of anchor tags for navigation won't work. Then there are all the wonderful exploits that dynamic content opens up, not to mention various particularly annoying ads that jump to the screen suddenly as I read the web page.
No, the only ones who benefit from scripting on the web are the spammers, scammers and malicious crackers.
Actually, I believe that true AI will be developed before fusion power. After all, it would be extremely usefull for Japanese dating sim games, and is thus getting far more funding than fusion power that can merely save us from extinction.
Of course giving a true AI into the hands of computer geeks may bring up some ethical issues...
I dunno, how would you consider your body ?-)
The term "planet" will never be officially defined because no one besides some obsessive-compulsive grammar nazis cares whether some dead rock floating through outer space should be called "planet" or "planetoid".
Not a flamebait nor a troll, but the simple truth. Real scientists have better things to do than play around with semantics, and no one cares what the armchair astronomists say.
Well, the energy output from the reaction breaks the reaction chamber, after which the reaction stops since there's nothing keeping it going anymore.
Why, what did you think would happen ? A nuclear fusion explosion ? You do realize that those need a regular fission nuclear bomb to trigger, right ?
Except the person who was murdered, who may or may not be a terrorist - after all, if the story does not reach the evening news for the US and EU, there's little to stop various governments from eliminating people they simply don't happen to like, now is there ?
Windows 3.0 had cooperative multitasking. Windows 95 had pre-emptive multitasking.
From Wikipedia:
The post you referred to said that the kernel got pre-emption; that is, the patch it discusses allows a process to be pre-empted (task switched) in the middle of a system call. This is not the same as pre-emptive multitasking (which Linux has had from the beginning), which means that programs are task-switched by the kernel without them having to do anything to help (as opposed to cooperative multitasking, where a program is responsible to returning control to the kernel every now and then).
As a side note, when under load even a Linux kernel with in-kernel pre-emption disabled feels more responsive than Windows XP.
But then the damned thing won't be confused if it rises up again. If you bury it to the crossroads, it doesn't know which way to go.
But that brings up a more important question: Don't schools teach how to get rid of the undead anymore ? That would explain why we have so many pasty-skinned people who shy away from Sun here nowadays...
So if I suffer brain damage - for example, get a bullet through my brains and manage to survive - and as a result my personality is altered, am I now dead ? I seem to recall some guy working on a railroad construction having just that happen to him...
Um, no. Not unless my whole personality depended solely on that one thing. Of course it doesn't - my personality has many things similar to when I was, say, 7 years old, and from what my parents told me the core elements have always been there. I'm not just a sum of my memories, and even if I was, nothin sort of changing every last memory would cause a "complete replacement of the self".
Do you have any proof of that, from studying identical twins for example ?
You are equating "reincarnation" with "reincarnation with permanent total memory loss". While I doubt that we have a season ticket to this world, your arguments won't hold for all models of reincarnation.
How about trying to answer my point instead - which is that since you accumulate new experiences all the time, your total store of experiences is different now than it was just a few moments ago, and therefore your past self is by your own definition dead ?
So where do you draw the line ? I can't remember much beyond my 6th birthday, so am I some weird parasite that has taken the place of that kid ?
I guess you'd best rip your eyes out, then, before you see something that alters your store of past experiences and therefore kills you.
Ups, too late. If you'd read this message, then your total store of experiences is already different than it was beforehand. Kalirion (728907) is dead, long live Kalirion (728908) !
It is even less moral to declare something immoral without bothering to think it through.
The argument, as far as I can tell, is because I thought this technology as something you'd use to access a Web mail or something with a public (library, net cafe, etc) computer. Obviously, in such a situation, you'd have no way of knowing if the computer actually implements any security technology. You, on the other hand, seem to be referring to computer you have physical control over, but which may have it's operating system compromised.
In any case, yes, this technology appears pretty useless against any kind of serious attempt at spying - or nonserious either: I'd imagine it being much easier to see what characters someone is clicking on screen than what characters he's typing.
The reason I jumped into conclusions is that I was trying to figure out a secure way of logging into my home server from a random computer a few years ago. Part of the stuff was trivial - put a Java SSH client on my webpage - but access control became a problem. The only really secure solution I came up with was a one-time pad, preferably prefixed with a static password check (to prevent someone from exhausting the pad and therefore denying me access by entering random garbage). I couldn't find a suitable program to use with Debian, so the project was a failure :(.
And even if I had succeeded, I'd still left myself open for a hacked Java runtime that would let me login and then hijacked the session. Sigh - I guess you just can't win against black hats :(.
They don't. Instead they just use Sony's batteries. Takes care of both data and thief in one blow.
There's always the chance that someone might glue the fragments back together. Melt the darn thing, I say. If you don't have actual smelting utilities, I'd imagine that an arc welder would work fine too, if applied to the whole surface area of each plate. Or just coat it the plates with magnesium and set them ablaze.
The summary says that this is meant to keep the password from being spied by the machine I use to connect to the server. However, I trust my home machine - which I manage - more than any remote server which I don't manage. And a work computer is likely going to be managed by the same person who manages the server, so if he's incompetent the servers going to be compromised anyway.
So, I just don't see this having any use outside net cafes or other public computers.
True, but I was under the impression that we're talking about defeating casual spying, not a concentrated attempt to get the password from you specifically - and if we are, someone could just torture it out of you.
Hah ! My website shows I've been working as a software engineer since 1497 !
But it risks deadlocking the system. Yet another reason to get SCHED_ISO (soft realtime, gets reduced to normal scheduling after 3 consecutive seconds of > 70% CPU utilization, doesn't require root) into the vanilla kernel...
It's not what you want to do, it's what the game company wants you to do: spend months paying them the subscription fee. And really, in what game does the actual content last months ? None. That's why they need to add repetition, and take a dim view on anyone who automates performing that.
The standard model of handcrafted gameworld simply doesn't allow perpetual gameplay. As AI progresses, it's likely that we start seeing semi-dynamic worlds where new content is generated algorithmically; fully dynamic games would be possible even with today's technology, but would run the risk of upsetting the Horde or the Alliance if their side loses.
Social darwinism refers to the attitude of "the poor deserve their lot and the rich deserve their lot" and justifying this attitude with a twisted parody of Darwin's theory of evolution. It has nothing to do with taxes; if anything, taxing people and using the acquired money to help the poor is the exact opposite of it.
Perhaps. But what does that have to do with social security ?
Social security systems have been in place for longer than 30 years, and the societies that have them aren't showing any signs of collapse. And a fix that includes taking away retirement - which logically means that you'll starve to death when you can't work anymore - is understandably reviled by anyone who is going to be affected by it; that includes anyone who doesn't die young and isn't wealthy enough to survive without working.
But perhaps you could explain how you'd fix these systems in such a way that the old people and unemployed won't starve ?
Hell yes. A mob boss who hires thugs to do his dirty work is no less a criminal. Why on Earth would it be different when the thug being hired is the government ?
I guess Stalin had less blame for the millions his regime murdered, then, than the people who did the dirty work ? I mean, it was on his orders, sure, but that doesn't mean he gets the lion's share of the blame, right ?