But you see, Women getting abortions aren't running through hospitals trying to kill babies of women who wanted to have their babies. the prolifers haven't really taken any aggressive stances against people who want to have their babies. I think that you can be a self-respecting Open-Source advocate and take a primal he-said/she-said stance on the SCO debate. It's when people start trying to control your life that the noble stance is to attack the oppressors, even unjustly. I cite the American Revolution as an example.
I wouldn't be so quick to criticize him. He was asking questions, not making assumptions. Notice the two question marks? I for one did not understand the relationship between throughput and frequency, and logically I would have made the same assumptions that he did. Sure you can easily tell him to RTFM, or you can be constructive and set him right where he was wrong. If we didn't use heuristics and logic to figure things out, we wouldn't get very far at all. He was merely stating the conclusion that his logic brought him to and asking where it differed from reality.
The original poster does have a point though, if you interpret his recommendation to boycot WalMart to mean that we (the consumers) should change our habits so that we don't shop there as long as they don't care about us or our privacy. In other words, make it so that respecting customers translates into profits. And that's perfectly valid, actually the preferred, way for consumers to change behaviour of corporations in capitalistic system.
Let me start off by saying that I am neither an employee, stockholder, or even a regular customer of WalMart. Now, having already made up half of your minds on what I'm going to say, I'll present my argument to the half that is willing to listen to annother person's view.
I love the WalMart business model. They control many different markets at once, in fact, as stated in an NPR article , "It now has more revenue and more employees than any other U.S. company". WalMart has taken mom-and-pop shops out of business, Immediately everyone jumps to the conclusion that, elimination of competition, this is evil! But in fact, by controlling alot of consumer markets, WalMart is able to negotiate lower prices with distributers. We typically see monopolous corporations as evil, but I don't see WalMart in the same way as the rest. WalMart's stategy has always been to reduce costs, in effect, raising wages for employees and cutting prices for consumers. Unlike many other companies, WalMart has successfully and honestly worked it's way to the top. Bush Sr. even gave the founder of WalMart a "Medal of Freedom", the highest award given to a civilian. Don't get me wrong, i'm not arguing that US government is free from corruption, far from it; But personally, I see WalMart as a wonderful company.
I see women buy technology all of the time. Most of the time, they're not sure what it does, so they buy it anyway. I could see a lot of women walking into compusa and buying somthing they absolutely have no use for.
Even if I shut the game off my brain will keep trying to play. It's hard to describe and very frustrating
Maybe I have what is commonly refered to as ADHD or ADD. I can't count the times i've been playing UO and my parents will ask me if i want dinner, to do a chore, if i've done my homework etc. and I responded without coginition. I'll of course not do anything they ask, as I don't rememmber it. In class I'll play UO in my mind; but I consider it more of a daydream, than a disorder. I make straight A's for the most part, So I don't think that it reall hinders me. School is simple, most of the time there is ample time to daydream (And I go to a Catholic school).
I don't think that I have a disorder, I think that my subjective view of the world has alot of disagreement with the objective world, and consequently I end up living alot of my life in the former.
This is not to say that I am the mose severe case, and that all who claim they have ADHD are liars and fools. I'd say that taking an extreme to any side of this discussion would be foolish. There are always people at both ends of the spectrum as far as attention goes. Maybe some people can deal with it as I can, maybe some people should use medication.
What I can say, is that More people should at least try to deal with it, actively persue a way to get these objective and subjective realities to agree when neccesary, before immediately going to medication.
But then again, I'm one of those kids that won't take advil out of a fear of becoming dependant.;)
we were broken into And: snooping around Windsor opening people's doors
I don't understand the "broken into" part. If you don't like the door, what exactly gets "broken", seems like they just came and took stuff, unless they broke a tube, or somthing.
Re:Ouch for card counters...
on
RFID Casino Chips
·
· Score: 2, Informative
To validate the chips, which are worthless, for cash, which HAS worth, they would have to check the RFID. So: Microwaving them would kill the RF signal, yes, making the chips completely worthless, I don't see why this is a threat.
If we have 6 billion people, can't we just send one or two to see what happens? Why the decade of preparation? Just strap together some peices of columbia, point the rocket in the general direction, and leave the rest to HAL, he's reliable, right?
I thought it meant "Stile Project Forum" I thought maybe he was talking about the SPF being published by AOL, and other ISPs were considering it. As any of you SPFers know, that would be quite funny. "Welcome, You have goatse pron"
I'm sure I've managed to rip CDs to the hard drive as the same time I'm playing music. Sure it's audio vs video, but it amounts to the same thing don't it?
You don't seem to understand the difference between thinking of somthing and patenting somthing. the inventors of tivo thought of, not only the concept, but a way to produce and market the idea. Above all, they patented it. That's what business should be about. The progression of man comes when people want to come up with new ideas, not when they rip off other people's ideas.
Moore's law is 50% every year. so the margin of improvement is getting exponentially smaller. (32 to 16 to 8 etc). I'm talking about exponentially change.
Re:People can make them whatever they like.
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 1
valid argument, hadn't struck me.
I guess that has to do with how you set up the system, though. If I were building that system I wouldn't give nurses read/write priviliges where they weren't absolutely neccesary. I think the goal of any sysadmin is to make it Pretty Fucking Difficult(tm) for the user to go in and screw anything up. I don't think that a sysadmin should put his faith in the security of a user keeping his password in any case.
Re:People can make them whatever they like.
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 1
That's why I cut it in half for systems that I don't fully trust. Yeah, if joe cockbite decides to do a lookup on my password for his site, he can get access to my thread-subscription e-mail account.
I keep the long password for important sites/systems (root passwords, financial passwords etc). As far as people reading personal e-mails, etc, i frankly don't care very much;) i'm more concerned with my personal e-mail account name getting out to spammers than someone reading my personal letters.
My social security number and passwords don't come up too often in my conversations;)
Re:People can make them whatever they like.
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 1
I've yet to come accross a system with an obsurd max like that about anything significant; but when i came up with the password, i made sure it had all aspects of characters, numbers, caps, punctuation, symbols. I have come accross one system that didn't like it because apparently some of the characters weren't allowed, i simply removed them and replaced them with the respective numerals correlating with that symbol, i just rememmber that when i'm at that site, i change it. Like I said that's only happened once, so i can rememmber it. my PIN number doesn't use this scheme, and infact i have different PINs for my two different cards. As for security questions, I spam the answer box, so that even a randomization script would have a hard time figuring it out, as I have no need for them if I have memorized the single password.
I do suppose, that if a system didn't like the password, i could make the response to the "where did you go to school?" security question my actual password. I haven't really had a need to do this yet, though.
People can make them whatever they like.
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 1
6 years ago i memorized a 16 character string of random characters, i use it for everything, the first 8 for less important things, just in case. People can choose passwords as neccesary as they see fit. requiring passwords to be so odd isn't really protecting anything, as users will voluntarily do so if it is anything they care about. all that setting these standards does is make people use "master password" apps, (which I for one don't trust for a minute) and cause the "coat-hanger" e-mails to tech-support.;)
Quoted from Ray Kurzweil in "The Age of Spiritual Machines":
How will the power of computing continue to accelerate after Moore's Law dies? We are just beginning to explore the third dimension in chip design. The vast majority of today's chips are flat, whereas our brain is organized in three dimensions. We live in a three-dimensional world, so why not use the third dimension? Improvements in semiconductor materials, including superconducting circuits that don't generate heat, will enable us to develop chips -- that is, cubes -- with thousands of layers of circuitry that, combined with far smaller component geometries, will improve computing power by a factor of many millions. And there are more than enough other new computing technologies waiting in the wings -- nanotube, optical, crystalline, DNA, and quantum (which we'll visit in chapter 6, "Building New Brains") -- to keep the Law of Accelerating Returns going in the world of computation for a very long time
either way, moore's law is dead. Kurzweil suggests that after moore's law, an exponential boost will occour, with the advent of a new technology, not simply in materials, new research all together, in accordance with the aforementioned "thillbert's law";)
Well, it still leaves it dead by the year 2020. Moore's Law came along in 1958 just when it was needed and will have done its sixty years of service by 2018, a rather long period of time for a paradigm nowadays. Unlike Moore's Law, however, the Law of Accelerating Returns is not a temporary methodology. It is a basic attribute of the nature of time and chaos -- a sublaw of the Law of Time and Chaos -- and describes a wide range of apparently divergent phenomena and trends. In accordance with the Law of Accelerating Returns, another computational technology will pick up where Moore's Law will have left off, without missing a beat"
Down to the exact date! Well, at least they caught on before it was too late;)
Slashdot Mirror
But you see, Women getting abortions aren't running through hospitals trying to kill babies of women who wanted to have their babies. the prolifers haven't really taken any aggressive stances against people who want to have their babies. I think that you can be a self-respecting Open-Source advocate and take a primal he-said/she-said stance on the SCO debate. It's when people start trying to control your life that the noble stance is to attack the oppressors, even unjustly. I cite the American Revolution as an example.
please refrain from posting.
I wouldn't be so quick to criticize him. He was asking questions, not making assumptions. Notice the two question marks? I for one did not understand the relationship between throughput and frequency, and logically I would have made the same assumptions that he did. Sure you can easily tell him to RTFM, or you can be constructive and set him right where he was wrong. If we didn't use heuristics and logic to figure things out, we wouldn't get very far at all. He was merely stating the conclusion that his logic brought him to and asking where it differed from reality.
The original poster does have a point though, if you interpret his recommendation to boycot WalMart to mean that we (the consumers) should change our habits so that we don't shop there as long as they don't care about us or our privacy. In other words, make it so that respecting customers translates into profits. And that's perfectly valid, actually the preferred, way for consumers to change behaviour of corporations in capitalistic system.
Let me start off by saying that I am neither an employee, stockholder, or even a regular customer of WalMart. Now, having already made up half of your minds on what I'm going to say, I'll present my argument to the half that is willing to listen to annother person's view.
I love the WalMart business model. They control many different markets at once, in fact, as stated in an NPR article , "It now has more revenue and more employees than any other U.S. company". WalMart has taken mom-and-pop shops out of business, Immediately everyone jumps to the conclusion that, elimination of competition, this is evil! But in fact, by controlling alot of consumer markets, WalMart is able to negotiate lower prices with distributers. We typically see monopolous corporations as evil, but I don't see WalMart in the same way as the rest. WalMart's stategy has always been to reduce costs, in effect, raising wages for employees and cutting prices for consumers. Unlike many other companies, WalMart has successfully and honestly worked it's way to the top. Bush Sr. even gave the founder of WalMart a "Medal of Freedom", the highest award given to a civilian. Don't get me wrong, i'm not arguing that US government is free from corruption, far from it; But personally, I see WalMart as a wonderful company.
I see women buy technology all of the time. Most of the time, they're not sure what it does, so they buy it anyway. I could see a lot of women walking into compusa and buying somthing they absolutely have no use for.
Even if I shut the game off my brain will keep trying to play. It's hard to describe and very frustrating
;)
Maybe I have what is commonly refered to as ADHD or ADD. I can't count the times i've been playing UO and my parents will ask me if i want dinner, to do a chore, if i've done my homework etc. and I responded without coginition. I'll of course not do anything they ask, as I don't rememmber it. In class I'll play UO in my mind; but I consider it more of a daydream, than a disorder. I make straight A's for the most part, So I don't think that it reall hinders me. School is simple, most of the time there is ample time to daydream (And I go to a Catholic school).
I don't think that I have a disorder, I think that my subjective view of the world has alot of disagreement with the objective world, and consequently I end up living alot of my life in the former.
This is not to say that I am the mose severe case, and that all who claim they have ADHD are liars and fools. I'd say that taking an extreme to any side of this discussion would be foolish. There are always people at both ends of the spectrum as far as attention goes. Maybe some people can deal with it as I can, maybe some people should use medication.
What I can say, is that More people should at least try to deal with it, actively persue a way to get these objective and subjective realities to agree when neccesary, before immediately going to medication.
But then again, I'm one of those kids that won't take advil out of a fear of becoming dependant.
that should have been "lock" instead of "like", I'm sorry, my mind is already in bed.
we were broken into
And: snooping around Windsor opening people's doors
I don't understand the "broken into" part. If you don't like the door, what exactly gets "broken", seems like they just came and took stuff, unless they broke a tube, or somthing.
To validate the chips, which are worthless, for cash, which HAS worth, they would have to check the RFID. So: Microwaving them would kill the RF signal, yes, making the chips completely worthless, I don't see why this is a threat.
*Watches as linus releases an embedded back-door to make a supercomputer to bring rise to the new world power, Australia*
If we have 6 billion people, can't we just send one or two to see what happens? Why the decade of preparation? Just strap together some peices of columbia, point the rocket in the general direction, and leave the rest to HAL, he's reliable, right?
I thought it meant "Stile Project Forum" I thought maybe he was talking about the SPF being published by AOL, and other ISPs were considering it. As any of you SPFers know, that would be quite funny. "Welcome, You have goatse pron"
sorry, was missing an italic termination in there somewhere ;)
I'm sure I've managed to rip CDs to the hard drive as the same time I'm playing music. Sure it's audio vs video, but it amounts to the same thing don't it?
You don't seem to understand the difference between thinking of somthing and patenting somthing. the inventors of tivo thought of, not only the concept, but a way to produce and market the idea. Above all, they patented it. That's what business should be about. The progression of man comes when people want to come up with new ideas, not when they rip off other people's ideas.
Moore's law is 50% every year. so the margin of improvement is getting exponentially smaller. (32 to 16 to 8 etc). I'm talking about exponentially change.
valid argument, hadn't struck me. I guess that has to do with how you set up the system, though. If I were building that system I wouldn't give nurses read/write priviliges where they weren't absolutely neccesary. I think the goal of any sysadmin is to make it Pretty Fucking Difficult(tm) for the user to go in and screw anything up. I don't think that a sysadmin should put his faith in the security of a user keeping his password in any case.
That's why I cut it in half for systems that I don't fully trust. Yeah, if joe cockbite decides to do a lookup on my password for his site, he can get access to my thread-subscription e-mail account.
;) i'm more concerned with my personal e-mail account name getting out to spammers than someone reading my personal letters.
;)
I keep the long password for important sites/systems (root passwords, financial passwords etc). As far as people reading personal e-mails, etc, i frankly don't care very much
My social security number and passwords don't come up too often in my conversations
I've yet to come accross a system with an obsurd max like that about anything significant; but when i came up with the password, i made sure it had all aspects of characters, numbers, caps, punctuation, symbols. I have come accross one system that didn't like it because apparently some of the characters weren't allowed, i simply removed them and replaced them with the respective numerals correlating with that symbol, i just rememmber that when i'm at that site, i change it. Like I said that's only happened once, so i can rememmber it. my PIN number doesn't use this scheme, and infact i have different PINs for my two different cards. As for security questions, I spam the answer box, so that even a randomization script would have a hard time figuring it out, as I have no need for them if I have memorized the single password. I do suppose, that if a system didn't like the password, i could make the response to the "where did you go to school?" security question my actual password. I haven't really had a need to do this yet, though.
6 years ago i memorized a 16 character string of random characters, i use it for everything, the first 8 for less important things, just in case. People can choose passwords as neccesary as they see fit. requiring passwords to be so odd isn't really protecting anything, as users will voluntarily do so if it is anything they care about. all that setting these standards does is make people use "master password" apps, (which I for one don't trust for a minute) and cause the "coat-hanger" e-mails to tech-support. ;)
Quoted from Ray Kurzweil in "The Age of Spiritual Machines":
;)
How will the power of computing continue to accelerate after Moore's Law dies? We are just beginning to explore the third dimension in chip design. The vast majority of today's chips are flat, whereas our brain is organized in three dimensions. We live in a three-dimensional world, so why not use the third dimension? Improvements in semiconductor materials, including superconducting circuits that don't generate heat, will enable us to develop chips -- that is, cubes -- with thousands of layers of circuitry that, combined with far smaller component geometries, will improve computing power by a factor of many millions. And there are more than enough other new computing technologies waiting in the wings -- nanotube, optical, crystalline, DNA, and quantum (which we'll visit in chapter 6, "Building New Brains") -- to keep the Law of Accelerating Returns going in the world of computation for a very long time
either way, moore's law is dead. Kurzweil suggests that after moore's law, an exponential boost will occour, with the advent of a new technology, not simply in materials, new research all together, in accordance with the aforementioned "thillbert's law"
I see that Intel finally got around to reading The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray KurzweilChapter 1, (published in 2000, I might add)
;)
"So Where Does That Leave Moore's Law?
Well, it still leaves it dead by the year 2020. Moore's Law came along in 1958 just when it was needed and will have done its sixty years of service by 2018, a rather long period of time for a paradigm nowadays. Unlike Moore's Law, however, the Law of Accelerating Returns is not a temporary methodology. It is a basic attribute of the nature of time and chaos -- a sublaw of the Law of Time and Chaos -- and describes a wide range of apparently divergent phenomena and trends. In accordance with the Law of Accelerating Returns, another computational technology will pick up where Moore's Law will have left off, without missing a beat"
Down to the exact date! Well, at least they caught on before it was too late