The narrative on the opposite page explained that you can think of the brain as an integrator of thoughts and sensations, and that hallucination represents a "crossed wire" in the integration center so that the brain perceives a thought as a sensation.
I once red an article (I think it was the New England Journal of Medicine, but this was years ago), that talked about hallucinations being communication faults in the neuralnet of our brain. I don't remember how it worked out exactly, but they have actually demonstrated that interrupted communication will result in information entering the net being transofrmed into other information when exiting, and the resulting information is not going to be random, but quite consistent, and that varying input will result in _same_ output (which is how hallucinations persist). Since our brains always must interpret everything (there is no such thing as feeling noise), any bogus info will be interpreted into *something*, be it voices, visions, feelings, ideas, etc.
I did some googling, and this article apperas to describe somethig similar, but seems way over my head with those formulas.
Sometimes it makes more sense to use one language in a particular field regardless of which country you're in. It makes it easier for professionals from different countries to communicate clearly.
Just like Italian is the language used in music notation, Latin in medical and botanical terms, English is the de facto language of computers.
I think a really sneaky way for a laptop to "phone home" would be to run your own time server and configure the laptop to use it to set its clock. (On OS X it's in System Prefs/Date and Time/Set Date and Time automatically). Then watch the logs for the time server for where the requests come from.
The reason wireless electricity is a problem is that as distance increases linearly, power drops off exponentially
No that's not the reason, just pick a medium that can be focused. I'm sure you can transmit power wirelessly using microwave or laser very long distances. (Consider that nearly all of the energy we use on Earth has been "transmitted wirelessly" from the Sun).
The problem is safety - if anything or anyone happens to be in the path of such a transmission, they get fried.
Apache Tomcat versus "Apache, the Web Server". The Java Tomcat is faster under load, it serves more pages.
This has got to be an urban legend of some sort. I cannot see how Tomcat would ever be faster than Apache. If what you say were the case, why would people go through all the trouble of putting Tomcat behind Apache with mod_jk, etc to seprate static content serving from dynamic requests?
I can also say that my unscientific tests of Tomcat vs Python running under mod_python showed no clear winner. The point is that Python does not proclaim to be ultra-fast, while Java does.
unless you expect your first-born to be either masculine or feminine.
English grammar does not have genders, which is why most people don't
realize how screwed up this sounds (because they don't know what
the word gender means). In many (most?) other languages words have
geneders, e.g. in French a table is of feminine gender and in Russian it's
masculine. Gender is purely a grammar term. Confusing the words "gender" and "sex" is equivalent to using "it" when referring to a person.
I know this is OT, but WTF is the topic today anyway?
I find this RFC a bit limited because it does not seem to cover power lines. The protocol could easily include a provision to control devices that are merely plugged-in to the power outlet. A later version could extend this support to TCP capable nano-devices that could, for example, infiltrate common appliances (e.g. phones, fridges, tv's) and report back over powerlines on their status.
So I doubt this RFC would gain adoption without those things.
One relatively new topic in computing that hasn't seen much mainstream press (yet) is OLAP or multidimensional databases
I am by no means an OLAP expert, but back in 1995 (I think) I worked on a project where we analyzed huge amounts of antimicrobial resistance data, and I looked at a lot of multidimentional databases, read a lot of magazine articles on the asubject, etc. I remember that back then, the traditional database was considered obsolete. I remember Informix went on a shopping spree acquiring Red Brick and a few other non-traditional database vendors. They also had this hot new product which would give you a completely new perspective on databases, and I can't even remember the name of the darn thing... The database market seemed as hot as the.com in 99.
The funny thing is that almost 10 years later, Informix, having gone through a mini-Enron financial crisis has been bought by IBM, noone even remembers startups like Red Brick and Oracle pretty much rules the db marketplace, and their product is a very traditional database primarily interfaced with via SQL... Not an object-oriented, not a multi-dimentional, not an OLAP database.
As far as multidimentional analysis - Microsoft Excel (of all applications) used to provide a pretty capable tool back then and still does now - it's called pivottable.
IME, though, building through the ports system (including building packages for rollout) is easier than building RPMs. This might influence how many actually started to build from sources themselves.
I agree. My theory is that the easyness of ports comes from its reliance on make. Make is familiar to most people who have ever compiled anything, and "make fetch" and "make install" are just very intuitive.
RPM, on the other hand (and same, BTW is true with dpkg and apt - the only other systems I'm more or less familiar with) has a pretty complex interface. I always find myself reading the rpm manpage, and arriving at "rpmbuild -bb mypkg.spec" is not simple (at least to me).
It's not impossible that the underlying mechanics or RPM or Apt are actually superior to that of ports (I can't speak to that due to lack of familiarity with those systems), but it's the interface and the openness (it's all makefiles, nothing else) where the ports clearly win when it comes to downloading and compiling packages from source code, and especially troubleshooting. When a port fails (rare but it happens), it's usually pretty trivial to identify the cause of failure.
Any BSD user will swear by "build-from-source" and talk about how the ports are so great (and indeed they are).
And any RedHat user won't really understand what the BSD user is talking about and will just keep on using binary rpms found from google or rpmfind. In a desparate moment one will use any rpm that seems to do the trick - nevermind security, PGP sigs, all that stuff...
Seriously speaking, building from source is the UNIX way in my opinion. There is just something very heart warming and satisfying about seeing all the compiler messages scroll every time you install a package. (And try installing the native Java from BSD ports - several hours of pure joy!)
You can eliminate the threading problem by running the prefork MPM which effectively makes Apache2 behave just like Apache1 in the way it forks processes and serves one request at a time per process.
I can't entirely agree with what Rasmus is saying here. The code for handling of the incoming requests in the MPM is entirely new, cleaner, leaner and better in every respect than Apache 1.
Also, what Rasmus is saying makes one believe that threading is what Apache 2 is all about. First, Apache 1 can be threaded (and is on windows), second, the pre-fork model isn't going anywhere, it's probably the most popular way to use Apache 2 and will be this way always IMO.
I think the difference in price has to do with the VAT, which you'll have to pay at the customs when you get back, unless, that is, you can somehow sneak it by (which would be illegal). When you buy the laptop in the UK, the VAT is already paid.
Thttpd is good for some things, but don't think it's a full alternative to Apache. We use thttpd to serve http on ftp2.freebsd.org, and for something like this it is great, because speed is all we care about. On the other hand if verstatility is an issue, stick with Apache. It is not bloated and will perform really well if properly configured.
My personal take on tools that claim to be small, fast, secure and "better than what the rest of the world uses" is that you try them, then sooner or later end up switching back to the "old school" - I've done it with both qmail/sendmail and djbdns/bind...
the vast majority of all the problems we are having are due to problems with primarily Microsoft Outlook, as well as other Microsoft software.
Any proof or facts to point this out, or is this just another
one of your false blanket statements?
Proof: here, here and here; and there is plenty more where that came from, these are just top three for today - note how they all exploit MS Explorer vulnerabilities.
Now, anyone semi-profficient in visual basic can write a very destructive virus.
Yet another blanket statement with no proof or backup.
It is pretty well known that many of the e-mail worms out there were written in visualbasic. here is an example.
In any of your posts I have yet to see any facts, the only fact that you have presented is that you don't have any resources or any backup/proof for anything you say.
Well, I'm sorry you are so uninformed that you don't know about these things already.
And Microsoft, while their security practices are abysmal, aren't the only ones to blame.
So who do you suggest is to blame, if not Microsoft?
The article makes an assertion that proliferation of worms will negatively impact freedoms of the Internet. Microsoft created Outlook and Explorer, both of which can be made to execute arbitrary code on an unsuspecting user's machine, which is the vulnerability exploited by literally all of the worms circulating out there right now, and your suggestion is that someone other than the party responsible for those vulnerabilities is to blame? This is sort of like saying that criminals aren't the only ones to blame for their crimes.
will the proliferation of broadband Internet access deal a serious blow to current freedoms on the Internet
No, but the proliferation of crappy Microsoft software will. In fact it has already.
I find amuzing that I actually got moded down and got a whole slew of passionate responses about bashing Microsoft. Perhaps M$ has reached such a point where people are already tired of being dissatisfied and would prefer to just "let it be".
My statement is still true - the vast majority of all the problems we are having are due to problems with primarily Microsoft Outlook, as well as other Microsoft software.
There used to be days when virus writers used assembly. Now, anyone semi-profficient in visual basic can write a very destructive virus. And Microsoft is to blame for that. Nothing personal against them, but it is their fault, and that's a fact, sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
I once red an article (I think it was the New England Journal of Medicine, but this was years ago), that talked about hallucinations being communication faults in the neuralnet of our brain. I don't remember how it worked out exactly, but they have actually demonstrated that interrupted communication will result in information entering the net being transofrmed into other information when exiting, and the resulting information is not going to be random, but quite consistent, and that varying input will result in _same_ output (which is how hallucinations persist). Since our brains always must interpret everything (there is no such thing as feeling noise), any bogus info will be interpreted into *something*, be it voices, visions, feelings, ideas, etc.
I did some googling, and this article apperas to describe somethig similar, but seems way over my head with those formulas.
It does exist, it is just not Open Source (at least yet).
Just like Italian is the language used in music notation, Latin in medical and botanical terms, English is the de facto language of computers.
Here is a nice link on the subject: http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/virtualiz ation/
I think a really sneaky way for a laptop to "phone home" would be to run your own time server and configure the laptop to use it to set its clock. (On OS X it's in System Prefs/Date and Time/Set Date and Time automatically). Then watch the logs for the time server for where the requests come from.
Well, I'm no scientist really - but does the power really decrease? Where does that energy go then?
No that's not the reason, just pick a medium that can be focused. I'm sure you can transmit power wirelessly using microwave or laser very long distances. (Consider that nearly all of the energy we use on Earth has been "transmitted wirelessly" from the Sun).
The problem is safety - if anything or anyone happens to be in the path of such a transmission, they get fried.
Here's a link about using microwave to transmit power from the moon.
If you happen to be in Spain this summer, stop by the Wireless Power Transmission Conference.
This has got to be an urban legend of some sort. I cannot see how Tomcat would ever be faster than Apache. If what you say were the case, why would people go through all the trouble of putting Tomcat behind Apache with mod_jk, etc to seprate static content serving from dynamic requests?
I can also say that my unscientific tests of Tomcat vs Python running under mod_python showed no clear winner. The point is that Python does not proclaim to be ultra-fast, while Java does.
FreeBSD?
I know this is OT, but WTF is the topic today anyway?
I tried it, but it seems to hang in an infinite loop when processing the word GNU.
So I doubt this RFC would gain adoption without those things.
Isn't PHP essantially a template engine in itself? What's the rationale for using a template engine from within a template engine?
I am by no means an OLAP expert, but back in 1995 (I think) I worked on a project where we analyzed huge amounts of antimicrobial resistance data, and I looked at a lot of multidimentional databases, read a lot of magazine articles on the asubject, etc. I remember that back then, the traditional database was considered obsolete. I remember Informix went on a shopping spree acquiring Red Brick and a few other non-traditional database vendors. They also had this hot new product which would give you a completely new perspective on databases, and I can't even remember the name of the darn thing... The database market seemed as hot as the .com in 99.
The funny thing is that almost 10 years later, Informix, having gone through a mini-Enron financial crisis has been bought by IBM, noone even remembers startups like Red Brick and Oracle pretty much rules the db marketplace, and their product is a very traditional database primarily interfaced with via SQL... Not an object-oriented, not a multi-dimentional, not an OLAP database.
As far as multidimentional analysis - Microsoft Excel (of all applications) used to provide a pretty capable tool back then and still does now - it's called pivottable.
I agree. My theory is that the easyness of ports comes from its reliance on make. Make is familiar to most people who have ever compiled anything, and "make fetch" and "make install" are just very intuitive.
RPM, on the other hand (and same, BTW is true with dpkg and apt - the only other systems I'm more or less familiar with) has a pretty complex interface. I always find myself reading the rpm manpage, and arriving at "rpmbuild -bb mypkg.spec" is not simple (at least to me).
It's not impossible that the underlying mechanics or RPM or Apt are actually superior to that of ports (I can't speak to that due to lack of familiarity with those systems), but it's the interface and the openness (it's all makefiles, nothing else) where the ports clearly win when it comes to downloading and compiling packages from source code, and especially troubleshooting. When a port fails (rare but it happens), it's usually pretty trivial to identify the cause of failure.
And any RedHat user won't really understand what the BSD user is talking about and will just keep on using binary rpms found from google or rpmfind. In a desparate moment one will use any rpm that seems to do the trick - nevermind security, PGP sigs, all that stuff...
Seriously speaking, building from source is the UNIX way in my opinion. There is just something very heart warming and satisfying about seeing all the compiler messages scroll every time you install a package. (And try installing the native Java from BSD ports - several hours of pure joy!)
oh well...
I can't entirely agree with what Rasmus is saying here. The code for handling of the incoming requests in the MPM is entirely new, cleaner, leaner and better in every respect than Apache 1.
Also, what Rasmus is saying makes one believe that threading is what Apache 2 is all about. First, Apache 1 can be threaded (and is on windows), second, the pre-fork model isn't going anywhere, it's probably the most popular way to use Apache 2 and will be this way always IMO.
mod_python has been on Apache 2.0 for almost 2 years now.... :-)
I think the difference in price has to do with the VAT, which you'll have to pay at the customs when you get back, unless, that is, you can somehow sneak it by (which would be illegal). When you buy the laptop in the UK, the VAT is already paid.
Thttpd is good for some things, but don't think it's a full alternative to Apache. We use thttpd to serve http on ftp2.freebsd.org, and for something like this it is great, because speed is all we care about. On the other hand if verstatility is an issue, stick with Apache. It is not bloated and will perform really well if properly configured.
My personal take on tools that claim to be small, fast, secure and "better than what the rest of the world uses" is that you try them, then sooner or later end up switching back to the "old school" - I've done it with both qmail/sendmail and djbdns/bind...
Now, anyone semi-profficient in visual basic can write a very destructive virus.
It is pretty well known that many of the e-mail worms out there were written in visualbasic. here is an example. Well, I'm sorry you are so uninformed that you don't know about these things already. WhateverSo who do you suggest is to blame, if not Microsoft?
The article makes an assertion that proliferation of worms will negatively impact freedoms of the Internet. Microsoft created Outlook and Explorer, both of which can be made to execute arbitrary code on an unsuspecting user's machine, which is the vulnerability exploited by literally all of the worms circulating out there right now, and your suggestion is that someone other than the party responsible for those vulnerabilities is to blame? This is sort of like saying that criminals aren't the only ones to blame for their crimes.
No, but the proliferation of crappy Microsoft software will. In fact it has already.
I find amuzing that I actually got moded down and got a whole slew of passionate responses about bashing Microsoft. Perhaps M$ has reached such a point where people are already tired of being dissatisfied and would prefer to just "let it be".
My statement is still true - the vast majority of all the problems we are having are due to problems with primarily Microsoft Outlook, as well as other Microsoft software.
There used to be days when virus writers used assembly. Now, anyone semi-profficient in visual basic can write a very destructive virus. And Microsoft is to blame for that. Nothing personal against them, but it is their fault, and that's a fact, sorry.