You seem to be implying that in the US, we do trust our government, and you seem to be assuming that the US government will not use this technology to spy on its own citizens. Both are false.
What keeps our government from being like those of certain other countries is not that it's trustworthy, but that the different branches of government can hold each other in check, and that we as citizens have certain rights to hold each branch in check. When people imply that we can, do, or should trust our government, they're missing the point.
But neither one of them created the browser, did they? Sure, they created a new browser by building on old ones, but they didn't create a browser from scratch.
When some people hear that someone else has "created artificial life", this phrase implies that they are not building on existing life. If it has been phrased such as "created a new life form" or something along that line, then your point would apply.
The fall of Jerusalem was foretold about 40 years before it happened. The reformation of Israel was foretold a couple thousand years before it happened.
There is enough scientific evidence to prove, at the very least, an ancient flood in Mesopotamia. Many many people (secular as well as Christian) believe this may be the flood on which the story of Noah is most likely based. If such is indeed the case, then the flood was foretold, and came to pass. (If it wasn't foretold, how did he know to build a boat?)
I believe I recall reading a quote from Asimov in some sort of writer's guide where he directly advised not to get caught up in too many details and explanations precisely because it makes the story boring.
If you've never read that quote, kudos for your insight.
It is a bunch of interdependent traits that have been optimized by evolution for a certain environment.
Uh-oh. You mentioned the "E" word. I predict a horde of wacko creationists to come swarming down on this topic...:/
"E" word or "C" word, it's a valid point. That sentence could be rewritten to read, "It is a bunch of interdependent traits that have been optimized by the Creator for a certain environment." and it holds the same underlying meaning.
I've used the info in the Linux+NT-Loader mini-HOWTO, and I had nothing but problems.
I had Win95 on a FAT16 partition, WinNT on an NTFS partition, and RedHat 6.0 on an ext2 partition, all being loaded through NT's boot manager via the instructions in that mini-HOWTO doc.
Whenever I loaded NT, did whatever work I had to do, and loaded back into Linux, my ext2 partition would be corrupt beyond belief.
Whenever I loaded Linux and did whatever work I had to do and loaded back into NT, my NTFS partition would also be corrupt.
I used to have a triple boot system with LILO and had no problem. So I'm assuming that NT's boot manager is doing something funky. I would not recommend it.
Actually, I needed the hint. I went through all the possible combinations, as stated in someone elses previous comment, and it didn't make sense to me as to how the boy could prove it. I knew there was something I was missing, but I had no idea what it was, and it was driving me nuts.
When I read your hint, it was like some guy in a clown suit had crashed through my window and bopped me in the head with a barrage of snurf missles with each missile having the answer written on it in black permanent marker.
And the clown was singing, in his best Janis Joplin impression, "THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE MISSING!!"
I do believe that the method to solve this was best demonstrated in a previous comment by ShadeTC. In his comment, he posted a URL to his proof.
The idea is to make such a chart as he's made, and as you read through the clues, X out what is impossible, mark an O for what is possible. You have to go through the rules over and over again. As you go through the process of elimination, certain correlations start falling into place revealing the possibilities and impossibilities of other correlations.
Check out ShadeTC's url: http://www.wpi.edu/~tcollins/riddle.pdf
If all three raised their hand to the first question, then at least two boys had to have mud on their foreheads. If either boy saw a forehead free of mud, then it would be obvious that he had mud on his own forehead and he would not hesitate to answer the old man's second question.
But when one boy noticed the other two being silent, he surmised that he must have mud on his own forehead.
I would guess that Einstein's estimation that only 2% of the world's population could solve this is no longer true. I would venture to say that there are many more multitudes of people today who are trained in logic.
I learned the method for solving these types of logic puzzles when I was in grade school (I am now 30). If you know the method, it's not nearly as challenging as Einstein's estimation implies.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be implying that in the US, we do trust our government, and you seem to be assuming that the US government will not use this technology to spy on its own citizens. Both are false.
What keeps our government from being like those of certain other countries is not that it's trustworthy, but that the different branches of government can hold each other in check, and that we as citizens have certain rights to hold each branch in check. When people imply that we can, do, or should trust our government, they're missing the point.
But neither one of them created the browser, did they? Sure, they created a new browser by building on old ones, but they didn't create a browser from scratch.
When some people hear that someone else has "created artificial life", this phrase implies that they are not building on existing life. If it has been phrased such as "created a new life form" or something along that line, then your point would apply.
and I've just written an email tracking program . . .
Finally, someone who posted the TRUTH!!!!
Harry Seldon was a pawn of Giskard! Death to the robots!!!
The fall of Jerusalem was foretold about 40 years before it happened. The reformation of Israel was foretold a couple thousand years before it happened.
There is enough scientific evidence to prove, at the very least, an ancient flood in Mesopotamia. Many many people (secular as well as Christian) believe this may be the flood on which the story of Noah is most likely based. If such is indeed the case, then the flood was foretold, and came to pass. (If it wasn't foretold, how did he know to build a boat?)
(n/t)
Apparently. Someone uses a reference to a cat using up it's nine lives, and he says something like, "Rather like me," which implies that he's the 9th.
:-( (12 regenerations = 13 doctors, as the first doesn't count as a regeneration, right?)
Only 4 more to go. Doc's gettin' old.
When will they get lips that move out of synch with their speech?
I believe I recall reading a quote from Asimov in some sort of writer's guide where he directly advised not to get caught up in too many details and explanations precisely because it makes the story boring.
If you've never read that quote, kudos for your insight.
It is a bunch of interdependent traits that have been optimized by evolution for a certain environment.
Uh-oh. You mentioned the "E" word. I predict a horde of wacko creationists to come swarming down on this topic... :/
"E" word or "C" word, it's a valid point. That sentence could be rewritten to read, "It is a bunch of interdependent traits that have been optimized by the Creator for a certain environment." and it holds the same underlying meaning.
I've used the info in the Linux+NT-Loader mini-HOWTO, and I had nothing but problems.
I had Win95 on a FAT16 partition, WinNT on an NTFS partition, and RedHat 6.0 on an ext2 partition, all being loaded through NT's boot manager via the instructions in that mini-HOWTO doc.
Whenever I loaded NT, did whatever work I had to do, and loaded back into Linux, my ext2 partition would be corrupt beyond belief.
Whenever I loaded Linux and did whatever work I had to do and loaded back into NT, my NTFS partition would also be corrupt.
I used to have a triple boot system with LILO and had no problem. So I'm assuming that NT's boot manager is doing something funky. I would not recommend it.
Actually, I needed the hint. I went through all the possible combinations, as stated in someone elses previous comment, and it didn't make sense to me as to how the boy could prove it. I knew there was something I was missing, but I had no idea what it was, and it was driving me nuts.
When I read your hint, it was like some guy in a clown suit had crashed through my window and bopped me in the head with a barrage of snurf missles with each missile having the answer written on it in black permanent marker.
And the clown was singing, in his best Janis Joplin impression, "THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE MISSING!!"
I do believe that the method to solve this was best demonstrated in a previous comment by ShadeTC. In his comment, he posted a URL to his proof.
The idea is to make such a chart as he's made, and as you read through the clues, X out what is impossible, mark an O for what is possible. You have to go through the rules over and over again. As you go through the process of elimination, certain correlations start falling into place revealing the possibilities and impossibilities of other correlations.
Check out ShadeTC's url:
http://www.wpi.edu/~tcollins/riddle.pdf
After you gave it away, it was easy. :-)
If all three raised their hand to the first question, then at least two boys had to have mud on their foreheads. If either boy saw a forehead free of mud, then it would be obvious that he had mud on his own forehead and he would not hesitate to answer the old man's second question.
But when one boy noticed the other two being silent, he surmised that he must have mud on his own forehead.
I would guess that Einstein's estimation that only 2% of the world's population could solve this is no longer true. I would venture to say that there are many more multitudes of people today who are trained in logic.
I learned the method for solving these types of logic puzzles when I was in grade school (I am now 30). If you know the method, it's not nearly as challenging as Einstein's estimation implies.