a) Write a quick goodbye to mom and dad before you bleed out.
b) Write a long sorrowful goodbye blaming the world.
c) Write an apology to all your EXs
d) Write a letter admitting to all that you have done wrong - warning low on disk space.
Wander down to Saudi or any African Islamic region and see what happens to Apostates. "While the traditional holy writings of both Judaism (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) and Islam (al-Bukhari, Diyat, bab 6) demand the death penalty for apostates."
When the reporters start getting stuff right I start getting worried.
Any time I read anything in the press that I personally know about, I dispair at just how far wrong the reporters are.
It's the little things, like an order of magnitude here or there. We say 10,000 they say 100,000 what's a 0 between friends.
So I assume that anything I read is little more than an vague approximation of the truth.
I'm not even getting all tin hat.
Think Hanlon's Razor..
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
You've had your house for 14 years. Times up. It's public property now ?
That money in your pension. You have had it for long enough. You don't really want to earn interest on it any more do you.
I think the Movie industry is using the law like a scatter gun, but I'm not sure I understand what is fundamentally wrong with IPR.
Hey, if some random body that gets swiped from a mortuary sells for 250K....
I swim about 4K a week, In the recent past I have run several half marathons*, I don't smoke (anything), I don't drink much. Apart from the fact that I might outlive you, I reckon this future corpse is going to trade for a premium.
Who want's to start a web site where I can sell futures on my dead body.
If I'm worth 250K in lets say 50 years when I'm dead.
Assume that that goes up by inflation, (probably more).
I'll sell of the rights to my dead body now for about 200k
Any takers.
[It will have to go through enough solicitors that you don't get my address and come 'round to ensure that you get to cash in sooner rather than later though]
>>> "I even doubt that Wikileaks made it public; I mean, they must have some kind of advertisment >>> or at least a publicly available description of this service, no?"
Why would you think that ? This is aimed at a small number of high net worth individuals. They don't need to advertise it. Trevor* will simply mention to Reginold* over golf that they have a new program that might be interesting.
I sincerely doubt that you will find any reference to this on their website.
*Yes, I made these names up. Entirely Ex-Rectum. But you knew that.
Just take a few hundred $ a year from everyone. Let the Music Industry decide how to dole it out (we trust them) and let everyone copy music to their hearts content.
Make music a public utility
Kind of like the water supply or sewage
Let the price go up.....
Of course that will hit the poor first, but governments just thrive on complex tax and welfare schemes to get around stuff like that.
Let prices double, and let money spent on heating oil, electricity etc be written off against tax for the people earning less than n$ per month. Better still make the write off inversely proportional to their earnings so that there's no discontinuity.
D
The company that my brother is currently working for, the Fawlty Towers of the software industry, have decided to go with silverlight. I think the CTO read an article about it in a magazine. Not the first change of technology direction, but however.
1) You can't get developers with experience
2) You can't get contractors with experience
3) You can't get good books.
4) You can't get libraries.
Remind you of c# when it came out ?
The power and money of the Borg may well be enough to make a success of it.....
Remember, they can put it on the vast majority of PCs in the world. You still have to download flash.
Watch this spa ce.
Am I the only person who RTFA? The scanner recognizes what you are *seeing* and not what you are *thinking*.
What's with the barrage of thought police comments? This is slashdot.
Is is quote likely that you are the only one who RTFA.
How far is it from detecting what you are looking at to detecting general ideas like "Violent Thoughts", "Adult thoughts", "Rebelious Thoughts" - if they use different parts of the brain....
Seriously. If I got a $50 fine every time I thought about killing someone, It'd get damn'd expensive.
It could get recursive, what if I wanted to kill the guy for fining me $50.....
Let's not ever consider being fined for "Adult thoughts"
It's perfectly OK to say "We don't know", we have some ideas, but nothing solid. We may never know.
That's an answer based on Reason.
That's a better answer than saying "Santa Claus made it", or "The Easter Bunny Made it" or "God Made it"
Those are answers based on imagination. Imagination is a wonderful thing, just so long as we don't start believing our own fairy tales.
>> >>If the argument "The Creator is simply there" is sufficient, then How is that any different to "the conditions required to create the universe were simply there".
>> It isn't different, really. Flipping your argument around, if the Big Bang was the origin of the universe, what was the origin of the Big Bang?
I'm sorry, I thought it was reasonably obvious that I was being flippant. Otherwise I would have included a little smiley.
The fundamental principle of the argument still applies, if you need a creator for the universe, who made the creator ?
If the argument "The Creator is simply there" is sufficient, then How is that any different to "the conditions required to create the universe were simply there".
D
The whole point of the creation hypothesis is that the creator inhabits a plane of existence beyond our own, and is not bound by the laws of physics, including cause and effect. Thus, your argument kinda misses the point. Could such an entity exist? Why not? It's perfectly conceivable. Should we believe such an entity exists? By Occam's razor, no, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
The exact settings on a camera are not worth diddley.
Without the same room, the same lights, same clothing, the same daylight coming in the same window, exactly what use are the aperture setting, the focal length and the shutter speed.
It's like software, pay me enough and you get the source code.
Don't pay me enough for the source and you get the binary.
Move on with your life there is nothing to see here.
You have two point of attention, the car lights and the building.
They are separated by the grey backs of two large road signs.
The car parked in the foreground is bisected by a prominant parking meter.
The bottom right hand corner is just a mass of black.
This is a snap shot taken with a long shutter time, a wide lense and a tripod, but it's still a snap shot.
Spend some time looking through the viewfinder before you hit the button. In this case, find a better vantage point.
-- This is a comment on the photo, it has no relavance to the trial, the outcome etc --
It's a while since I covered any of this in detail, so I could well be way off, but if all proteins fold in real time, there is a solution to the problem which can be "calculated" in real time for all proteins.
If you take algorithm in the most general sense, then your algorithm is "watch the protein fold", then your algorithm is better than NPC. I do not see how this is any different than set up the following electrical charges in a peice of silicon and see what happens.
You have a problem (possibly NPC), and a solution that you can find in real time.
If you mean that there is a more general class of folding that is NPC and any protein that actually esists and folds is not part of that general problem, then you have moved beyond my understanding of protein folding.
It's a sci-fi novel that has moves through to the technological singularity and explores many of the issues of self in a world where you can actually upload and clone your self.
>>1: Unless you went through the code yourself, don't trust it. Maybe you can trust the maintainer of that code, but either >> way you end up trusting a third party.
Nah, you just have to trust that enough other people DO go through the code. And they do. Some of them are adding functionality, some are looking for security problems, some are just reading the code to see how it works.
If it's open sourced, unless there's a grand conspiracy across everyone who can read code, then someone will find any "evil code" and out it.
Ha.
Given the lawmakers usual understanding of things technological.....
Anyone reckon that they will accidently ban Smoke Dectectors, Carbon Monoxide Alarms, Butane Gas Dectectors ?
There have been so many cases where drugs got to market despite testing and people got sick or died.
Why would you have any confidence that GM foods would be different. Ok, in the grand scheme of things, a few hundred deaths from some mess up may not be a big deal to you, unless of course you are one of the statistics....
Current GM is about the same as running a computer program, then copying a section of bytes from one place in the exe to another and see what happens. DNA is just more robust than computer code.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like you're writing your last farewell.
Would you like help with that?
a) Write a quick goodbye to mom and dad before you bleed out.
b) Write a long sorrowful goodbye blaming the world.
c) Write an apology to all your EXs
d) Write a letter admitting to all that you have done wrong - warning low on disk space.
Wander down to Saudi or any African Islamic region and see what happens to Apostates.
"While the traditional holy writings of both Judaism (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) and Islam (al-Bukhari, Diyat, bab 6) demand the death penalty for apostates."
When the reporters start getting stuff right I start getting worried.
Any time I read anything in the press that I personally know about, I dispair at just how far wrong the reporters are.
It's the little things, like an order of magnitude here or there. We say 10,000 they say 100,000 what's a 0 between friends.
So I assume that anything I read is little more than an vague approximation of the truth.
I'm not even getting all tin hat.
Think Hanlon's Razor..
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
You've had your house for 14 years. Times up. It's public property now ? That money in your pension. You have had it for long enough. You don't really want to earn interest on it any more do you. I think the Movie industry is using the law like a scatter gun, but I'm not sure I understand what is fundamentally wrong with IPR.
Hey, if some random body that gets swiped from a mortuary sells for 250K....
I swim about 4K a week, In the recent past I have run several half marathons*, I don't smoke (anything), I don't drink much. Apart from the fact that I might outlive you, I reckon this future corpse is going to trade for a premium.
(*You may want to discount my knees)
Who want's to start a web site where I can sell futures on my dead body.
If I'm worth 250K in lets say 50 years when I'm dead.
Assume that that goes up by inflation, (probably more).
I'll sell of the rights to my dead body now for about 200k
Any takers.
[It will have to go through enough solicitors that you don't get my address and come 'round to ensure that you get to cash in sooner rather than later though]
Aleph42 wrote....
>>> "I even doubt that Wikileaks made it public; I mean, they must have some kind of advertisment
>>> or at least a publicly available description of this service, no?"
Why would you think that ? This is aimed at a small number of high net worth individuals. They don't need to advertise it. Trevor* will simply mention to Reginold* over golf that they have a new program that might be interesting.
I sincerely doubt that you will find any reference to this on their website.
*Yes, I made these names up. Entirely Ex-Rectum. But you knew that.
Just take a few hundred $ a year from everyone. Let the Music Industry decide how to dole it out (we trust them) and let everyone copy music to their hearts content.
Make music a public utility
Kind of like the water supply or sewage
Actually much of it is pretty much audible sewage
Let the price go up..... Of course that will hit the poor first, but governments just thrive on complex tax and welfare schemes to get around stuff like that. Let prices double, and let money spent on heating oil, electricity etc be written off against tax for the people earning less than n$ per month. Better still make the write off inversely proportional to their earnings so that there's no discontinuity. D
The company that my brother is currently working for, the Fawlty Towers of the software industry, have decided to go with silverlight. I think the CTO read an article about it in a magazine. Not the first change of technology direction, but however. 1) You can't get developers with experience 2) You can't get contractors with experience 3) You can't get good books. 4) You can't get libraries. Remind you of c# when it came out ? The power and money of the Borg may well be enough to make a success of it..... Remember, they can put it on the vast majority of PCs in the world. You still have to download flash. Watch this spa ce.
George Orwell - The Thought Police.
How far is it from detecting what you are looking at to detecting general ideas like "Violent Thoughts", "Adult thoughts", "Rebelious Thoughts" - if they use different parts of the brain....
Seriously. If I got a $50 fine every time I thought about killing someone, It'd get damn'd expensive.
It could get recursive, what if I wanted to kill the guy for fining me $50.....
Let's not ever consider being fined for "Adult thoughts"
Here's my point.
It's perfectly OK to say "We don't know", we have some ideas, but nothing solid. We may never know.
That's an answer based on Reason.
That's a better answer than saying "Santa Claus made it", or "The Easter Bunny Made it" or "God Made it"
Those are answers based on imagination. Imagination is a wonderful thing, just so long as we don't start believing our own fairy tales.
>> >>If the argument "The Creator is simply there" is sufficient, then How is that any different to "the conditions required to create the universe were simply there".
>> It isn't different, really. Flipping your argument around, if the Big Bang was the origin of the universe, what was the origin of the Big Bang?
The fundamental principle of the argument still applies, if you need a creator for the universe, who made the creator ?
If the argument "The Creator is simply there" is sufficient, then How is that any different to "the conditions required to create the universe were simply there".
D The whole point of the creation hypothesis is that the creator inhabits a plane of existence beyond our own, and is not bound by the laws of physics, including cause and effect. Thus, your argument kinda misses the point. Could such an entity exist? Why not? It's perfectly conceivable. Should we believe such an entity exists? By Occam's razor, no, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
So, this Creator,
How did he/she evolve ?
D
The exact settings on a camera are not worth diddley.
Without the same room, the same lights, same clothing, the same daylight coming in the same window, exactly what use are the aperture setting, the focal length and the shutter speed.
It's like software, pay me enough and you get the source code.
Don't pay me enough for the source and you get the binary.
Move on with your life there is nothing to see here.
You have two point of attention, the car lights and the building. They are separated by the grey backs of two large road signs. The car parked in the foreground is bisected by a prominant parking meter. The bottom right hand corner is just a mass of black. This is a snap shot taken with a long shutter time, a wide lense and a tripod, but it's still a snap shot. Spend some time looking through the viewfinder before you hit the button. In this case, find a better vantage point. -- This is a comment on the photo, it has no relavance to the trial, the outcome etc --
It's a while since I covered any of this in detail, so I could well be way off, but if all proteins fold in real time, there is a solution to the problem which can be "calculated" in real time for all proteins. If you take algorithm in the most general sense, then your algorithm is "watch the protein fold", then your algorithm is better than NPC. I do not see how this is any different than set up the following electrical charges in a peice of silicon and see what happens. You have a problem (possibly NPC), and a solution that you can find in real time. If you mean that there is a more general class of folding that is NPC and any protein that actually esists and folds is not part of that general problem, then you have moved beyond my understanding of protein folding.
Afair Protein folding is an NP-complete problem.
They solve the problem in real time (way better than Polynomial), by actually folding.
Therefore either
It is possible to solve NP-complete problems in better than polynomial time. We just have to figure out how. Quantum may be a solution
OR
Protein folding is not NP-complete problem.
They brought them in to my college (more than a few years ago)
They lasted less than a month. We had quite a few blind students who really didn't like the system.
Of course if you had dynamic brail buttons...
D
Read Accelerando by Charles Stross
It's a sci-fi novel that has moves through to the technological singularity and explores many of the issues of self in a world where you can actually upload and clone your self.
>>1: Unless you went through the code yourself, don't trust it. Maybe you can trust the maintainer of that code, but either >> way you end up trusting a third party.
Nah, you just have to trust that enough other people DO go through the code. And they do. Some of them are adding functionality, some are looking for security problems, some are just reading the code to see how it works.
If it's open sourced, unless there's a grand conspiracy across everyone who can read code, then someone will find any "evil code" and out it.
Ha. Given the lawmakers usual understanding of things technological..... Anyone reckon that they will accidently ban Smoke Dectectors, Carbon Monoxide Alarms, Butane Gas Dectectors ?
There have been so many cases where drugs got to market despite testing and people got sick or died. Why would you have any confidence that GM foods would be different. Ok, in the grand scheme of things, a few hundred deaths from some mess up may not be a big deal to you, unless of course you are one of the statistics.... Current GM is about the same as running a computer program, then copying a section of bytes from one place in the exe to another and see what happens. DNA is just more robust than computer code.
If people can be alergic to peanuts....
What's to say some variant of a protein created in a GM crop won't trigger massive alergic reactions in a very small proportion of the population.
How would you suggest that they test GM food against that ? Other than stick it on the shelves and see who dies?