Remember, however, that some physicists hypothesize that the cat could observe itself, this, the experimenter is already too late.
This whole thing is non-sense. Single photons, like electrons, are mostly statistical objects, like public opinion. Human observation can, indeed, extract a small amount of energy more than was being lost to non-human (some would say inanimate) observation and destablize an ambiguous balance. Large groups of photons, however, are not so easily destabilized by such a small extra extraction of information/energy.
If dark matter exists in the masses we are talking about, the universe is itself observing the dark matter, and one thousand relatively small telescopes here could not alter that.
Looking towards another interpretation, our observation could definitely alter our _perceptions_ concerning the stability of the universe. (In our fear of the metaphysical, we assume far too much in favor of stability.)
In fact, it's time to start calling a spade a spade, since they aren't backing off.
They are trying to bring back the old patronage systems, which would allow bureaucrats to make rules to control speech and even set thought control policies. (Think about it. The brain is a processing unit. If software patents can make it illegal to process some particular algorithm without permission, you technically can't even legally perform a walk-through of the algorithm.)
These guys have gone the path of treachery. They have not turned back.
Terrorists be damned.
These guys are the real traitors to the state and enemies of the Constitution.
As more than one person has pointed out, this was exactly what the RFC pointed to. The RFC is as much prior art as an software pantent can be a patent. (If you think a verbal, non-compilable description of an algorithm, even (especially) if it is couched in legal language, can be patented, then you have to accept the standard (or the standard proposal, which RFCs have been used as for a long time, contrary to the original intent of RFCs) as art.
We aren't talking about people putting source code in patents. That's what everybody is missing. Without an actual implementation there is no actual art. Unless you are willing to call something like an RFC art. (Which is insane!)
Software patents should have to require source code to be submitted, (Which points out a number of issues as to why copyright is precisely the right thing to use and patent is not, unless the patent applicant is intending to open source the object of the patent.)
Again, as more than one person has pointed out, reducing the number of clicks has always been a goal for an interface designer. Admittedly, there is some question to the sanity of reducing things to a single click, but Amazon hasn't really done that anyway. Certificates, cookies, buring state information in a stateless interface, all of this points to reducing the interface burden on the user, and that is all that one-click is about.
And, yes, I was there and I remember.
And the point isn't that the patent isn't broad, it is that it has been used by lawyers to force settlements (which ought to be seen as the real question begged by allowing software patents without source code in the submission).
<deep-breath/>
Well, now that I'm done ranting, the whole craziness of trying to use patents and copyrights as a backdoor to bringing back patronage is likely driven, in large part, by the fact that, with all the essential services mechanized, there isn't enough work to go around. Unless we (citizens of the US and other "developed" countries) take it on ourselves to find some way to account value in going to "undeveloped" countries to "help" them conquer their "problems". And somehow do that without committing serious breaches of ethics, without ending up destroying their cultural heritage.
Which is why religion is not evil after all, if we can only acknowledge that everyone is going to believe what they choose and quit trying to force it.
when attempting to use more than one language on the same box.
(Not talking about the pseudo-English support in shift-JIS.)
And the stuff about UT-16 handling something better than UTF-8, if such things happen in MSWindows land, that shows how out of touch MS is.
UTF-8 and UTF-16 should be simple mappings from UTF-32, with some minor potential security holes where bad parsing could potentially map some illegal bit patterns to valid code points. It's not UTF-8 vs. UTF-16, it's bad parsing.
UTF-32 is what should be used internally. (Not in files, in the libraries.) And UTF-16 was the result of some misguided design choices when some western character gurus simply refused to understand that the n-thousand most common characters are not sufficient. (Egged on by some Japanese IT guys that at the time so worshipped the western IT industry they would have sworn computers walked on water if they heard some western IT type say it.)
The fuss about a foreigner who speaks (reads/writes) Japanese depends on the expectations.
Guys like me who really do speak fluently not only get no fuss anymore, but we get no breaks. There's a certain level you break and you're suddenly expected to not only be able to communicate at the native level, but be steeped in the culture so that they don't need to bother explaining anything at all. One difference of opinion and suddenly you get a lot of condescension, and a shower of explanation that completely misses the point.
No reall surprise here.
So the reaction to the iPhone is going to be different from different people (No surprise there either.) If you're hanging around with Japanese MSFanBoiz, your going to get a lot of flack for even mentioning that Apple still exists, or asserting that Microsoft did not, after all, buy Apple out eight years ago, and that the Mac OS is not, after all, a re-branded (old) version of MSWindows.
If you're going to suggest something like that,
on
Best Home Network NAS
·
· Score: 1
(Of course, there is the danger that you might end up using your backup box as a surfboard, inducing some potential recursion, which could then be broken by scrubbing the MSWindows box and loading UBuntu on it.)
Maybe I don't agree with RingDev's way of handling things, but I'm not going to take him that far to task just on the principle of the thing. Without more evidence than I care to collect, I have to think his primary sin was collecting from the wrong department.
You come off sounding exactly like the judge, striking out at the only guy who's decent enough to stay within striking distance long enough to strike at.
Before you go after these kinds of "deadbeats", go after the deadbeats whose primary contributions to society seems to be in demonstrating that polititicians can be bought.
And let's get some sane laws before we complain about people breaking the spirit of them.
Are these bookmark urls prepared by the webmaster (guessing), or are does the site provide a page where its users can submit/register bookmark urls?
The latter might be a good idea for many sites. Some sites might even benefit by trying to find some algorithm for making it possible to look at and/or look up existing bookmarks.
There is no country in the world free of idiots who can't tell satire from reality.
That's one of the dangers of literary devices. The question is whether the danger of using the literary device outweighs the danger of refraining from using it, and that's nothing a person can find any good rules of thumb for, I think.
Some of us are of the opinion that MSWindows is little more than a (poor) extension of those BASIC interpreters.
Theft begets theft. Bad design begets bad design.
The problem is that Microsoft sells a machine that no one can understand, least of all their collection of engineers that never really understood the reality of implementation.
Is it more reasonable to argue a lack of difference without evidence that the either exists, or to argue the assumption of a difference allows an interpretation of the evidence which shows the existence of both?
In this case, no, but it's a question to be considered, I think.
all I require is that my God be ultimately good and true.
I recognize that that seems to be a paradox, because I require it, but I can't judge it until some point beyond my death. (My being imperfect prevents my judging it properly.)
It has something to do with trusting one's conscience, and in being willing to do the best one can with the ability one presently has to judge. And this thing called repentance, which many people think is masochism, but is actually a willingness to reform if it is really repentance. And the belief that God, at least, will forgive an honest mistake (and can tell the difference between a real honest mistake and a poor excuse for deliberately screwing up). Faith and repentance.
But, no, the offer I was responding to did not contain anything which would inspire faith on my part.
If it hadn't been for those stupid marketing parasites insisting on claiming impossible feature lists, on pushing software out the door before anything was actually finished, on always insisting that today's sale is the bottom line, etc., etc., ad nauseum, M$ never would have captured the market share they have.
Even by the any-other-platform-that-got-large-enough argument, well, let's just say that we had a market that included 14% Macs, 18% Amigas, 22% Be, 10% M$Whatever, 12% Ataris, 6% Acorns, 14% various Unix derivitaves, 0.5% old Macs, and 3.5% miscellanous other. In other words, a world in which the Bill and Steve act hadn't killed everyone else in the first act of the play.
Where would the claimed critical mass to generate the current level of malware infection come from?
Anyway you cut it, the malware is Bill & Steve's fault and responsibility. They owe the industry every penny of the billions they "own", and more.
Where did that off-balance bias to physical randomness that biased the universe to succeed in prolonging itself instead of destroying itself? -- the bias that results in stars and life and evolution?
I mean, how is it that you and I can agree on some important aspects of the definition of "improve" when mathematicians can tell us that symbols are by definition independent of semantics?
At the very minimum, God expressed Himself in that balance of probabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not a fan of WalMart, but this is sure one case where they could atone for some of their evils.
infel did the same thing to UWB recently. Motorola/Freescale even jumped in to try to save the better tech, but infel smothered it.
That's one reason I'm not buying any more Macs until Jobs is out from under whatever spell or backhanded deal Otellini has him under.
Remember, however, that some physicists hypothesize that the cat could observe itself, this, the experimenter is already too late.
This whole thing is non-sense. Single photons, like electrons, are mostly statistical objects, like public opinion. Human observation can, indeed, extract a small amount of energy more than was being lost to non-human (some would say inanimate) observation and destablize an ambiguous balance. Large groups of photons, however, are not so easily destabilized by such a small extra extraction of information/energy.
If dark matter exists in the masses we are talking about, the universe is itself observing the dark matter, and one thousand relatively small telescopes here could not alter that.
Looking towards another interpretation, our observation could definitely alter our _perceptions_ concerning the stability of the universe. (In our fear of the metaphysical, we assume far too much in favor of stability.)
joudanzuki
In fact, it's time to start calling a spade a spade, since they aren't backing off.
They are trying to bring back the old patronage systems, which would allow bureaucrats to make rules to control speech and even set thought control policies. (Think about it. The brain is a processing unit. If software patents can make it illegal to process some particular algorithm without permission, you technically can't even legally perform a walk-through of the algorithm.)
These guys have gone the path of treachery. They have not turned back.
Terrorists be damned.
These guys are the real traitors to the state and enemies of the Constitution.
As more than one person has pointed out, this was exactly what the RFC pointed to. The RFC is as much prior art as an software pantent can be a patent. (If you think a verbal, non-compilable description of an algorithm, even (especially) if it is couched in legal language, can be patented, then you have to accept the standard (or the standard proposal, which RFCs have been used as for a long time, contrary to the original intent of RFCs) as art.
We aren't talking about people putting source code in patents. That's what everybody is missing. Without an actual implementation there is no actual art. Unless you are willing to call something like an RFC art. (Which is insane!)
Software patents should have to require source code to be submitted, (Which points out a number of issues as to why copyright is precisely the right thing to use and patent is not, unless the patent applicant is intending to open source the object of the patent.)
Again, as more than one person has pointed out, reducing the number of clicks has always been a goal for an interface designer. Admittedly, there is some question to the sanity of reducing things to a single click, but Amazon hasn't really done that anyway. Certificates, cookies, buring state information in a stateless interface, all of this points to reducing the interface burden on the user, and that is all that one-click is about.
And, yes, I was there and I remember.
And the point isn't that the patent isn't broad, it is that it has been used by lawyers to force settlements (which ought to be seen as the real question begged by allowing software patents without source code in the submission).
<deep-breath/>
Well, now that I'm done ranting, the whole craziness of trying to use patents and copyrights as a backdoor to bringing back patronage is likely driven, in large part, by the fact that, with all the essential services mechanized, there isn't enough work to go around. Unless we (citizens of the US and other "developed" countries) take it on ourselves to find some way to account value in going to "undeveloped" countries to "help" them conquer their "problems". And somehow do that without committing serious breaches of ethics, without ending up destroying their cultural heritage.
Which is why religion is not evil after all, if we can only acknowledge that everyone is going to believe what they choose and quit trying to force it.
<hard-reset/><eor/>
It is indicative of the tendency for Mac users to keep upgrading the OS of older machines.
when attempting to use more than one language on the same box.
(Not talking about the pseudo-English support in shift-JIS.)
And the stuff about UT-16 handling something better than UTF-8, if such things happen in MSWindows land, that shows how out of touch MS is.
UTF-8 and UTF-16 should be simple mappings from UTF-32, with some minor potential security holes where bad parsing could potentially map some illegal bit patterns to valid code points. It's not UTF-8 vs. UTF-16, it's bad parsing.
UTF-32 is what should be used internally. (Not in files, in the libraries.) And UTF-16 was the result of some misguided design choices when some western character gurus simply refused to understand that the n-thousand most common characters are not sufficient. (Egged on by some Japanese IT guys that at the time so worshipped the western IT industry they would have sworn computers walked on water if they heard some western IT type say it.)
?? comes out just fine.
The fuss about a foreigner who speaks (reads/writes) Japanese depends on the expectations.
Guys like me who really do speak fluently not only get no fuss anymore, but we get no breaks. There's a certain level you break and you're suddenly expected to not only be able to communicate at the native level, but be steeped in the culture so that they don't need to bother explaining anything at all. One difference of opinion and suddenly you get a lot of condescension, and a shower of explanation that completely misses the point.
No reall surprise here.
So the reaction to the iPhone is going to be different from different people (No surprise there either.) If you're hanging around with Japanese MSFanBoiz, your going to get a lot of flack for even mentioning that Apple still exists, or asserting that Microsoft did not, after all, buy Apple out eight years ago, and that the Mac OS is not, after all, a re-branded (old) version of MSWindows.
How about this?
I mean, seriously.
(Of course, there is the danger that you might end up using your backup box as a surfboard, inducing some potential recursion, which could then be broken by scrubbing the MSWindows box and loading UBuntu on it.)
I read this whole sorry thread.
Maybe I don't agree with RingDev's way of handling things, but I'm not going to take him that far to task just on the principle of the thing. Without more evidence than I care to collect, I have to think his primary sin was collecting from the wrong department.
You come off sounding exactly like the judge, striking out at the only guy who's decent enough to stay within striking distance long enough to strike at.
Before you go after these kinds of "deadbeats", go after the deadbeats whose primary contributions to society seems to be in demonstrating that polititicians can be bought.
And let's get some sane laws before we complain about people breaking the spirit of them.
I _like_ The GIMP's UI.
Are these bookmark urls prepared by the webmaster (guessing), or are does the site provide a page where its users can submit/register bookmark urls?
The latter might be a good idea for many sites. Some sites might even benefit by trying to find some algorithm for making it possible to look at and/or look up existing bookmarks.
There is no country in the world free of idiots who can't tell satire from reality.
That's one of the dangers of literary devices. The question is whether the danger of using the literary device outweighs the danger of refraining from using it, and that's nothing a person can find any good rules of thumb for, I think.
If you want orthogonal, why not use an existing non-intel CPU?
Part of the problem is that we (still) don't really know how to design a CPU that is easy to compile fast code for (e. g., in all situations).
It was their contract from the government.
Microsoft applied financial incentives for them to act against their contract, in a move to promote Microsoft.
No individual got paid? What are you sniffing?
The government paid the company to bring in machines with Linux. This article clarifies that.
Microsoft paid them to swap the specified software out for their own.
I don't know what bait-and-switch laws Nigeria has, but this is not going to help Microsoft undo the extension of the wrist-slap.
Some of us are of the opinion that MSWindows is little more than a (poor) extension of those BASIC interpreters.
Theft begets theft. Bad design begets bad design.
The problem is that Microsoft sells a machine that no one can understand, least of all their collection of engineers that never really understood the reality of implementation.
Is it more reasonable to argue a lack of difference without evidence that the either exists, or to argue the assumption of a difference allows an interpretation of the evidence which shows the existence of both?
In this case, no, but it's a question to be considered, I think.
Not unless I repent, and even then not unless I keep it up until I die.
Does that answer your question?
all I require is that my God be ultimately good and true.
I recognize that that seems to be a paradox, because I require it, but I can't judge it until some point beyond my death. (My being imperfect prevents my judging it properly.)
It has something to do with trusting one's conscience, and in being willing to do the best one can with the ability one presently has to judge. And this thing called repentance, which many people think is masochism, but is actually a willingness to reform if it is really repentance. And the belief that God, at least, will forgive an honest mistake (and can tell the difference between a real honest mistake and a poor excuse for deliberately screwing up). Faith and repentance.
But, no, the offer I was responding to did not contain anything which would inspire faith on my part.
If it hadn't been for those stupid marketing parasites insisting on claiming impossible feature lists, on pushing software out the door before anything was actually finished, on always insisting that today's sale is the bottom line, etc., etc., ad nauseum, M$ never would have captured the market share they have.
Even by the any-other-platform-that-got-large-enough argument, well, let's just say that we had a market that included 14% Macs, 18% Amigas, 22% Be, 10% M$Whatever, 12% Ataris, 6% Acorns, 14% various Unix derivitaves, 0.5% old Macs, and 3.5% miscellanous other. In other words, a world in which the Bill and Steve act hadn't killed everyone else in the first act of the play.
Where would the claimed critical mass to generate the current level of malware infection come from?
Anyway you cut it, the malware is Bill & Steve's fault and responsibility. They owe the industry every penny of the billions they "own", and more.
Where did that off-balance bias to physical randomness that biased the universe to succeed in prolonging itself instead of destroying itself? -- the bias that results in stars and life and evolution?
I mean, how is it that you and I can agree on some important aspects of the definition of "improve" when mathematicians can tell us that symbols are by definition independent of semantics?
At the very minimum, God expressed Himself in that balance of probabilities.
There are ghosts and there are ghosts.
And there isn't a ghost of a chance that I can convince you, I suppose, that one is different in some essential way from another.
is not an answer sufficient to my needs.
See what the problem with you trying to be my god is?