You mean computer games like, uhm, let's build a real-time simulation of a solar system complete with an inhabitable planet and people and...
generating the personalities of 60 billion people would be something of a computation problem. It doesn't need to do it fast, six thousand years will do, plus or minus a few hundred million. Simulated time, of course.
Or, here's an even better game -- tune your big bang.
As someone else said, you're there, you have a phone connection and/or a cable connection. You probably have an older computer or two sitting around gathering dust.
First, move her domain name to a dynamic dns service. Many (dyndns.org is one) can provide domain registration and mail redirection pretty cheap, so have the dynamic dns service redirect to your mail while you're checking around.
That will give your wife a stop gap solution while you discuss directions with her and check with your local providers about various things. Many providers will wink at a home business site being hosted on a home connection if it doesn't generate too much traffic. Some providers (telcos?), if you ask, can provide a 256K connection with static IP for something rather reasonable -- $35 to $40 range.
Hardware and system -- make sure you have a NATting firewall, and don't keep any credit card numbers and such on servers with global addresses. I'd go with the BSDs, but any of the Linii should be good on the inside of the firewall.
Or if your old computer is a macintosh, you may well be able to host the mail and (potential) web site on Mac OS X (client) without too much difficulty at all. (Still recommend the firewall.)
Last I checked, Qwest in Utah had static IPs at 1 for $16, four for $32 or something rather reasonable. DSL was 256K for $19 and 800-some-odd-K for $35, or something. That was a year ago.
What they offer in your area, and currently, is likely to vary, of course. I think they are pushing the bit rates up.
I ended up going with comcast for stupid reasons I won't go into here, and it worked out around the same effective price, sans static IP. (At the time, comcast would allow you to attach that many computers on your side of the modem without NAT, and if you checked the addresses they were global -- work it out.) So I figured to use one of the dynamic dns services, but never got that into place.
That was for someone else.
I host for myself on an iBook using dynamic dns on ADSL (see dyndns.org and others). I pay a total of about JPY 4000 a month, so I was initially surprised that prices were a little less than double in the states for dynamic IP. But static IP is a killer in Japan -- JPY 6000 a month for a single address, in addition to whatever you're paying for the connection. (Of course, for a business, that would not be so unreasonable, but for a business it's double.)
I think IBM ought to just take all the data that SCO wants, dump it on a big slag of a hard disk in tarred text form, and dump it in SCO's lap.
There's your data, now what are you going to do with it.
Kind of like when the dog chases you and you stop the car and get out and ask the dog what he wants with your car.
No, I'm sure it's got to do with the termination of Monterrey. Perhaps somebody at iNTEL has already told the lawyers at IBM what parts to extract. Then they give the whole boatload to SCO for double checking, so SCO know's they've gone over the line in their fishing expedition.
Heh. Don't try triple boot right off. It'll drive you crazy.
You'll really want to get familiar with each one before you try crazy things like triple boot. (It can be done, BTW. Just avoid mixing MSWxxx into a triple boot if you can. That's not good for your ulcer.)
However, as several have said, try them all. I concur with the guy who said start with openBSD, then find an old box in the junk bin to install openBSD on for your perimeter stuff. While you're in the junk bin, find some really exotic old architecture and have fun with netBSD. But while you're waiting for things to compile bring up freeBSD for productivity type stuff.
Hmm. That's a little overly simplistic advice, but do try them all.
One thing, Java is much tamer on FreeBSD. It can be done on openBSD and netBSD, from what I've heard, but if you want/need to run Java on BSD and haven't done that before, start on freeBSD.
(If you really _need_ productivity on your home project, spring for the Mac Mini. That goes double if you need productivity with Java. I assume, however, that's not the point of your project.)
If you dig far enough back in the history of this, there were quite a few different approaches. About four years back, there were four main groups. iNTEL figured they had to lay their stake early, so they tried to muscle the other three out. eXtreme Spectrum had almost enough horsepower in their design to survive iNTEL's tactics, but finally had to turn to Motorola to bail them out.
Why Motorola? Good question. Many of the core group at eXtreme Spectrum had just been laid off from Motorola, or had jumped before the layoffs.
Why does iNTEL want this?
This short-distance UWB is potentially going to replace all the wires on your information devices except for the power wires. If you were into patents, wouldn't you like a patent on wire? ("Patent on wire" was something of a buzz phrase during the infighting.)
(Personally, I'm wondering if the XS/Freescale technique techniqe might be beneficial in power wires, but I don't know what I'm talking about.)
If you ask me, though, iNTEL's idea of jumping from spectrum to spectrum seems to have the larger footprint, the higher susceptibility to eavesdripping and being dripped on, and the greater power requirements. It might scale to greater distance, but that might not be desirable for short-distance, high-bandwidth wireless.
The XS/Freescale approach of basically spitting raw bits into the air at pseudo-random frequencies and very low power should be familiar with a crowd that understands crypto. You remember the story about the actress and the piano player and an early patent in the field.
But, again, I don't know what I'm talking about, so my biases might be showing.
We could all benefit from a few more minutes walking, a few less minutes driving, and a few less minutes using electricity each day.
We all complain, let's personally do something about it.
Some of its adherents do, but then the same can be said of science.
Actually, either way, when you don't have proof and are just out testing the waters, you have to adhere for a little while until you get some proof. So, I take it back, but only if you'll admit that science has similar issues.
One difference is that religion allows non-quantifiable proofs, where science is supposed to disallow such.
The judge may be right. He's closer to the problem than we are.
But the parents are closer than the judge, so I tend to side with the parents when I'm watching from here.
Evolution as the principle that created life is a theory. It's a well supported class of theories, but not proven.
If the textbook does a good job of exploring evolution as a biological principle and the potential role of evolution in bringing life about, then it probably should not need the label. But that is an ethical issue, and the judge should not be judging ethical issues unless either the book or the label or both is being used to intimidate people.
I can't see how anyone would be intimidated by that label. Possible, sure. Maybe those 2000 parents are using that label to threaten those seven parents and force their kids to pray in school. But I didn't see any mention of that.
The only thing I can read out of the article is that seven parents were agast that the merest hint that there might be something non-mechanical going on in the universe, and the judge said their rights trumped the rights of the 2000 parents to want something a little less sterile for their kids.
(Unfortunately, pretend scientists do get into textbooks. Since we don't have the textbook in question, it's hard to say if that is the case here.)
One big fuji apple plus one crabapple == two apples?
One key for a symmetric crypt + one key for an asymmetric crypt == two keys?
On a single digit readout voltmeter, 1V + 1V == 2V?
The world is a huge place, and there are places where the rules just don't seem the same.
And there are people who believe in a God who wants them to be free to take a break from work once a week, rather than a god who wants to burn for stepping out of line.
(Actually, the burning in hell is for the bosses who insist on planning the schedules as if one eighty hour week were just as productive as two forty hour weeks, month after month after year.)
Then why laud the court for siding with the those who are making the biggest noise right now?
If they should be limiting themselves to law, they should be limiting themselves to law, and not trying to tell the board of education that they can't stand up for a group of people who want their kids to know that there are a lot of pretend scientists out there saying theory is better than fact.
Who says what is "fittest"? Who said that survival is some sort of fitness? Fit for what? Survival for how long? What happens when the human race, chasing short term survival, extinguishes itself?
More important question -- who, or what, deemed that survival should occur in the first place? Why is survival a principle that matters?
If you wave it off as just chance, you're still dodging the question. Who or what determined that chemical chance should have the necessary biases to produce life?
The answer is that whatever you say created the world and all that is in it is your god.
But science has to keep its hands off that question, and for very good reason. If it doesn't, it gets into the business of telling each and every person they have to believe in the same ultimate creator. And that is not science.
People who deal with faith understand that real belief tends to engender an ability to let others believe what they will. The need to defend is derived from a weak position.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, either, because defense often refines and strengthens understanding.
But this business about courts preventing school systems from stickering textbooks with a reminder that science is not the be-all and end-all of truth is attempting to use law to prevent the sciencists from having to defend their point.
and kids tend to come up with more better ideas when science is also enencumbered by the fear that any of a certain class of re-thinking will be automatically labeled "that old superstitious religion".
I agree, the scientific community should not be all painted black just because some who participate let their egos get in the way of science or let their own work become a cause of fashion.
Likewise religion.
Last time I checked, real religion required an active faith, active pursuit of truth, and the moral strength to not be swayed by every wind of fashion.
Show me your faith without works, and I'll
show you my faith with works.
(James)
And this is the true, pure religion, to
visit the widows and the fatherless.
(Paul? to the Hebrews?)
You shall know the truth and the truth shall
make you free.
(Jesus)
Repent!
(Jesus)
(Some people think repentance is just moaning and groaning about how bad we are, but if you study the scriptures, it's essentially step-wise refinement, or conscience-directed personal evolution. At very least, it's a willingness to quit doing what's wrong and start doing what's right.)
Any lacking wisdom should ask of God,...
but should ask with real intent, otherwise will
be just like a boat with no rudder, blown about
by every fashion of doctrine.
(James, again)
(God, being by definition, the source of all truth, which some might forget.)
Paraphrases, but there should be enough there for the curious to find the references.
The argument is not religion vs. science, but religionists vs. sciencists. (Scientificists?)
People who do true religion and people who do true science and ignore fashions (and dabates about them) are the real heros, even if they push us to think more deeply into what seven days, or in the case of this debate, creation, actually means.
Your politician example -- poor judgement on the slandered candidate's part.
It's so commonly said, you'd think every who gets into politics would know it. The best defense against slander is not to give it the time of day. If people ask, tell the truth, then get on with the job.
I wouldn't want a politician who would get distracted from his job by slanderous accusations. Muckraking has been part of politics as long as politics has been around. It's not a wonderful thing, but it's part of the real world. And being able to deal with it is part of being free.
Your getting turned down for a job example, I've been there.
Again, it's not a wonderful thing, but it's part of being free to let other people have their opinions even when they don't want to let you have yours, and even when it means getting turned down for a job.
In real life, hiring decisions are not that simple, and if the management of a company listens to rumors, it's usally not going to be a fun company to work for.
Isn't that what all worldviews do? Consider USA and it's thinking of communism. Christians with science. And -isms in philosophy.
When something becomes a worldview, that does seem to be one of the things that tends to happen. I guess it's part of the nature of humans to look for us vs. them divisions.
Slashdot Mirror
the alien _is_ "god".
You mean computer games like, uhm, let's build a real-time simulation of a solar system complete with an inhabitable planet and people and ...
generating the personalities of 60 billion people would be something of a computation problem. It doesn't need to do it fast, six thousand years will do, plus or minus a few hundred million. Simulated time, of course.
Or, here's an even better game -- tune your big bang.
and you, of course.
As someone else said, you're there, you have a phone connection and/or a cable connection. You probably have an older computer or two sitting around gathering dust.
First, move her domain name to a dynamic dns service. Many (dyndns.org is one) can provide domain registration and mail redirection pretty cheap, so have the dynamic dns service redirect to your mail while you're checking around.
That will give your wife a stop gap solution while you discuss directions with her and check with your local providers about various things. Many providers will wink at a home business site being hosted on a home connection if it doesn't generate too much traffic. Some providers (telcos?), if you ask, can provide a 256K connection with static IP for something rather reasonable -- $35 to $40 range.
Hardware and system -- make sure you have a NATting firewall, and don't keep any credit card numbers and such on servers with global addresses. I'd go with the BSDs, but any of the Linii should be good on the inside of the firewall.
Or if your old computer is a macintosh, you may well be able to host the mail and (potential) web site on Mac OS X (client) without too much difficulty at all. (Still recommend the firewall.)
Last I checked, Qwest in Utah had static IPs at 1 for $16, four for $32 or something rather reasonable. DSL was 256K for $19 and 800-some-odd-K for $35, or something. That was a year ago.
What they offer in your area, and currently, is likely to vary, of course. I think they are pushing the bit rates up.
I ended up going with comcast for stupid reasons I won't go into here, and it worked out around the same effective price, sans static IP. (At the time, comcast would allow you to attach that many computers on your side of the modem without NAT, and if you checked the addresses they were global -- work it out.) So I figured to use one of the dynamic dns services, but never got that into place.
That was for someone else.
I host for myself on an iBook using dynamic dns on ADSL (see dyndns.org and others). I pay a total of about JPY 4000 a month, so I was initially surprised that prices were a little less than double in the states for dynamic IP. But static IP is a killer in Japan -- JPY 6000 a month for a single address, in addition to whatever you're paying for the connection. (Of course, for a business, that would not be so unreasonable, but for a business it's double.)
Freescale's short range uwb (which is not the same thing as zigbee) should be leaking out into the hardcore hobby market sometime this year.
Would take a fair amount of work at this point, but unwiring the entertainment system is one of the markets they are targetting.
question.
Like Microsoft does.
I think IBM ought to just take all the data that SCO wants, dump it on a big slag of a hard disk in tarred text form, and dump it in SCO's lap.
There's your data, now what are you going to do with it.
Kind of like when the dog chases you and you stop the car and get out and ask the dog what he wants with your car.
No, I'm sure it's got to do with the termination of Monterrey. Perhaps somebody at iNTEL has already told the lawyers at IBM what parts to extract. Then they give the whole boatload to SCO for double checking, so SCO know's they've gone over the line in their fishing expedition.
Heh. Don't try triple boot right off. It'll drive you crazy.
You'll really want to get familiar with each one before you try crazy things like triple boot. (It can be done, BTW. Just avoid mixing MSWxxx into a triple boot if you can. That's not good for your ulcer.)
However, as several have said, try them all. I concur with the guy who said start with openBSD, then find an old box in the junk bin to install openBSD on for your perimeter stuff. While you're in the junk bin, find some really exotic old architecture and have fun with netBSD. But while you're waiting for things to compile bring up freeBSD for productivity type stuff.
Hmm. That's a little overly simplistic advice, but do try them all.
One thing, Java is much tamer on FreeBSD. It can be done on openBSD and netBSD, from what I've heard, but if you want/need to run Java on BSD and haven't done that before, start on freeBSD.
(If you really _need_ productivity on your home project, spring for the Mac Mini. That goes double if you need productivity with Java. I assume, however, that's not the point of your project.)
Hedy Lamarr.
Of course, the point here is that iNTEL thinks that sending a whole packet before switching the band is UWB.
I dunno. Maybe it's close enough.
If you dig far enough back in the history of this, there were quite a few different approaches. About four years back, there were four main groups. iNTEL figured they had to lay their stake early, so they tried to muscle the other three out. eXtreme Spectrum had almost enough horsepower in their design to survive iNTEL's tactics, but finally had to turn to Motorola to bail them out.
Why Motorola? Good question. Many of the core group at eXtreme Spectrum had just been laid off from Motorola, or had jumped before the layoffs.
Why does iNTEL want this?
This short-distance UWB is potentially going to replace all the wires on your information devices except for the power wires. If you were into patents, wouldn't you like a patent on wire? ("Patent on wire" was something of a buzz phrase during the infighting.)
(Personally, I'm wondering if the XS/Freescale technique techniqe might be beneficial in power wires, but I don't know what I'm talking about.)
If you ask me, though, iNTEL's idea of jumping from spectrum to spectrum seems to have the larger footprint, the higher susceptibility to eavesdripping and being dripped on, and the greater power requirements. It might scale to greater distance, but that might not be desirable for short-distance, high-bandwidth wireless.
The XS/Freescale approach of basically spitting raw bits into the air at pseudo-random frequencies and very low power should be familiar with a crowd that understands crypto. You remember the story about the actress and the piano player and an early patent in the field.
But, again, I don't know what I'm talking about, so my biases might be showing.
We could all benefit from a few more minutes walking, a few less minutes driving, and a few less minutes using electricity each day. We all complain, let's personally do something about it.
Some of its adherents do, but then the same can be said of science.
Actually, either way, when you don't have proof and are just out testing the waters, you have to adhere for a little while until you get some proof. So, I take it back, but only if you'll admit that science has similar issues.
One difference is that religion allows non-quantifiable proofs, where science is supposed to disallow such.
The judge may be right. He's closer to the problem than we are.
But the parents are closer than the judge, so I tend to side with the parents when I'm watching from here.
Evolution as the principle that created life is a theory. It's a well supported class of theories, but not proven.
If the textbook does a good job of exploring evolution as a biological principle and the potential role of evolution in bringing life about, then it probably should not need the label. But that is an ethical issue, and the judge should not be judging ethical issues unless either the book or the label or both is being used to intimidate people.
I can't see how anyone would be intimidated by that label. Possible, sure. Maybe those 2000 parents are using that label to threaten those seven parents and force their kids to pray in school. But I didn't see any mention of that.
The only thing I can read out of the article is that seven parents were agast that the merest hint that there might be something non-mechanical going on in the universe, and the judge said their rights trumped the rights of the 2000 parents to want something a little less sterile for their kids.
(Unfortunately, pretend scientists do get into textbooks. Since we don't have the textbook in question, it's hard to say if that is the case here.)
Can't imagine why you would say so.
I think you mistake breeze for steam. But that's you're privilege, you insignificant little speck of carbon, you.
I, at least, know that I am less than the dust of the earth.
One big fuji apple plus one crabapple == two apples?
One key for a symmetric crypt + one key for an asymmetric crypt == two keys?
On a single digit readout voltmeter, 1V + 1V == 2V?
The world is a huge place, and there are places where the rules just don't seem the same.
And there are people who believe in a God who wants them to be free to take a break from work once a week, rather than a god who wants to burn for stepping out of line.
(Actually, the burning in hell is for the bosses who insist on planning the schedules as if one eighty hour week were just as productive as two forty hour weeks, month after month after year.)
Then why laud the court for siding with the those who are making the biggest noise right now?
If they should be limiting themselves to law, they should be limiting themselves to law, and not trying to tell the board of education that they can't stand up for a group of people who want their kids to know that there are a lot of pretend scientists out there saying theory is better than fact.
Who says what is "fittest"? Who said that survival is some sort of fitness? Fit for what? Survival for how long? What happens when the human race, chasing short term survival, extinguishes itself?
More important question -- who, or what, deemed that survival should occur in the first place? Why is survival a principle that matters?
If you wave it off as just chance, you're still dodging the question. Who or what determined that chemical chance should have the necessary biases to produce life?
The answer is that whatever you say created the world and all that is in it is your god.
But science has to keep its hands off that question, and for very good reason. If it doesn't, it gets into the business of telling each and every person they have to believe in the same ultimate creator. And that is not science.
People who deal with faith understand that real belief tends to engender an ability to let others believe what they will. The need to defend is derived from a weak position.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, either, because defense often refines and strengthens understanding.
But this business about courts preventing school systems from stickering textbooks with a reminder that science is not the be-all and end-all of truth is attempting to use law to prevent the sciencists from having to defend their point.
and kids tend to come up with more better ideas when science is also enencumbered by the fear that any of a certain class of re-thinking will be automatically labeled "that old superstitious religion".
I agree, the scientific community should not be all painted black just because some who participate let their egos get in the way of science or let their own work become a cause of fashion.
...
Likewise religion.
Last time I checked, real religion required an active faith, active pursuit of truth, and the moral strength to not be swayed by every wind of fashion.
Show me your faith without works, and I'll
show you my faith with works.
(James)
And this is the true, pure religion, to
visit the widows and the fatherless.
(Paul? to the Hebrews?)
You shall know the truth and the truth shall
make you free.
(Jesus)
Repent!
(Jesus)
(Some people think repentance is just moaning and groaning about how bad we are, but if you study the scriptures, it's essentially step-wise refinement, or conscience-directed personal evolution. At very least, it's a willingness to quit doing what's wrong and start doing what's right.)
Any lacking wisdom should ask of God,
but should ask with real intent, otherwise will
be just like a boat with no rudder, blown about
by every fashion of doctrine.
(James, again)
(God, being by definition, the source of all truth, which some might forget.)
Paraphrases, but there should be enough there for the curious to find the references.
The argument is not religion vs. science, but religionists vs. sciencists. (Scientificists?)
People who do true religion and people who do true science and ignore fashions (and dabates about them) are the real heros, even if they push us to think more deeply into what seven days, or in the case of this debate, creation, actually means.
Dang. bit by the HTML Formatted button being below the bottom of the window again.
Man that's hard to read.
Your politician example -- poor judgement on the slandered candidate's part. It's so commonly said, you'd think every who gets into politics would know it. The best defense against slander is not to give it the time of day. If people ask, tell the truth, then get on with the job. I wouldn't want a politician who would get distracted from his job by slanderous accusations. Muckraking has been part of politics as long as politics has been around. It's not a wonderful thing, but it's part of the real world. And being able to deal with it is part of being free. Your getting turned down for a job example, I've been there. Again, it's not a wonderful thing, but it's part of being free to let other people have their opinions even when they don't want to let you have yours, and even when it means getting turned down for a job. In real life, hiring decisions are not that simple, and if the management of a company listens to rumors, it's usally not going to be a fun company to work for.
When something becomes a worldview, that does seem to be one of the things that tends to happen. I guess it's part of the nature of humans to look for us vs. them divisions.
When science is being used to keep people from thinking beyond the fashionable theories, it has an awful lot in common with the worst of religion.
Unless you attend a private school that requires them as a textbook, but attending a private school would seem to be by choice.