Clinton told the odd porky but Bush is a master of bullshit.
Like many other born-again Christians who are hiding from their own dark side,
he lacks the intellectual rigour to think critically, and has no problem projecting an air of confidence.
Hence, bullshit.
See his comments on Intelligent Design, Iraqi WMD, terrorism and dozens of other topics.
Go read the full paper in Nature if you want to know more. Scientific reporting at its finest.
I agree, the press release is useless. The take-home message of the Nature article itself
(from a probabilistic modeling pov)
seems to be that, in order to design WW proteins that folded stably, it was necessary to model
covariation between residues, rather than just independent site-specific frequencies (as would,
for example, be generated by a Hidden Markov Model).
The particular covariation model is called Statistical Coupling Analysis and is described in the authors'
cited Science paper. I can't read Science from home so I can't tell how it works, but this is very cool.
Modeling covariation in proteins is hard, and an experimental demonstration is neat.
Oh no, it's *you* who must be right. Not only were you modded down, but you avoided answering any points that were put to you. clearly you're some sort of strategic genius...
must be absolutely, unconditionally assured that we are willing to blow his (or his sponsors') ass back to the beggining of time
Oh please, spare us yet more of this ridiculous bomb them back into the stone age idiocy that fails to realise what epoch we're in and who we're dealing with. Please be absolutely, unconditionally assured that no-one in the world doubts the ability of Americans to utterly miss the point and bomb the hell out of "rogue nations", utterly unaware that they're fighting last century's kind of war. The terrorists escaped by foot and horse while you "bombed Afghanistan into the Stone Age", killing more innocent civilians than ever died in 9/11, largely for the benefit of Fox News. So it's all good; no-one doubts your ability to make this kind of dumb fool mistake, just as few now doubt that America is, indeed, a paper tiger when it comes to writing checks the electorate's stomach can't cash. Like a sustained military occupation of Iraq, for example. But, it's true, putting more power in the hands of a prat like Bush will certainly drum the point home to anyone who hasn't been paying attention to your murderous platitudes about trigger-fingers and righteous bombs.
Thanks for the info... didn't Dark Avenger self-regulate or something like that? I know it had reasonably advanced polymorphism for the time. There was also one called Guru Meditation, not to mention all those Amiga and Atari ST viruses...
It used to be about ego and saying "look what I can do" or "I was the first to do this", now it's more about 0-day exploits, scripting, and financial gain sometimes through extortion..which is why they should go to jail!
Oh, I dunno... I think "look what I can do!" first-posters deserve jail time too.
> So what's the lesson here? Have a virus/worm with a limited life span? After the first n machines have been infected cease spreading?
Interesting... I'm wondering if anyone could do this w/o the virus having to communicate with some sort of server.
Sure you could. If each instance of the virus only propagates N times, and is constrained to M rounds of replication, then you have O(N^(M+1)) infected machines per initial seed, barring "excluded volume" effects (i.e. reinfection).
Back in the 90s, virus writing was a hobby, if a black-hat one. The most famous viruses--Melissa, ILOVEYOU, were all done for fun, not for profit.
Ehh, please don't use lame windoze rubbish like Melissa and ILoveYou as examples of some bygone golden age. Mention something with a bit of substance, like the Morris worm, Zalewski's WormNet, Creeper or even Shockwave Rider.
It's always funny to me when people defend "capitalism" without even realising that the term was invented as a perjorative by its greatest enemy. (Surely this is the definition of being a reactionary...)
Marx distinguishes capitalism from straight commerce by pointing out that, in capitalism, workers neither own the means of production, nor do they own the fruits of their labour. Thus, companies that have stakeholding and share-vesting programs are less "capitalist" than those in which workers receive a direct wage.
It's certainly true that Google treats its employees better, but I don't know if it's less capitalist than MS. Depends if they dole out shares, I suppose. As for the idea that companies have to crush the competition, no this isn't really capitalism, though I would imagine it's a fairly natural consequence of the Milton Friedman/Chicago school of free market competition.
Actually, you're far further off in your assessment of me, in too many ways to enumerate. In fact, you've amplydemonstrated all the above stereotypes already.
I am still curious as to what NYC has done in the way of science, other than pay taxes and consume products. I mean, it's a great place for nightclubs and shopping. I've sort of given up on you ever answering that, though; plus, it's clear that if there are any great scientists there, you sure won't know'em.
BTW, you may not think you're a "Bushevik", but with your complaints that research isn't showing value, etc, etc, you may as well be. Research is showing value. It always has. Despite this, funding is being cut from NSF and NIH, and diverted to military spending and homeland security. This leads to a distortion of scientific priorities, e.g. towards biowarfare and away from public health, which can properly be seen as part of the massive fear-driven distortion of US priorities following 9/11. Yes, go ahead, accuse me of being driven solely by blinkered public-sector greed again; that's what you faux-libertarian nobs do best; regardless, that's the context to your comments attacking NSF. Maybe you'd like to take a pop at the UN next? In the least-Bushlike way possible, of course. See, no matter how anti-Bush you claim you are, no matter how nuanced and unique you think your particular "indignant-taxpayer" drone may sound, in the end it's indistinguishable from the chorus of similar voices on the right wing. Especially in its rampant nationalism. "But I hate Bush," you cry, oblivious to the fact that the main problem with most self-styled opponents of Bush is that they sound exactly like Bush on so many issues....
Now get back to work and do something to justify your grant. That, by the way, is paying for you to spin your wheels in our country, a guest who hates his hosts. Ingrate motherfucker.
Hey, you know, Doc, those grants are awarded by competition, fair and square. If you don't like the fact that I out-competed Americans for ca$h, then why don't you submit a proposal and show a sketpical world what New York can do? Just one achievment on the scale of BSD Unix or the Linux kernel would be nice... instead of, ahem, whining bigtime about foreigners reaping the benefits of "your" hard graft.
O & btw, I don't hate Americans; far from it. It's just that a college youth mis-spent on alt.nuke.the.USA taught me to recognise certain "types". And you're more typed than Haskell. Why don't you move on to the WW2 chorus. You know how it goes: "all be speaking German... bailed out your asses.... Turing was a fag in NHS glasses..."
I'm talking about Internet2, the subject of this discussion. Just like the Internet, I expect my taxes and government to support research to produce Internet2, and to share it with the world. But instead, my taxes and government are subsidizing corporate testbeds for Cisco and Nortel, as a weak protest in another response correctly identified.
It's too bad your own posts don't contain facts to back up your random walks through rant-space. We see Internet 2 just fine here, in UC Berkeley. I do realise NYC, and the east coast in general, is a little backward when it comes to these things.
I hate Bush, as I often make perfectly clear in many ways on Slashdot.
Well excuse me for not being thoroughly familiar with your ouvre. Then again, I've seen hundreds of clone-like American idiots claiming that (a) they invented most of the modern world, (b) foreigners are freeloaders and (c) they themselves are experts on "foreign" countries, science, national funding priorities, taxes, and indeed an assortment of other areas where they've basically got a couple of weeks experience at most (but clearly feel that, since this is two weeks more than most of their compatriots, the "expert" tag is well-deserved). After the first dozen or two such clones, you kinda stop paying attention.
ho hum, yet another underachieving yank who thinks he can overcome the shame of a harsh unloving daddy by wrapping his naked ass in Old Glory and spouting crap he doesn't understand
you know, when you talk about "American largesse", it is particularly obvious that you have never actually made it out of the mailroom. it's a cliche, but true: the most pompous nationalists like you really are compensating for major inadequacy.
the internet isn't yours. it isn't even remotely yours. it doesn't even like you. now sod off.
OK, I'll bite instead of modding you troll. What the hell are you thinking? Don't you realise the internet was developed in the public sector? Those universities and medical centers are the same early-adopting testbeds that created the infrastructure to allow you to bang out your jingoistic nonsense with your one free hand today. I presume, incidentally, that you are posting this using some kind of advanced gopher client, and not HTTP, since you don't appear to have heard of that particular European invention. Likewise, presumably you're not using any GNU products (MIT), Linux, Berkeley Unix, or anything else that might challenge your pickled-in-vinegar worldview. Jeez. You are a prime idiot. No doubt you will be
happy to learn that George Bush, quite possibly an idol of yours, has quietly slashed NSF funding, as part of his war on science. Presumably this will not damage the future of the Internet, however, since I am sure that a fine libertarian like you was first in line to donate his Bush tax refund check to some private Internet Reseach Trust or other.
Depends... for the link I posted (HMMER),
there have been very few contributors, and to my knowledge
all have been bought off with pizza, beer and
(as the s/w got more successful) plane tickets and hotel bills.
More generally, I suppose you would have to restrict the relicensed version to in-house code.
(I've heard that Richard Stallman considers this suspect, but that might be a mis-statement of his position.)
Another potential positive aspect is relicensing.
Some companies are so GPL-phobic that they will pay to have you
(or your company) give them a one-off, non-exclusive waiver,
so they can use your code without the (perceived) GPL albatross
hanging round their necks.
I've worked on open source projects
(e.g. HMMER) that have made money this way.
Is there any consideration for guild halls, house or player cities in the future? SWG's had many issues but their Cities where a very interesting concept, and since blizzard is in a position to use the lessons learned is this something you guys would consider?
Yes, it does appear that you (Blizzard) have made a conscious decision to go for slick playability over user-designed content.
Can you confirm this, or would you like to see more player cities and the like? This is something that does seem to be hugely lacking in MMORPGs compared to text MOOs.
Given various speculations about the "wikification" of games, how long do you think the top-down content model can thrive?
Technically Oz was founded by Brits (just like the US), first as a penal colony when the prison ships anchored on the Thames started to stink up the London gentry's riverside properties. Later waves of immigration (mainly in Victoria) accompanied the Australian gold rush. Of course, long prior to this there was a wave of immigration during the melanesian expansion that led to the Aboriginal population.
Anyways.... I personally am rather surprised that the Aussie government is complaining about GTA; after all, they have a fine tradition of road warrior fiction.
Slashdot Mirror
Like many other born-again Christians who are hiding from their own dark side, he lacks the intellectual rigour to think critically, and has no problem projecting an air of confidence. Hence, bullshit. See his comments on Intelligent Design, Iraqi WMD, terrorism and dozens of other topics.
I agree, the press release is useless. The take-home message of the Nature article itself (from a probabilistic modeling pov) seems to be that, in order to design WW proteins that folded stably, it was necessary to model covariation between residues, rather than just independent site-specific frequencies (as would, for example, be generated by a Hidden Markov Model). The particular covariation model is called Statistical Coupling Analysis and is described in the authors' cited Science paper. I can't read Science from home so I can't tell how it works, but this is very cool. Modeling covariation in proteins is hard, and an experimental demonstration is neat.
Other than that, there's the Commentator...
and figure out the derivatives that way.
Oh no, it's *you* who must be right. Not only were you modded down, but you avoided answering any points that were put to you. clearly you're some sort of strategic genius...
No, I don't think so. You seem to think it's a good thing that America is so easily prodded into stupid blunders. I don't.
Oh please, spare us yet more of this ridiculous bomb them back into the stone age idiocy that fails to realise what epoch we're in and who we're dealing with. Please be absolutely, unconditionally assured that no-one in the world doubts the ability of Americans to utterly miss the point and bomb the hell out of "rogue nations", utterly unaware that they're fighting last century's kind of war. The terrorists escaped by foot and horse while you "bombed Afghanistan into the Stone Age", killing more innocent civilians than ever died in 9/11, largely for the benefit of Fox News. So it's all good; no-one doubts your ability to make this kind of dumb fool mistake, just as few now doubt that America is, indeed, a paper tiger when it comes to writing checks the electorate's stomach can't cash. Like a sustained military occupation of Iraq, for example. But, it's true, putting more power in the hands of a prat like Bush will certainly drum the point home to anyone who hasn't been paying attention to your murderous platitudes about trigger-fingers and righteous bombs.
Thanks for the info... didn't Dark Avenger self-regulate or something like that? I know it had reasonably advanced polymorphism for the time. There was also one called Guru Meditation, not to mention all those Amiga and Atari ST viruses...
Oh, I dunno... I think "look what I can do!" first-posters deserve jail time too.
Interesting... I'm wondering if anyone could do this w/o the virus having to communicate with some sort of server.
Sure you could. If each instance of the virus only propagates N times, and is constrained to M rounds of replication, then you have O(N^(M+1)) infected machines per initial seed, barring "excluded volume" effects (i.e. reinfection).
Ehh, please don't use lame windoze rubbish like Melissa and ILoveYou as examples of some bygone golden age. Mention something with a bit of substance, like the Morris worm, Zalewski's WormNet, Creeper or even Shockwave Rider.
It's always funny to me when people defend "capitalism" without even realising that the term was invented as a perjorative by its greatest enemy. (Surely this is the definition of being a reactionary...)
Marx distinguishes capitalism from straight commerce by pointing out that, in capitalism, workers neither own the means of production, nor do they own the fruits of their labour. Thus, companies that have stakeholding and share-vesting programs are less "capitalist" than those in which workers receive a direct wage.
It's certainly true that Google treats its employees better, but I don't know if it's less capitalist than MS. Depends if they dole out shares, I suppose. As for the idea that companies have to crush the competition, no this isn't really capitalism, though I would imagine it's a fairly natural consequence of the Milton Friedman/Chicago school of free market competition.
BTW, you may not think you're a "Bushevik", but with your complaints that research isn't showing value, etc, etc, you may as well be. Research is showing value. It always has. Despite this, funding is being cut from NSF and NIH, and diverted to military spending and homeland security. This leads to a distortion of scientific priorities, e.g. towards biowarfare and away from public health, which can properly be seen as part of the massive fear-driven distortion of US priorities following 9/11. Yes, go ahead, accuse me of being driven solely by blinkered public-sector greed again; that's what you faux-libertarian nobs do best; regardless, that's the context to your comments attacking NSF. Maybe you'd like to take a pop at the UN next? In the least-Bushlike way possible, of course. See, no matter how anti-Bush you claim you are, no matter how nuanced and unique you think your particular "indignant-taxpayer" drone may sound, in the end it's indistinguishable from the chorus of similar voices on the right wing. Especially in its rampant nationalism. "But I hate Bush," you cry, oblivious to the fact that the main problem with most self-styled opponents of Bush is that they sound exactly like Bush on so many issues....
Hey, you know, Doc, those grants are awarded by competition, fair and square. If you don't like the fact that I out-competed Americans for ca$h, then why don't you submit a proposal and show a sketpical world what New York can do? Just one achievment on the scale of BSD Unix or the Linux kernel would be nice... instead of, ahem, whining bigtime about foreigners reaping the benefits of "your" hard graft. O & btw, I don't hate Americans; far from it. It's just that a college youth mis-spent on alt.nuke.the.USA taught me to recognise certain "types". And you're more typed than Haskell. Why don't you move on to the WW2 chorus. You know how it goes: "all be speaking German... bailed out your asses.... Turing was a fag in NHS glasses..."
I'm talking about Internet2, the subject of this discussion. Just like the Internet, I expect my taxes and government to support research to produce Internet2, and to share it with the world. But instead, my taxes and government are subsidizing corporate testbeds for Cisco and Nortel, as a weak protest in another response correctly identified.
It's too bad your own posts don't contain facts to back up your random walks through rant-space. We see Internet 2 just fine here, in UC Berkeley. I do realise NYC, and the east coast in general, is a little backward when it comes to these things.
I hate Bush, as I often make perfectly clear in many ways on Slashdot.
Well excuse me for not being thoroughly familiar with your ouvre. Then again, I've seen hundreds of clone-like American idiots claiming that (a) they invented most of the modern world, (b) foreigners are freeloaders and (c) they themselves are experts on "foreign" countries, science, national funding priorities, taxes, and indeed an assortment of other areas where they've basically got a couple of weeks experience at most (but clearly feel that, since this is two weeks more than most of their compatriots, the "expert" tag is well-deserved). After the first dozen or two such clones, you kinda stop paying attention.
you know, when you talk about "American largesse", it is particularly obvious that you have never actually made it out of the mailroom. it's a cliche, but true: the most pompous nationalists like you really are compensating for major inadequacy.
the internet isn't yours. it isn't even remotely yours. it doesn't even like you. now sod off.
OK, I'll bite instead of modding you troll. What the hell are you thinking? Don't you realise the internet was developed in the public sector? Those universities and medical centers are the same early-adopting testbeds that created the infrastructure to allow you to bang out your jingoistic nonsense with your one free hand today. I presume, incidentally, that you are posting this using some kind of advanced gopher client, and not HTTP, since you don't appear to have heard of that particular European invention. Likewise, presumably you're not using any GNU products (MIT), Linux, Berkeley Unix, or anything else that might challenge your pickled-in-vinegar worldview. Jeez. You are a prime idiot. No doubt you will be happy to learn that George Bush, quite possibly an idol of yours, has quietly slashed NSF funding, as part of his war on science. Presumably this will not damage the future of the Internet, however, since I am sure that a fine libertarian like you was first in line to donate his Bush tax refund check to some private Internet Reseach Trust or other.
More generally, I suppose you would have to restrict the relicensed version to in-house code. (I've heard that Richard Stallman considers this suspect, but that might be a mis-statement of his position.)
Another potential positive aspect is relicensing. Some companies are so GPL-phobic that they will pay to have you (or your company) give them a one-off, non-exclusive waiver, so they can use your code without the (perceived) GPL albatross hanging round their necks. I've worked on open source projects (e.g. HMMER) that have made money this way.
Yes, it does appear that you (Blizzard) have made a conscious decision to go for slick playability over user-designed content. Can you confirm this, or would you like to see more player cities and the like? This is something that does seem to be hugely lacking in MMORPGs compared to text MOOs. Given various speculations about the "wikification" of games, how long do you think the top-down content model can thrive?
This is exactly the kind of question Slashdot should be asking Blizzard. Technical, geeky, cool.
(I've taught Perl as an introductory programming language. Seriously. What can I say; bioinformatics is a macho subject)
by Alanis Morrissette's. hth
it is particularly ironic as prostitution is legal in Oz...
Technically Oz was founded by Brits (just like the US), first as a penal colony when the prison ships anchored on the Thames started to stink up the London gentry's riverside properties. Later waves of immigration (mainly in Victoria) accompanied the Australian gold rush. Of course, long prior to this there was a wave of immigration during the melanesian expansion that led to the Aboriginal population.
Anyways.... I personally am rather surprised that the Aussie government is complaining about GTA; after all, they have a fine tradition of road warrior fiction.