Does this remind anyone else of the "Mark of the Beast" foretold in Revelation?
Wikipedia quotes Revelation:
"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name."
SPARK is a subset of Ada augmented with assertions that allow the designer to prove important properties of a program: termination, absence of run-time exceptions, finite memory usage, etc.
All the scientific knowledge wasted trying to fight the consequences could be used to fight the causes. But that's way too smart for the current administration to understand.
Let's hope the next is not so stupid, but I don't foresee significant changes.
We, people of the 1st World, will be happily marching towards fascism (again) frightened of those darky, weirdy baddies with long fangs dripping blood. There were the Indians, the Jews, then the Commies, now the Muslims, tomorrow someone else.
You forgot the Nazis.
Let's see, the Indians were mistreated and some resorted to terrorism, and were almost completely wiped out. I hope you're not suggesting we try to wipe out all Muslims.
The commies killed some 40 million people, but we went on defensive and waited for them to realize the error of their ways, eventually helping them along by showing they couldn't win an arms race. I'm not sure how this works with terrorists except for the defensive part, which you seem to be opposing.
I'm not sure what you're saying the Jews did. Although I guess one could argue that terrorists see them as a "root cause" and perhaps by eliminating the Jews we could greatly reduce terrorism. That might work but I couldn't support it and I don't believe you could either.
Another "root cause" is the West's failure to convert to Islam. I'm guessing you wouldn't support forcing all Westerners to convert to Islam.
A common misconception is that a "root cause" of terrorism is poverty. But Osama was born to a rich family, and the mideast in general is swimming in oil wealth. What? You say that wealth isn't evenly distributed? The only way the West can fix that is to infringe on the sovereignty of those nations. We're doing that in Iraq and I'm guessing you don't support that either.
So what exactly are you suggesting be done to attack the "root causes"?
Perhaps having "the internet" so thoroughly locked down that you can't do anything with it would be a good thing. The whole "free" and "open" aspect has been a big problem in my opinion.
If, from day one, the internet had not existed, proprietary networks like Prodigy would have taken off and done much better. With several proprietary networks competing, you can bet they would have been extremely motivated to develop technologies within the network to prevent spamming, DOS attacks, and other malware problems. Most obviously, a nominal charge on network use or email use (a half-penny per email?) would do a lot to stop spammers. And due to consumer demand, they would have done so in a way that didn't require you to put a lot of software on your machine.
At some point an internet would have evolved anyway, as Prodigy users would demand to be able to send email to AOL users and vice versa, but it would have evolved from secure networks into a secure internet work. If we can find some way to kill "the Internet" perhaps there is hope that it can still happen.
I really think the internet was a mistake from a security standpoint. I still remember 20 years ago getting a computer and thinking I could do banking through it. I contacted my bank to find out their modem number and THEY DIDN'T HAVE ONE! Instead of free or very cheap and secure computer banking, I would have to spend around 20 bucks a month to get on the internet and send my personal information and passwords out for everyone to see. If Al Gore really invented the internet that's yet another reason to not have voted for him.
IOW, not being omniscient, people are likely to identify as "unfit" individuals who they simply don't like, feel threatened by, etc., and prevent from reproducing people who are, in fact, carriers of genes with significant survival value.
But, if your such an a-hole that people choose to identify you as unfit and leave you out in the snow despite your wonderful genes, then perhaps you have some less 'fit' genes too. If, as you say the inevitable expression of each individual's genome will of necessity result in some individuals leaving more offspring than others. These individuals are, *by definition* the fittest. then by definition, any intervention that causes some individuals to leave more offspring than others is, by definition, 100% accurate in identifying the fittest genes.
This is all rather silly isn't it. The point is, we shouldn't leave anybody out in the snow. And if you believe in evolution then it should be clear that we developed the traits, like empathy, that keep us from abandoning people in the snow for a good reason. Perhaps because those people have some value for us. Perhaps because by not abandoning people, other people are less likely to abandon us. Whatever the reason, keep those shelters open this winter.
It's awesome for me too. I can't afford to get the 4 or 5 channels I would regularly watch because they're bundled with hundreds of other channels. Perhaps if this suit is successful I'll be able to get the channels I want. Until then, more time for Everquest!
still don't understand why people think this is going to happen, or even why you'd want it to happen. Which is easier and more efficient, to read from a web page, or to read from a web page rendered as some kind of sign in a 3D virtual world?
I'm certainly not claiming that there's no room for improvement or innovation in the web browser, but there are reasons why that model won out and continues to be used today. Reading and writing is often more effective and efficient than speaking and listening, and the document model is efficient for reading and writing. Rendering the document into a 3D world is a waste of time and resources.
It depends on what you're reading and why, and also on where you're physically located while reading.
Reading slashdot on office break is best done with text. Most of the job-related research I do is best done in text. But I'm sure a lot of chat sights, social bulletin board sights, facebook, myspace, and other sites would see the ability to visit in 3D as a huge selling point.
Teleconferences might also be improved by being rendered in 3D with avatars, and those could easily be set up on second life style servers with second life clients if they become the norm.
Advertisers might like to provide 3D spaces for users' avatars to enter and visit. It would seem to me that the more you can immerse your target inside your advertisement, the better.
of course the fact that your new browser can now function as an SL client doesn't have to mean it can no longer render text the way it always has when you want it too.
actually, according to tfa liberals are better thinkers.
Well, tfa was hardly unbiased in their description:
"Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a 'flip-flopper' for changing his mind about the conflict."
could have been written as
"Sulloway said the results could explain why people perceived President Bush as having a "single-minded" commitment to the Iraq war and why Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race demonstrated flip-flopping by changing his mind about the conflict."
Perhaps it was Sulloway who was biased. It's unclear because the reported paraphrased instead of quoting directly.
"an entity that would otherwise qualify for the media exemption"
Why does the "media" get an exemption? They have biases and vested interests. Freedom speech and the press is supposed to be for everyone, not just selected people who get "exemptions".
Maybe this explains why religion persists in the face of logic, it was here before science.
You mean you still believe in the myth that religion and logic are incompatible?
If you believe that, I suspect you have made logic into your religion. After all, you can't prove the correctness of logic. And if you did, your proof would necessarily be incorrect because of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning-your proof of logic, being based on logic, would presuppose logic is correct.
So our trust in logic is not the result of ironclad proof, but instead the result of observations and built-in reasoning. Can such innate reasoning be wrong? Of course. Can we be fooled in our observations? Of course. Given our limited powers of observation and reasoning, we must accept that the most important questions in life are beyond our grasp and always will be, unless they are revealed to us. Even then, we need to decide whether to accept such revelations, a task we find exceedingly difficult.
If you want to do the government's work for them, sure.
Being concerned about national security is only the government's job? So, if you heard some guys talking about blowing up a large America building, you wouldn't bother to report it, because catching terrorists is "the government's work"?
This case is less clear. How much does it benefit a potential enemy of the U.S. to have this information available in open source? Does it outweigh the risk that we fall behind technologically because we refuse to participate in open source projects when the rest of the world is participating? They're not easy questions, but the original poster is right to be asking them and it's not just a matter of doing "the government's work".
If you are shutting down a project based solely on the fear that your government may shut you down in the future (and not for a valid reason), you are only saving them the trouble, and making it that much worse for the next controversial open-source project that comes along.
It didn't sound like he was worried about being shut down. He was just worried about not harming his fellow countrymen, not putting the soldiers who protect him in greater danger.
There is little reason for most students to take upper level math. As a historian and a writer, i never EVER use anything more than arithmetic or geometry. Not being able to do calculus has never ones been a problem in my education or work.
So, as a history, something like the Malthusian Trap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_trap/ because it takes a little understanding beyond arithmetic and geometry to appreciate its cause?
I don't actually perform calculations beyond simple math and geometry in my everyday life. But when I read the news, think about current events, vote, and certainly when I try to understand history, my math training beyond arithmetic and geometry allow me to understand what is going on. For example, I don't need to perform many statistical calculations myself, but I do like to know what is meant when a survey describes its margin of error.
If our historians only understand simple arithmetic and geometry, that would explain why so many goofy ideas are coming out of history departments these days.
There's nothing Egalitarian about gains made in an MMORPG. Those with the most time, make the most gains. Those with jobs and families end up left behind. What's so 'fair' and 'equal' about that?
What's fair is that what you get in the game depends on what you do in the game, not on how much money you pay outside the game. As someone with pretty limited time, I do find it frustrating that people I play with one week are so many levels above me the next week that I can't group with them again. But they did all the things required to level in the game, so they achieved the level. Also, actions in the game cause them to reach new levels, so their achievements don't have much impact on me. But someone who paid extra and has a new sword because of it is someone I may group with. He makes my contribution to the group seem less valuable. If I were to PvP with him, I would lose. And before you mention twinking, yes I find that annoying too, but less so because it actually happens in-game. It doesn't represent an interference of real life into the fantasy world.
I play Everquest, and this doesn't sound like fun.
I don't want loot cards that I have interest in. I don't want to play an "in-game" game that players can buy extra cards for. I like the egalitarian idea that everyone pays the same fee and then gets a level playing field ( yes, there are gold farmers, but Sony tries to stop them, not become them).
And I don't know how this is supposed to integrate with the world of Norrath. I mean, why would, for example, a skeleton be carrying around a trading game card? Kinda seems out of place.
The real question is, are some teens getting less sex because they are smart, or are they smart because they are getting less sex (for whatever reason)?
I think the first post answers that question:
"In fact, a more detailed study from 2000 is devoted strictly to this topic, and finds the same thing: Smart Teens Don't Have Sex (or Kiss Much Either)."
While there are plenty of smart reasons for waiting to have sex, how many people make a conscious decision not to kiss early or not to kiss before marriage?
I look at it this way, part of the fun of the game for myself and many others is seeing how we stack up against other players, and trying to see what we can do to improve over them. That's part of the fun of most games. Obviously it's not all the fun, because we can still have fun when we lose, or when we're not the best player on the team. But it is part of the fun.
What does gold farming do? Well, like the article said, what happens to your game of Monopoly when the other player pays someone real money for Boardwalk and Park Place. What happens to your game of neighborhood baseball when the other team hires a professional player to pitch? Or perhaps they hire professionals to run up the score for the first nine innings, then come in to 'win' the game?
I'm a casual player; I don't really expect to ever reach the top levels of the MMORPG I play. I would like to think that people who do reach those levels do so by playing - that they have had the experiences I'm having and have moved on.
This is a game. It's not about logic; it's about feelings. When someone is buying their way to the top, it no longer feels like a game. One reason to play a game is to escape the real world where some people get all the gold and all the advantages and go to a world where different criteria are important so different people have a chance to get the winnings. If the real world seeps in by letting people use real money to buy their way up, it stops being a game.
Some games should allow real world transactions if that's what people want. Just some games have PvP and non-PvP servers, perhaps they should have RMT and non-RMT servers. For now, most games have rules that all servers are non-RMT, and people who play should respect the rules they've agreed to.
This patent stuff is madness, but I have a solution! I need your help. Come to my website and join the cause. All you have to do is click the link. Just one click, that's all. Just..um..one click..oh shoot, an Amazon lawyer is on the phone. Gotta go.
Slashdot Mirror
U. N. is "international" but it is hardly "country neutral". Just ask anybody from Taiwan.
Does this remind anyone else of the "Mark of the Beast" foretold in Revelation?
Wikipedia quotes Revelation:
"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name."
From TFA:
SPARK is a subset of Ada augmented with assertions that allow the designer to prove important properties of a program: termination, absence of run-time exceptions, finite memory usage, etc.
Really? They finally solved the Halting Problem?
All the scientific knowledge wasted trying to fight the consequences could be used to fight the causes. But that's way too smart for the current administration to understand.
Let's hope the next is not so stupid, but I don't foresee significant changes.
We, people of the 1st World, will be happily marching towards fascism (again) frightened of those darky, weirdy baddies with long fangs dripping blood. There were the Indians, the Jews, then the Commies, now the Muslims, tomorrow someone else. You forgot the Nazis.
Let's see, the Indians were mistreated and some resorted to terrorism, and were almost completely wiped out. I hope you're not suggesting we try to wipe out all Muslims.
The commies killed some 40 million people, but we went on defensive and waited for them to realize the error of their ways, eventually helping them along by showing they couldn't win an arms race. I'm not sure how this works with terrorists except for the defensive part, which you seem to be opposing.
I'm not sure what you're saying the Jews did. Although I guess one could argue that terrorists see them as a "root cause" and perhaps by eliminating the Jews we could greatly reduce terrorism. That might work but I couldn't support it and I don't believe you could either.
Another "root cause" is the West's failure to convert to Islam. I'm guessing you wouldn't support forcing all Westerners to convert to Islam.
A common misconception is that a "root cause" of terrorism is poverty. But Osama was born to a rich family, and the mideast in general is swimming in oil wealth. What? You say that wealth isn't evenly distributed? The only way the West can fix that is to infringe on the sovereignty of those nations. We're doing that in Iraq and I'm guessing you don't support that either.
So what exactly are you suggesting be done to attack the "root causes"?
This is cool. If any Martians ever stuck their tongue on it they should still be there!
Perhaps having "the internet" so thoroughly locked down that you can't do anything with it would be a good thing. The whole "free" and "open" aspect has been a big problem in my opinion. If, from day one, the internet had not existed, proprietary networks like Prodigy would have taken off and done much better. With several proprietary networks competing, you can bet they would have been extremely motivated to develop technologies within the network to prevent spamming, DOS attacks, and other malware problems. Most obviously, a nominal charge on network use or email use (a half-penny per email?) would do a lot to stop spammers. And due to consumer demand, they would have done so in a way that didn't require you to put a lot of software on your machine. At some point an internet would have evolved anyway, as Prodigy users would demand to be able to send email to AOL users and vice versa, but it would have evolved from secure networks into a secure internet work. If we can find some way to kill "the Internet" perhaps there is hope that it can still happen. I really think the internet was a mistake from a security standpoint. I still remember 20 years ago getting a computer and thinking I could do banking through it. I contacted my bank to find out their modem number and THEY DIDN'T HAVE ONE! Instead of free or very cheap and secure computer banking, I would have to spend around 20 bucks a month to get on the internet and send my personal information and passwords out for everyone to see. If Al Gore really invented the internet that's yet another reason to not have voted for him.
IOW, not being omniscient, people are likely to identify as "unfit" individuals who they simply don't like, feel threatened by, etc., and prevent from reproducing people who are, in fact, carriers of genes with significant survival value. But, if your such an a-hole that people choose to identify you as unfit and leave you out in the snow despite your wonderful genes, then perhaps you have some less 'fit' genes too. If, as you say the inevitable expression of each individual's genome will of necessity result in some individuals leaving more offspring than others. These individuals are, *by definition* the fittest. then by definition, any intervention that causes some individuals to leave more offspring than others is, by definition, 100% accurate in identifying the fittest genes.
This is all rather silly isn't it. The point is, we shouldn't leave anybody out in the snow. And if you believe in evolution then it should be clear that we developed the traits, like empathy, that keep us from abandoning people in the snow for a good reason. Perhaps because those people have some value for us. Perhaps because by not abandoning people, other people are less likely to abandon us. Whatever the reason, keep those shelters open this winter.
I bet they get to see some awesome night sky views in North Korea.
He was the man who introduced me to Doom.
It's awesome for me too. I can't afford to get the 4 or 5 channels I would regularly watch because they're bundled with hundreds of other channels. Perhaps if this suit is successful I'll be able to get the channels I want. Until then, more time for Everquest!
still don't understand why people think this is going to happen, or even why you'd want it to happen. Which is easier and more efficient, to read from a web page, or to read from a web page rendered as some kind of sign in a 3D virtual world? I'm certainly not claiming that there's no room for improvement or innovation in the web browser, but there are reasons why that model won out and continues to be used today. Reading and writing is often more effective and efficient than speaking and listening, and the document model is efficient for reading and writing. Rendering the document into a 3D world is a waste of time and resources.
It depends on what you're reading and why, and also on where you're physically located while reading.
Reading slashdot on office break is best done with text. Most of the job-related research I do is best done in text. But I'm sure a lot of chat sights, social bulletin board sights, facebook, myspace, and other sites would see the ability to visit in 3D as a huge selling point.
Teleconferences might also be improved by being rendered in 3D with avatars, and those could easily be set up on second life style servers with second life clients if they become the norm.
Advertisers might like to provide 3D spaces for users' avatars to enter and visit. It would seem to me that the more you can immerse your target inside your advertisement, the better.
of course the fact that your new browser can now function as an SL client doesn't have to mean it can no longer render text the way it always has when you want it too.
actually, according to tfa liberals are better thinkers.
Well, tfa was hardly unbiased in their description:
"Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a 'flip-flopper' for changing his mind about the conflict."
could have been written as
"Sulloway said the results could explain why people perceived President Bush as having a "single-minded" commitment to the Iraq war and why Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race demonstrated flip-flopping by changing his mind about the conflict."
Perhaps it was Sulloway who was biased. It's unclear because the reported paraphrased instead of quoting directly.
"an entity that would otherwise qualify for the media exemption"
Why does the "media" get an exemption? They have biases and vested interests. Freedom speech and the press is supposed to be for everyone, not just selected people who get "exemptions".
Maybe this explains why religion persists in the face of logic, it was here before science.
You mean you still believe in the myth that religion and logic are incompatible?
If you believe that, I suspect you have made logic into your religion. After all, you can't prove the correctness of logic. And if you did, your proof would necessarily be incorrect because of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning-your proof of logic, being based on logic, would presuppose logic is correct.
So our trust in logic is not the result of ironclad proof, but instead the result of observations and built-in reasoning. Can such innate reasoning be wrong? Of course. Can we be fooled in our observations? Of course. Given our limited powers of observation and reasoning, we must accept that the most important questions in life are beyond our grasp and always will be, unless they are revealed to us. Even then, we need to decide whether to accept such revelations, a task we find exceedingly difficult.
If you want to do the government's work for them, sure.
Being concerned about national security is only the government's job? So, if you heard some guys talking about blowing up a large America building, you wouldn't bother to report it, because catching terrorists is "the government's work"?
This case is less clear. How much does it benefit a potential enemy of the U.S. to have this information available in open source? Does it outweigh the risk that we fall behind technologically because we refuse to participate in open source projects when the rest of the world is participating? They're not easy questions, but the original poster is right to be asking them and it's not just a matter of doing "the government's work".
If you are shutting down a project based solely on the fear that your government may shut you down in the future (and not for a valid reason), you are only saving them the trouble, and making it that much worse for the next controversial open-source project that comes along.
It didn't sound like he was worried about being shut down. He was just worried about not harming his fellow countrymen, not putting the soldiers who protect him in greater danger.
Ah, that's what "mute" is for.
You mean the "off" button.
Is there anything left that someone hasn't claimed is 'hurting the children'?
Dunno. With the talk of bullying it's even claimed the children are hurting the children, which of course they are.
I can't recall anyone claiming that love or flowers are hurting the children. That's all I can think of.
There is little reason for most students to take upper level math. As a historian and a writer, i never EVER use anything more than arithmetic or geometry. Not being able to do calculus has never ones been a problem in my education or work.
So, as a history, something like the Malthusian Trap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_trap/ because it takes a little understanding beyond arithmetic and geometry to appreciate its cause?
I don't actually perform calculations beyond simple math and geometry in my everyday life. But when I read the news, think about current events, vote, and certainly when I try to understand history, my math training beyond arithmetic and geometry allow me to understand what is going on. For example, I don't need to perform many statistical calculations myself, but I do like to know what is meant when a survey describes its margin of error.
If our historians only understand simple arithmetic and geometry, that would explain why so many goofy ideas are coming out of history departments these days.
J&J is going up against the Geneva Convention and International law. They are is not going to win this.
I'd be ROFLMAO if it weren't for all the people in Sbrenica who were protected by international law.
I know what the Geneva Convention is. But what is "International law", really? I would like to have respect for it, but I don't.
There's nothing Egalitarian about gains made in an MMORPG. Those with the most time, make the most gains. Those with jobs and families end up left behind. What's so 'fair' and 'equal' about that?
What's fair is that what you get in the game depends on what you do in the game, not on how much money you pay outside the game. As someone with pretty limited time, I do find it frustrating that people I play with one week are so many levels above me the next week that I can't group with them again. But they did all the things required to level in the game, so they achieved the level. Also, actions in the game cause them to reach new levels, so their achievements don't have much impact on me. But someone who paid extra and has a new sword because of it is someone I may group with. He makes my contribution to the group seem less valuable. If I were to PvP with him, I would lose. And before you mention twinking, yes I find that annoying too, but less so because it actually happens in-game. It doesn't represent an interference of real life into the fantasy world.
I play Everquest, and this doesn't sound like fun. I don't want loot cards that I have interest in. I don't want to play an "in-game" game that players can buy extra cards for. I like the egalitarian idea that everyone pays the same fee and then gets a level playing field ( yes, there are gold farmers, but Sony tries to stop them, not become them). And I don't know how this is supposed to integrate with the world of Norrath. I mean, why would, for example, a skeleton be carrying around a trading game card? Kinda seems out of place.
The real question is, are some teens getting less sex because they are smart, or are they smart because they are getting less sex (for whatever reason)?
I think the first post answers that question:
"In fact, a more detailed study from 2000 is devoted strictly to this topic, and finds the same thing: Smart Teens Don't Have Sex (or Kiss Much Either)."
While there are plenty of smart reasons for waiting to have sex, how many people make a conscious decision not to kiss early or not to kiss before marriage?
Will it switch to slow motion anytime anything remotely resembling action begins to happen to make sure no one starts to get excited?
I look at it this way, part of the fun of the game for myself and many others is seeing how we stack up against other players, and trying to see what we can do to improve over them. That's part of the fun of most games. Obviously it's not all the fun, because we can still have fun when we lose, or when we're not the best player on the team. But it is part of the fun.
What does gold farming do? Well, like the article said, what happens to your game of Monopoly when the other player pays someone real money for Boardwalk and Park Place. What happens to your game of neighborhood baseball when the other team hires a professional player to pitch? Or perhaps they hire professionals to run up the score for the first nine innings, then come in to 'win' the game?
I'm a casual player; I don't really expect to ever reach the top levels of the MMORPG I play. I would like to think that people who do reach those levels do so by playing - that they have had the experiences I'm having and have moved on.
This is a game. It's not about logic; it's about feelings. When someone is buying their way to the top, it no longer feels like a game. One reason to play a game is to escape the real world where some people get all the gold and all the advantages and go to a world where different criteria are important so different people have a chance to get the winnings. If the real world seeps in by letting people use real money to buy their way up, it stops being a game.
Some games should allow real world transactions if that's what people want. Just some games have PvP and non-PvP servers, perhaps they should have RMT and non-RMT servers. For now, most games have rules that all servers are non-RMT, and people who play should respect the rules they've agreed to.
This patent stuff is madness, but I have a solution! I need your help. Come to my website and join the cause. All you have to do is click the link. Just one click, that's all. Just..um..one click..oh shoot, an Amazon lawyer is on the phone. Gotta go.