Correct me if I am wrong, but each of the pyraminds were built in less than 20 years (under the rule of a single pharao).
Although the Great Wall was built and rebuilt for over 1000 years, each building phase was quite short. For example in the first phase 4500km of wall was built in 10 years. Incidentally probably 75% of the whole population of China participated in it, and the construction ended in revolt.
We did a lot of testing with various file systems for a product earlier this year. After a couple of terabytes of intensive reads/writes (and a couple of days...) the JFS kernel processes randomly locked up and blocked all disk I/O operations (1.1.0 and 1.1.1 versions). JFS was indeed the fastest of the file systems we tested, but we had to drop it for being unreliable.
I wonder if anyone has some experience with the reliability of the current version?
I have been using a nice little tool called MailRoam for about four years now on my Windows laptop. It transparently redirects the outgoing SMTP connections to servers based on the dial-up connection used or the local IP address. It can do that automatically.
Of course, it is not that easy to switch on a laptop on a sidewalk and hack into the ubiquitous mobile phone service like it is to a wireless LAN. But why is that? Because Nokia and the industry in general sells secure systems to large companies like telcos, but neglects to make the small systems secure, although anyone would expect the small customers to be less knowledgeable about security.
These systems should be designed from the ground up to provide security out of the box. It should be easy to add legitimate users and block the rest of the world.
I guess here in Europe we jumped some of the development steps and could deploy some newer technologies faster.
On the other hand, telecom in general might be more expensive here, so the telcos can offer Internet service "for free", ie. the price of the call itself.
We need a government, but one which is always on move, but still governs population using strict - but adaptive - rules.:)
Just wanted to call your attention to the book Emergence by Steven Johnson. I read it recently after reading about it here on Slashdot. Not really technical, but very thought provoking. I do believe that the next task about the Internet is to find those simple rules that turn it into a sort of organism.
I thought the air conditioners used the same principle as refrigerators. And that was first built a bit earlier (19th Century in Pennsylvania and Australia, ether machines) and the first practical system was built by Ferdinand Carre (France). Isn't air conditioning just an application of an earlier invention to a "new" area? You know, instead of cooling dead meat, it cools the living?:-)
I have not seen a Maxivision48 movie, so I cannot compare the experience. But after watching Episode II in digital, my first reaction was that I do not want to watch another celluloid movie. No flicker, no scratches, abolutely crisp details even at the very edges, nice motion. The only thing that I did not find perfect was brightness.
Maxivision48 can not remove flicker (like, who would use a 48Hz monitor?) and there is always trouble with complex anamorphic lenses at the edges. Contrast is probably better on film now, but that will certainly change in the near future. And film will always get scratched...
But of course! You can use the ball in a cannon, and the LED of an optical as a laser! And if all else fails, you can still swing it by the tail and throw!
Webminster Council will argue that Major CmdrTaco's decision to introduce the conversation chargers from last February is in breach of netizens' copy lefts.
New radar systems, saucer-like hull patch kits and new ceramic shielding are being brought into the effort and more exotic solutions are in the offing.
OK. So in a couple of years instead of aluminium we will have unburnable, unbreakable, uneverything debris up there. And then these would survive even reentry and hit the surface overheated at a couple of thousand km/h...
"Ceramic flying saucer leaves burn marks on vegetable field. Farmer sells Space-Fried Vegetables at discounted prices."
I think we give too much credit to blatant hate speech by banning it.
You are perfectly right, but from my point of view that is because we can not define with mechanical rules what hate speech is. However, I think we should be able to decide it case by case, and this particular news was about taking down specific sites, not sites falling into some sort of hate-speech-category.
Of course we can go to extremes both ways.
But the US Supreme Court found my extreme compelling enough...
I may not have been clear enough, but I was referring to "my extreme" (if you want to put it that way:) not being acceptable. You could say that the Supreme Court did not agree with one extreme (banning), but that does not imply that it agreed with the other. They did not strike down all laws limiting free speech, like laws against public defamation.
Not in America, at least, where we elect prosecutors...
To kill a person and saying "to kill a person" may be different, but speaking is an act. You do have to take responsibility for what you say. It is something that you deliberately do and it does have effects.
Incitement to murder is a crime the same way as murder itself. And it is not free speech, although it is just words that are not supposed to break your bones...
Sometimes the best way to convince people of your position is to let them have it full bore...
You always fall back to simple disagreement, or an offensive presentation of disagreement, as if hate speech would not exist. It is foolish to say that these are just words, because words do have power. You mentioned some of the finest examples for powerful speakers who used that power well. However, hate speech also works, it mobilises millions and demoralises the victims.
Should those involved in the film be sent to prison?
Come on! Of course we can go to extremes both ways. There is no simple answer.
But why do you pick child pornography as a reference? Is hitting a child any better? I think not. Why then is porn the only exception? It should not be. I do not believe we are so retarded that we are unable to recogise hate speech. Does it lie in the eye of the beholder? Yes. Does a civilised justice system work the same way? Yes. It is not about mechanical rules. They do not apply either to people or to speech. Example: We know what terrorism is (killing civilians) and we know what collateral damage is (killing civilians), but there is a world of a difference between the two, and we do see it.
We should be mature enough and we should regard ourselves mature enough to at least try to judge what we do (and that includes speech) and what it leads to. If that is not true then we are in deep trouble...
I can't tell people there is no God, because it might hurt them?
Actually, your question has the answer right in it. Of course you can tell people there is no God, although it might hurt them, but you should not hurt people by telling them there is no God. It is not a word play. You can talk to people in a way that does not hurt them, and you can stop talking if you do hurt them. And no, there is no regular expression to "filter" speech (that is censorware), but you can be compassionate and think.
BTW, child pornography might not be a good reference point, because it is such a brutal and disgusting act of violence, and I do not think that any sane person would promote it as a "form of expression". But trying to define what hate speech is, even if we eventually do not agree (or by not agreeing:), would help us understand a bit better why we fail to live in peace.
Abusing a child in any way is a serious crime, and I surely hope it is punished much more severely than any form of hate speech. Putting up a website displaying abuse is a different thing. Maybe not less disgusting, but different.
The problem with this is, who decides what is "hate speech"? In the words of Voltaire: 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
There is a very big difference between disagreeing with someone or saying something that is designed to hurt the other person. This is a bit of a theoretic discussion, though, because none of us could see the original sites. And I do agree with you that these actual sites may not have been hate speech at all.
Maybe there are no good rules to find out what is hate speech. If that is true, we have to find them. We do not allow anyone to go and hurt others with their fists, and maybe we should not allow anyone to hurt others with their words.
Well, I would put in racial, sexual etc. and religious abuse, too. Of course, it is easier to recognise another skin colour, and maybe you cannot see how different the other person is, if he or she is religious. Religious hate speech, however, does hurt these "other people" the same way as racial hate speech does.
I believe that "free speech" that shall not be censored does not include hate speech in many countries around the world. At least that is true in Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
Egyptian pyramids, the Great wall of China
Correct me if I am wrong, but each of the pyraminds were built in less than 20 years (under the rule of a single pharao).
Although the Great Wall was built and rebuilt for over 1000 years, each building phase was quite short. For example in the first phase 4500km of wall was built in 10 years. Incidentally probably 75% of the whole population of China participated in it, and the construction ended in revolt.
We did a lot of testing with various file systems for a product earlier this year. After a couple of terabytes of intensive reads/writes (and a couple of days...) the JFS kernel processes randomly locked up and blocked all disk I/O operations (1.1.0 and 1.1.1 versions). JFS was indeed the fastest of the file systems we tested, but we had to drop it for being unreliable.
I wonder if anyone has some experience with the reliability of the current version?
Trigon Software: MailRoam
Of course, it is not that easy to switch on a laptop on a sidewalk and hack into the ubiquitous mobile phone service like it is to a wireless LAN. But why is that? Because Nokia and the industry in general sells secure systems to large companies like telcos, but neglects to make the small systems secure, although anyone would expect the small customers to be less knowledgeable about security.
These systems should be designed from the ground up to provide security out of the box. It should be easy to add legitimate users and block the rest of the world.
I guess here in Europe we jumped some of the development steps and could deploy some newer technologies faster.
On the other hand, telecom in general might be more expensive here, so the telcos can offer Internet service "for free", ie. the price of the call itself.
Just wanted to call your attention to the book Emergence by Steven Johnson. I read it recently after reading about it here on Slashdot. Not really technical, but very thought provoking. I do believe that the next task about the Internet is to find those simple rules that turn it into a sort of organism.
Why is the parent post modded as "Funny"? Maybe that is the heart of this "cultural" problem! That post is supposed to be insightful ! Oh dear...
I thought the air conditioners used the same principle as refrigerators. And that was first built a bit earlier (19th Century in Pennsylvania and Australia, ether machines) and the first practical system was built by Ferdinand Carre (France). Isn't air conditioning just an application of an earlier invention to a "new" area? You know, instead of cooling dead meat, it cools the living? :-)
Maxivision48 can not remove flicker (like, who would use a 48Hz monitor?) and there is always trouble with complex anamorphic lenses at the edges. Contrast is probably better on film now, but that will certainly change in the near future. And film will always get scratched...
Do I need a processor for this?
I thought cluster bombs did have yellow mouseballs and food packages inside.
But of course! You can use the ball in a cannon, and the LED of an optical as a laser! And if all else fails, you can still swing it by the tail and throw!
Webminster Council will argue that Major CmdrTaco's decision to introduce the conversation chargers from last February is in breach of netizens' copy lefts.
OK. So in a couple of years instead of aluminium we will have unburnable, unbreakable, uneverything debris up there. And then these would survive even reentry and hit the surface overheated at a couple of thousand km/h...
"Ceramic flying saucer leaves burn marks on vegetable field. Farmer sells Space-Fried Vegetables at discounted prices."
You are perfectly right, but from my point of view that is because we can not define with mechanical rules what hate speech is. However, I think we should be able to decide it case by case, and this particular news was about taking down specific sites, not sites falling into some sort of hate-speech-category.
- Of course we can go to extremes both ways.
But the US Supreme Court found my extreme compelling enough...I may not have been clear enough, but I was referring to "my extreme" (if you want to put it that way :) not being acceptable. You could say that the Supreme Court did not agree with one extreme (banning), but that does not imply that it agreed with the other. They did not strike down all laws limiting free speech, like laws against public defamation.
Not in America, at least, where we elect prosecutors...
Why do you elect them in the first place? :-)
Incitement to murder is a crime the same way as murder itself. And it is not free speech, although it is just words that are not supposed to break your bones...
You always fall back to simple disagreement, or an offensive presentation of disagreement, as if hate speech would not exist. It is foolish to say that these are just words, because words do have power. You mentioned some of the finest examples for powerful speakers who used that power well. However, hate speech also works, it mobilises millions and demoralises the victims.
Should those involved in the film be sent to prison?
Come on! Of course we can go to extremes both ways. There is no simple answer.
But why do you pick child pornography as a reference? Is hitting a child any better? I think not. Why then is porn the only exception? It should not be. I do not believe we are so retarded that we are unable to recogise hate speech. Does it lie in the eye of the beholder? Yes. Does a civilised justice system work the same way? Yes. It is not about mechanical rules. They do not apply either to people or to speech. Example: We know what terrorism is (killing civilians) and we know what collateral damage is (killing civilians), but there is a world of a difference between the two, and we do see it.
We should be mature enough and we should regard ourselves mature enough to at least try to judge what we do (and that includes speech) and what it leads to. If that is not true then we are in deep trouble...
Actually, your question has the answer right in it. Of course you can tell people there is no God, although it might hurt them, but you should not hurt people by telling them there is no God. It is not a word play. You can talk to people in a way that does not hurt them, and you can stop talking if you do hurt them. And no, there is no regular expression to "filter" speech (that is censorware), but you can be compassionate and think.
BTW, child pornography might not be a good reference point, because it is such a brutal and disgusting act of violence, and I do not think that any sane person would promote it as a "form of expression". But trying to define what hate speech is, even if we eventually do not agree (or by not agreeing :), would help us understand a bit better why we fail to live in peace.
Abusing a child in any way is a serious crime, and I surely hope it is punished much more severely than any form of hate speech. Putting up a website displaying abuse is a different thing. Maybe not less disgusting, but different.
In the words of Voltaire: 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
There is a very big difference between disagreeing with someone or saying something that is designed to hurt the other person. This is a bit of a theoretic discussion, though, because none of us could see the original sites. And I do agree with you that these actual sites may not have been hate speech at all.
Maybe there are no good rules to find out what is hate speech. If that is true, we have to find them. We do not allow anyone to go and hurt others with their fists, and maybe we should not allow anyone to hurt others with their words.
Well, I would put in racial, sexual etc. and religious abuse, too. Of course, it is easier to recognise another skin colour, and maybe you cannot see how different the other person is, if he or she is religious. Religious hate speech, however, does hurt these "other people" the same way as racial hate speech does.
I believe that "free speech" that shall not be censored does not include hate speech in many countries around the world. At least that is true in Europe.