Three degrees.
Linus Torvalds was in The Code (2001) with Miguel de Icaza.
Miguel de Icaza was in Antitrust (2001) with Tim Robbins.
Tim Robbins (I) was in Mystic River (2003) with Kevin Bacon.
At a lot of uni's (mine included) they throttle BT for the sole reason that BT was taking up 50-60% of their total traffic for a while, so they throttle it down to make sure that it doesn't affect other uses. The Uni I go to has told me that they don't care less about what you download so long as the RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft doesn't come a-knockin' (some Microsoft fellas were watching a BT tracker and sent nice notices to two of my friends for downloading some MS Game, the Uni just said "don't do it again").
Exactly. I don't understand why there is so much "OMGZLOLSUXX0rs 400mhZhaaN00b" going on today. These machines aren't for the general techie who craves the ability to play games at 200fps, it is for someone who just wants a web browser (if that). I still have a P3 in my basement that I still use as a server for small tasks and web browsing when my other computers are doing something intensive.
I think it is a great thing to make computer available to people who otherwise couldn't afford them.
I agree with you that Amn Int really doesn't have much to say on the issue other than what others can say. That people should not be held without trial in any democratic country, period. And if a country is holding people without trial, people should not be extradited there to face trial for that sole possibility that they'll just say "oops, we lost you, sorry".
Amn Int is just talking out of their ass, trying to make a stronger case to get GitMo shutdown. A noble cause, though, of course the prisoners are going to lie/exaggerate.
I think by "good point" he meant "a seeming logical fallacy that, to the lay person, seems convincing but is easily explained away when you start looking at facts." That is pretty much the standard point creationists and many others make. And when you see "debates" or speeches, this is the best way to sway an audiance. There isn't really time to present the facts, so this is the only effective method of communication without handing the audiance a collection of works by scientists and saying "ok, read and draw your own conclusions."
Sorry, it is just a pet peeve I have. I find that this is exactly the same thing that goes on at polical speechs/events too (Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, I'm looking at you guys.)
There are antioxidents in coffee that are "healthy". Btw, you forgot to mention that it is also dehydrating and a diuretic. But a little stimulant never hurt anyone. Well, apparently except for the people with that gene.
MS doesn't seem to if this is their best contender. The UI is absolutely deplorable. I cannot imagine who at MS used this and said to themselves "well, this UI is good enough for a public beta, lets try this out!"
No matter how good their searches may be, as that as the UI is that abominal, people will (and rightly should) stick with google.
Seconded, it is actually quite a respectable and independant news source run by many ex-BBC reporters who were sick of the censorship. I don't know why people take the FUD that this administration throws out, try reading it sometime. I find their articles to be quite indepth and comprehensive (though I read mostly just their international articles).
Isn't that just what most science is though? Nothing is EVER PROVED in science, only falsified or replaced with theories that fit the data even better. Evolution is falsifiable, we can observe it either not happening or observe another mechanism that creates such effects. Intelligent design, OTOH, is not, and therefore can not be considered a valid scientific theory.
Simple, end of argument. If a theory does not have the ability to be falsifiable because you can throw ad hoc arguments on there whenever you need one, it is not scientifically valid. For instance, intelligent design is akin to me saying that the Earth spins because a giant goblin is spinning it with his hands. Why can't we see this goblin, you ask? Because he is invisible. Why does do we not feel the effects of his hands? Well, he has very tiny and dexterious hands. This is essentially what IDists do and it invalidates the theory.
This is all well and good for anthropology and philosophy and religion classes, but not in science. Besides, if you teach that there is a creator, then you also have to teach the Chinese idea of law without a lawgiver and the thousands of other creation ideas that are also not valid scientific theories.
A lot of news papers have some bad eggs, The Washington Post and The New Republic not excluded. This stuff happens and it isn't fair to point fingers at the entire newspaper because of one or two bad reporters that have slipped through the cracks, as most long standing papers have this happen at one or more points in their lifespans. And for papers like the WP and NYT, these things are few and far between and dealt with effectively. If they were not, then yes, call it a bad paper, but hold them to the same standards.
The NYT has always been upfront when they find out about this stuff, just as any major newspaper should be expected to.
A FrontPage mag article? I decided to go out and find a slightly more credible source that FPM and when I typed VAAPCON into google all I got were far-right blogs which picked up the talking points from the local repub HQ and were spouting it accordingly.
Anyway, if you want to know about what was REALLY going on with "VAAPCON" you can read it here. You respect the Washington Post as being legit, right? It turns out that the Republicans have just been using a selective half of the sentence to justify illegal wiretapping by saying Clinton did it, but only to foriegners who were not protected by the constitution. The people who were talked about in VAAPCON, as referenced by a DOJ link in another reply to this, were properly warrented under FICA.
Stop these misleading talking points that border on flat out lies. All it does it further alienate people from politics and hurt the American political system.
No, actually, in TRUE liberalism, as opposed to the stupid American version, making money off of the labor of somebody else is gravely immoral.
No, I think you are confusing liberalism for communism or socialist here. Liberalism accepts a market that is controlled and supported by the government, which allows for regulation and redistribution of wealth. For more info on liberalism you can start by reading some John Locke, or just reading about him on wiki. Saying that no man should profit off of another's work is misleading, because the other man is also profitting for doing their work whist the man in change is profitting, or attempting to, by managing the logistics of the other men working for him.. What you are talking about is slavery.
However, I do realize this breaks down at the higher crusts where someone can just own a company and sit back and relax, but we do not have a true liberal society, rather a combination of liberal and conservative ideologies. Sorry to nit pick.
You have to define innocent here. Innocent as in American, or innocent as in has done nothing to warrant being killed? Because we have killed FAR more truely innocent people than the terrorists ever killed of Americans. When we bomb a city to kill a couple terrorist targets, and end up killing thousands in "collateral" damage, are we any better than they are?
The VAST majority of Afganistan is innocent and Al Queda wasn't even in Iraq until we started bombing it and killing more innocent civilians all in the name of "protecting the homeland." Would it have been acceptable, if say, we knew there were a few terrorists cells living in downtown Chicago so we then leveled downtown Chicago? Are their innocent people any differant than the innocent people here, other than they have the misfortune of being labeled as terrorists because of their relative proximity to some?
It seems like the solution to all of these problems for libertarians is "well, you can just buy insurance for it!" But then the PI you hire will get involved with the hired police force of the kidnapper, rendering them ineffective because they have anti-PI insurance! It is just an absolutely ridiculous system. The people who are poor, who wouldn't be able to afford kidnapping insurance, would once again get the shaft in this world you have set up.
So effectively, what we have set up here is a system where only the rich have power and any decision making power, because it makes the poor struggle even more just to stay alive, let alone get an education and a stable job. Good system.
Remember, Nov 2006 is the midterms when half of the senate and house go up for re-election, so get out and vote then too! Don't wait until 2008 for the Pres vote.
Now this is the kind of flame I like. One that admits what it is right at the end. Can we mod this up as underrated? Too many trolls are not self aware.
Not to nitpick, but it is a common misconception that the Church thought the world was flat. From before Aristotle people knew the Earth was sphereical (you can read some of his arguments about it). I am not an expert on the Church during the middle-ages, but I cannot fathom why they thought the Earth was flat dispite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary dating back to well before the Church was even concieved of.
Evidence known at this point included - sun setting/rising at difference times related to distance, shadow of Earth showing a circle shape from various points on Earth, seeing the tops of things first on the horizon, and systematically shooting down all other possible shapes with these references.
This is not entirely true. It depends on the scientist. For example, Ptolemy viewed his diagram of our solar system strictly as intrumental, it wasn't really how it was an he knew that, but it was an accurate model for predictions. Copernicus did the same thing.
Now, along comes Keplar with his eliptical orbits. His view of our solar system was from a realist perspective. Not only were his predictions slightly better (perhaps just due to better technology developed in the couple hundred year time lapse) but they also predicted how the planets really orbited.
Einstein also started his career off as an intrumentalist, but became more of a realist by the end. Some scientists are only interested in creating predictable, working models (instrumentalists) and others are more interested in finding the Truth (realists).
Which, as another note, if the market was realy degregulated like is being proposed, what incentive would the big Telco have to give you that last mile? So they could foster competition and lower prices? Riiight. No. You can't just "start" a ISP without access to the big pipes. So, good luck building a huge, country-wide infrastructure to rest right next to the one each big telco has in place already. I am sure your 70 people signed up to use your ISP will be able to finance that.
You can get all of the proteins and amino acids you need from veggies if you really wanted to. You don't have to eat meat: infact, if you ate only meat, you would become VERY unhealthy. Though, I concur that living in the wilderness you are not exactly widely exposed to random batches of refined chick pea and soy bean, so... yeah. In a wilderness setting you would need meet.
But please don't try to pass it off like you need meat to live. I've been doing it (quite healthily, might I add) for three years, and I know people who have been going upwards of twenty. You just have to watch your protein intake.
Slashdot Mirror
Three degrees. Linus Torvalds was in The Code (2001) with Miguel de Icaza. Miguel de Icaza was in Antitrust (2001) with Tim Robbins. Tim Robbins (I) was in Mystic River (2003) with Kevin Bacon.
At a lot of uni's (mine included) they throttle BT for the sole reason that BT was taking up 50-60% of their total traffic for a while, so they throttle it down to make sure that it doesn't affect other uses. The Uni I go to has told me that they don't care less about what you download so long as the RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft doesn't come a-knockin' (some Microsoft fellas were watching a BT tracker and sent nice notices to two of my friends for downloading some MS Game, the Uni just said "don't do it again").
Exactly. I don't understand why there is so much "OMGZLOLSUXX0rs 400mhZhaaN00b" going on today. These machines aren't for the general techie who craves the ability to play games at 200fps, it is for someone who just wants a web browser (if that). I still have a P3 in my basement that I still use as a server for small tasks and web browsing when my other computers are doing something intensive.
I think it is a great thing to make computer available to people who otherwise couldn't afford them.
I agree with you that Amn Int really doesn't have much to say on the issue other than what others can say. That people should not be held without trial in any democratic country, period. And if a country is holding people without trial, people should not be extradited there to face trial for that sole possibility that they'll just say "oops, we lost you, sorry".
Amn Int is just talking out of their ass, trying to make a stronger case to get GitMo shutdown. A noble cause, though, of course the prisoners are going to lie/exaggerate.
I think by "good point" he meant "a seeming logical fallacy that, to the lay person, seems convincing but is easily explained away when you start looking at facts." That is pretty much the standard point creationists and many others make. And when you see "debates" or speeches, this is the best way to sway an audiance. There isn't really time to present the facts, so this is the only effective method of communication without handing the audiance a collection of works by scientists and saying "ok, read and draw your own conclusions."
Sorry, it is just a pet peeve I have. I find that this is exactly the same thing that goes on at polical speechs/events too (Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, I'm looking at you guys.)
I'm sorry, this is really OT but I couldn't help but smirk at your sig.
A sig dealing with existence written by a man who probably never existed.
Worst. Idea. Ever.
Probably use a mouse with a right click button.
Just a thought.
There are antioxidents in coffee that are "healthy". Btw, you forgot to mention that it is also dehydrating and a diuretic. But a little stimulant never hurt anyone. Well, apparently except for the people with that gene.
MS doesn't seem to if this is their best contender. The UI is absolutely deplorable. I cannot imagine who at MS used this and said to themselves "well, this UI is good enough for a public beta, lets try this out!"
No matter how good their searches may be, as that as the UI is that abominal, people will (and rightly should) stick with google.
Really? This I did not know, thanks, I'll look into that.
Seconded, it is actually quite a respectable and independant news source run by many ex-BBC reporters who were sick of the censorship. I don't know why people take the FUD that this administration throws out, try reading it sometime. I find their articles to be quite indepth and comprehensive (though I read mostly just their international articles).
Isn't that just what most science is though? Nothing is EVER PROVED in science, only falsified or replaced with theories that fit the data even better. Evolution is falsifiable, we can observe it either not happening or observe another mechanism that creates such effects. Intelligent design, OTOH, is not, and therefore can not be considered a valid scientific theory.
Simple, end of argument. If a theory does not have the ability to be falsifiable because you can throw ad hoc arguments on there whenever you need one, it is not scientifically valid. For instance, intelligent design is akin to me saying that the Earth spins because a giant goblin is spinning it with his hands. Why can't we see this goblin, you ask? Because he is invisible. Why does do we not feel the effects of his hands? Well, he has very tiny and dexterious hands. This is essentially what IDists do and it invalidates the theory.
This is all well and good for anthropology and philosophy and religion classes, but not in science. Besides, if you teach that there is a creator, then you also have to teach the Chinese idea of law without a lawgiver and the thousands of other creation ideas that are also not valid scientific theories.
A lot of news papers have some bad eggs, The Washington Post and The New Republic not excluded. This stuff happens and it isn't fair to point fingers at the entire newspaper because of one or two bad reporters that have slipped through the cracks, as most long standing papers have this happen at one or more points in their lifespans. And for papers like the WP and NYT, these things are few and far between and dealt with effectively. If they were not, then yes, call it a bad paper, but hold them to the same standards.
The NYT has always been upfront when they find out about this stuff, just as any major newspaper should be expected to.
A FrontPage mag article? I decided to go out and find a slightly more credible source that FPM and when I typed VAAPCON into google all I got were far-right blogs which picked up the talking points from the local repub HQ and were spouting it accordingly.
Anyway, if you want to know about what was REALLY going on with "VAAPCON" you can read it here. You respect the Washington Post as being legit, right? It turns out that the Republicans have just been using a selective half of the sentence to justify illegal wiretapping by saying Clinton did it, but only to foriegners who were not protected by the constitution. The people who were talked about in VAAPCON, as referenced by a DOJ link in another reply to this, were properly warrented under FICA.
Stop these misleading talking points that border on flat out lies. All it does it further alienate people from politics and hurt the American political system.
No, actually, in TRUE liberalism, as opposed to the stupid American version, making money off of the labor of somebody else is gravely immoral.
No, I think you are confusing liberalism for communism or socialist here. Liberalism accepts a market that is controlled and supported by the government, which allows for regulation and redistribution of wealth. For more info on liberalism you can start by reading some John Locke, or just reading about him on wiki. Saying that no man should profit off of another's work is misleading, because the other man is also profitting for doing their work whist the man in change is profitting, or attempting to, by managing the logistics of the other men working for him.. What you are talking about is slavery.
However, I do realize this breaks down at the higher crusts where someone can just own a company and sit back and relax, but we do not have a true liberal society, rather a combination of liberal and conservative ideologies. Sorry to nit pick.
You have to define innocent here. Innocent as in American, or innocent as in has done nothing to warrant being killed? Because we have killed FAR more truely innocent people than the terrorists ever killed of Americans. When we bomb a city to kill a couple terrorist targets, and end up killing thousands in "collateral" damage, are we any better than they are?
The VAST majority of Afganistan is innocent and Al Queda wasn't even in Iraq until we started bombing it and killing more innocent civilians all in the name of "protecting the homeland." Would it have been acceptable, if say, we knew there were a few terrorists cells living in downtown Chicago so we then leveled downtown Chicago? Are their innocent people any differant than the innocent people here, other than they have the misfortune of being labeled as terrorists because of their relative proximity to some?
It seems like the solution to all of these problems for libertarians is "well, you can just buy insurance for it!" But then the PI you hire will get involved with the hired police force of the kidnapper, rendering them ineffective because they have anti-PI insurance! It is just an absolutely ridiculous system. The people who are poor, who wouldn't be able to afford kidnapping insurance, would once again get the shaft in this world you have set up.
So effectively, what we have set up here is a system where only the rich have power and any decision making power, because it makes the poor struggle even more just to stay alive, let alone get an education and a stable job. Good system.
Remember, Nov 2006 is the midterms when half of the senate and house go up for re-election, so get out and vote then too! Don't wait until 2008 for the Pres vote.
Now this is the kind of flame I like. One that admits what it is right at the end. Can we mod this up as underrated? Too many trolls are not self aware.
Not to nitpick, but it is a common misconception that the Church thought the world was flat. From before Aristotle people knew the Earth was sphereical (you can read some of his arguments about it). I am not an expert on the Church during the middle-ages, but I cannot fathom why they thought the Earth was flat dispite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary dating back to well before the Church was even concieved of.
Evidence known at this point included - sun setting/rising at difference times related to distance, shadow of Earth showing a circle shape from various points on Earth, seeing the tops of things first on the horizon, and systematically shooting down all other possible shapes with these references.
This is not entirely true. It depends on the scientist. For example, Ptolemy viewed his diagram of our solar system strictly as intrumental, it wasn't really how it was an he knew that, but it was an accurate model for predictions. Copernicus did the same thing.
Now, along comes Keplar with his eliptical orbits. His view of our solar system was from a realist perspective. Not only were his predictions slightly better (perhaps just due to better technology developed in the couple hundred year time lapse) but they also predicted how the planets really orbited.
Einstein also started his career off as an intrumentalist, but became more of a realist by the end. Some scientists are only interested in creating predictable, working models (instrumentalists) and others are more interested in finding the Truth (realists).
Which, as another note, if the market was realy degregulated like is being proposed, what incentive would the big Telco have to give you that last mile? So they could foster competition and lower prices? Riiight. No. You can't just "start" a ISP without access to the big pipes. So, good luck building a huge, country-wide infrastructure to rest right next to the one each big telco has in place already. I am sure your 70 people signed up to use your ISP will be able to finance that.
This was just a great post that lays out the reasons why telcos should not be deregulated.
Thank you!
You can get all of the proteins and amino acids you need from veggies if you really wanted to. You don't have to eat meat: infact, if you ate only meat, you would become VERY unhealthy. Though, I concur that living in the wilderness you are not exactly widely exposed to random batches of refined chick pea and soy bean, so... yeah. In a wilderness setting you would need meet.
But please don't try to pass it off like you need meat to live. I've been doing it (quite healthily, might I add) for three years, and I know people who have been going upwards of twenty. You just have to watch your protein intake.
Have a good one!