"Why does 2+3 = 5? Because we said it does...not because it is universally true."
While the notion that a mathematical model can be flawed is something that is easily conceivable, the "2+3=5 only true because of consensus" idea paints all of math as merely arbitrary, and I don't think it is. I think most, if not all, of math holds together rather well as an integrated system.
"For some people, things move from "I have a feeling, I want to call a friend" to "I want to feel something, I need to make a call". . . "You can give media culture a positive spin and say that people are more socially enmeshed, but it has a darker side: as a feeling emerges, people share the feeling to see if they have the feeling."
I was thinking of sharing something about how the article seemed to confuse the act of verifying the existance of a feeling and sharing a feeling actually experienced with others in order to solicite validation, but then I thought about putting up with the modbots at/., and I experienced a feeling ( and I didn't need to check to see if I actually had the feeling, because I directly experienced that feeling) - nausea.
The racks shown in the article look nice and all, but I didn't see any labels. They get an 'F'. Its one thing not to have labels at IDFs, but not on server racks - ever. At least one of those looked like server racks.
Really, calling one political party better than the other in term of morality or integrity is like trying to decide which 10lb rock you'd rather get hit in the face with.
Freedom of speech is worth much more to a democracy than some political party. Political parties will come and go, but FOS needs to stay for the democracy to be vital.
"When the government is too intrusive,
people lose their spirit."
-- Lao Tzu, 500 BCE
"Much of our counterterrorist efforts are nothing more than security theater: ineffectual measures that look good"
No kidding. 6 months after 9/11, I accidentally left a box cutter in my jacket pocket on a flight to LA. Jacket went through the airport X-Ray scanners - it had nothing else at all in it. I left the airport, reached in think I had may wallet in that pocket, and found my box cutter. But, then again, I'm white.
The more you panic, the less effective you are. Thanks to fear-mongering politicians, our society is in a state of constant muted panic.
That whole "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" is actually right.
Is that the same thing as a declaration of war, would one think? Does the AUMF give the president complete wartime powers like those exercised by Lincoln for FDR? My point, or 'angle' as it is deprecatingly characterized, is in part that the AUMF isn't a declaration of war, and the 'war on terror' has become rational for invoking wartime powers. GWB is the one establishing that the 'war on terror' is a was, and is why he needs wartime powers. At least, I seem to remember the GWB started the 'war on terror' rhetoric. I think you're right that legislative abdication is part of the formula, but what are they to do? Pass a law that GWB will then ignore at his choosing?
Does the AUMF say for the president to run around the legislative branch, ignoring them to set up his own version of the judicial branch? I just don't see that in the AUMF. I don't think the AUMF alone is a blank check, but combined with 9/11, it effectively seems like it.
The threat to democracy arises from the fact that the presidentially-declared 'war on terror' has no end. Perhaps history will see this not as a struggle between political parties or even ideologies, but a test to see if we were able to resist the temptation to slide into rule by a person rather than by consent and rule of law, to see if we had what it takes to hang onto democracy.
Once Bush is gone, we might be left with an executive ruling not of consent by the people, but by the divine right granted to fight terrorists as long as they exist, with little if any accountability. Was is congress's fault, or the president, our all of our fault? Good question.
As for the 22nd amendment, there's always the chance that little technicality might just get in the way of defending America.
After all, how far is too far?
Convenient thing about the 'war on terror' is that its self-sustaining. The more we fight it, the more terrorists appear. Since we invaded Iraq, international acts of terror have increased, not decreased, and Iraq went from having no terrorist problem to a thriving terrorist export market. I think your point the congress is as much to blame makes sense in any event.
Killing all the lawyers will not be of much use, as law holds equal potential to benefit all. Its disparate application arises from inequalities in wealth not in lawyers, and large corporations are the wealthiest entities in the all the land, so they are best able to use the law to their advantage.
Therin lies the problem, that we allow beings (perhaps monsters) to roam the earth, who can taste neither death nor life, but can harm anyone without feeling the edge of a whip or the sting of a hand.
Actually, by declaring 'war on terror' (the pretense for invading Iraq and his mad rush for 'war powers'), GWB has done something that hasn't happened since King Charles I of England started a war with Scotland in 1637 without consulting Parliament. Parliament later didn't give him an army when the Irish rebelled, and in 1649 beheaded Charles.
GWB is trying to take the country in the direction of Caesar-like rule, in that a leader under the pretense of fighting defending the empire/country could act with total impunity and a complete lack of accountability. He's actively fighting the constitution itself, even though he twice swore to defend it. Separation of powers in a standing government isn't just a hallmark of democracy - its a sign of being a civilized society.
Also, its one thing to temporarily alter the separation and balance of powers laid out in the US constitution during a time of war - but in this case war has not been declared, and it also a 'war' with absolutely no end in site. As long as there is one terrorist group "plotting and planning", the undeclared war will continue. This is clearly a grab for permanent power, and he's using the pain of 9/11 to do it.
"Racism requires either preferential treatment, prejudice or implicit or explicit claim of superiority."
Preferential treatment (or any differentiated treatment) is by definition discrimination. As for what is racist and what isn't, ask someone who has to put up with it on a regular basis.
Making assessments based on race and not known genetics is at its best bad.
Its actually not surprising to find so many so quick to defend such an admittedly minor yet obviously racially biased remark. Racism always has and always will have ample defenders, even to the extent of trying to turn it into a laconic whine about 'being PC' or going to far.
Consider what racially based (rather than those based on known genetics) ideas about ethnic groups has done for humanity, and then decide if its worth defending. And, while you're at it, let us all know which gene is responsible for making latinas hot - is it purely a latin gene, or from that 'black blood' mixed in?
As for Arnie, I'd rather someone be up front about their racial biases than hide them. That beats people masquerading with some kind of self-righteous attitude, whilst harboring racial biases. Its easier for someone honest to change, rather than those who hide it.
"Simply attributing a neutral personality trait to a broad ethnic or cultural group and using historical ethnic or cultural heritage as supporting evidence is NOT racist."
That's justifying an idea or notion about an ethnic group because the idea has been around long enough to magically become true. Something isn't true simply because it been believed for a long time, or even if its believed by a majority of people. If that were the case, then every stereotype is scientifically accurate, which is not the case at all.
Re:Disparaging members of other races? Hardly
on
Hacking the Governator
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
"I mean Cuban, Puerto Rican, they are all very hot," the governor says on the recording. "They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it."
Disparaging or not, and Arnold may or may not be racist, it still attributes personality traits based on racial ethnicity. That's racism by definition. It doesn't matter whether or not said traits are good or bad - its still racism.
'Garcia, who is Puerto Rican and the only Latina Republican in the assembly, appeared with Schwarzenegger yesterday and said she was not offended by the governor's comments. Garcia earlier told the Times that she refers to herself a "hot-blooded Latina."
Forgiveness or acceptance by one member of an ethnic group doesn't magically make it 'not racist'. Just because Chappell might refer to himself as a nigger, doesn't mean Arnold can refer to blacks that way and have everything turn out okay. It would still be racist. Believe it or not, racism involves race and is contextual.
I haven't looked at so-called screenshots that the RIAA produces in court, and haven't myself looked at a Kazaa screen (or limewire, etc) to see what kind of IP addresses are shown, but there are two possibilities: the public IP address or the Private IP address. More and more on the Internet, each public IP address has behind it some private IP addresses, that typically can't be connected reliably for a given time to a specific computer, let alone a specific hard drive.
Questions:
Does current 4th amendment legal precedent allow for the confiscation of anything capable of storing files from behind a public IP address?
In otherwords, if I'm running a 'Internet cafe', and someone in my place allegedly downloads a music file, and the public IP shows up on an RIAA screenshot, is it legal for a judge to order everything in my cafe to be confiscated and searched? Does 4th amendment legal precedent allow for such mass grab-everything-and-go searches?
Has anyone ever pointed out to a judge how easy it is to fake a screenshot? Are there any rules of discovery regarding such flimsy evidence? I mean, suppose I want to accuse the RIAA of threatening me with murder in a court, and produce a piece of paper with a death threat that has the RIAA's corporate headquarters letterhead on it, all on a very good looking piece of laser printed output. Wouldn't most courts throw out something so easily faked? What if I just handwrote in crayon "I'm the RIAA and I'm coming to kill you" on a piece of paper, and them sued them using that as evidence? How far would that get in a court of law?
Are there such things as 'vexatious litigant' laws is some states? If so, how does someone get declared to be a 'vexatious litigant', and what are the consequences?
Wouldn't that change the atom in question into a different element? Possibly in a measurable way - or is that the Hawking radiation of which they speak?
"Why is ANY open-source project concerned about marketing? If it works, people will use it. You've already got the best kind of marketing there is: Word of mouth. If it doesn't work, a slick marketing campaign won't fix it."
Reminds of 'Thrice upon a Time', where receiving information from the future was creating micro-black holes, which then were causing detectable micro-damage elsewhere, IIRC.
I think its somewhat relevant to 'news for nerds'. Also, its appearance on/. may indicate who has and hasn't fallen prey to the infamous Nigerian widow emails...
I think he's right about the underrated/overrated stuff. Those should be subject to meta-moderation as well. Can anyone offer a good reason under and over ratings not be meta modded?
I was working on a project with equifax, one of the companies that keeps a repository of consumer credit data. We were setting up a VPN to their internal network. I offered to give them my public key so they could encrypt some configuration data. They promptly sent it all in the clear, keys and everything.
*sigh*
The sad part is there doesn't appear to be an effective evolutionary mechanism to rid the gene pool of such undesirable traits. Maybe this guy should be in charge of their data security, to help make sure the clueless don't contaminate the rest of the world.
"I won't pollute it [NT] with crap!" -- Cutler to Bill Gates
Anything but a typical MS employee, it seems to me. At any rate, W2K is not an 'improvement' to the classic MacOS, really. Maybe he'll be the model of behaviour the new MS High School will use for students...
As for 'stealing' ideas and FOSS, you're right, but in the OSS arena people give permission for others to participate. Apple and MS did just the opposite, with ideas others did not did not give them permission to use, and then made claims on those ideas to try to prevent others from using them.
"As in steal ideas from others" Isn't that also called learning?
No.
Apple "stole" a lot of ideas from Xerox, "The Mac UI" and AT&T "OS/X". Taking other peoples ideas and improving on them is called progress.
Apple should have paid for what they used. The fact they got away with it in no way indemnifies MS.
Windows 2000/XP where improvements on the Mac OS before OS/X.
W2K was written by a team outside of MS headed by Dave Cutler, who came from a strong VMS background. Its in no way a successor to MacOS, other than having a graphical user interface.
Microsoft seems to be trying to help and maybe even giving back a bit.
They seem like they are taking over a high school, and trying to run it like they run their own company. How much more apples.vs. oranges can you get?
Slashdot Mirror
"Why does 2+3 = 5? Because we said it does...not because it is universally true."
While the notion that a mathematical model can be flawed is something that is easily conceivable, the "2+3=5 only true because of consensus" idea paints all of math as merely arbitrary, and I don't think it is. I think most, if not all, of math holds together rather well as an integrated system.
Hurry!
"For some people, things move from "I have a feeling, I want to call a friend" to "I want to feel something, I need to make a call". . . "You can give media culture a positive spin and say that people are more socially enmeshed, but it has a darker side: as a feeling emerges, people share the feeling to see if they have the feeling."
/., and I experienced a feeling ( and I didn't need to check to see if I actually had the feeling, because I directly experienced that feeling) - nausea.
I was thinking of sharing something about how the article seemed to confuse the act of verifying the existance of a feeling and sharing a feeling actually experienced with others in order to solicite validation, but then I thought about putting up with the modbots at
The racks shown in the article look nice and all, but I didn't see any labels. They get an 'F'. Its one thing not to have labels at IDFs, but not on server racks - ever. At least one of those looked like server racks.
Any references to the Genoa summit terrorists threats? Not flaming, just curious.
"Lasers On a Chip"
All I wanted were friggen chips with friggen lasers on them!
Really, calling one political party better than the other in term of morality or integrity is like trying to decide which 10lb rock you'd rather get hit in the face with.
Freedom of speech is worth much more to a democracy than some political party. Political parties will come and go, but FOS needs to stay for the democracy to be vital.
"When the government is too intrusive,
people lose their spirit."
-- Lao Tzu, 500 BCE
"Much of our counterterrorist efforts are nothing more than security theater: ineffectual measures that look good"
No kidding. 6 months after 9/11, I accidentally left a box cutter in my jacket pocket on a flight to LA. Jacket went through the airport X-Ray scanners - it had nothing else at all in it. I left the airport, reached in think I had may wallet in that pocket, and found my box cutter. But, then again, I'm white.
The more you panic, the less effective you are. Thanks to fear-mongering politicians, our society is in a state of constant muted panic.
That whole "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" is actually right.
"Congress essentially handed him a writ of war"
Is that the same thing as a declaration of war, would one think? Does the AUMF give the president complete wartime powers like those exercised by Lincoln for FDR? My point, or 'angle' as it is deprecatingly characterized, is in part that the AUMF isn't a declaration of war, and the 'war on terror' has become rational for invoking wartime powers. GWB is the one establishing that the 'war on terror' is a was, and is why he needs wartime powers. At least, I seem to remember the GWB started the 'war on terror' rhetoric. I think you're right that legislative abdication is part of the formula, but what are they to do? Pass a law that GWB will then ignore at his choosing?
Does the AUMF say for the president to run around the legislative branch, ignoring them to set up his own version of the judicial branch? I just don't see that in the AUMF. I don't think the AUMF alone is a blank check, but combined with 9/11, it effectively seems like it.
The threat to democracy arises from the fact that the presidentially-declared 'war on terror' has no end. Perhaps history will see this not as a struggle between political parties or even ideologies, but a test to see if we were able to resist the temptation to slide into rule by a person rather than by consent and rule of law, to see if we had what it takes to hang onto democracy.
Once Bush is gone, we might be left with an executive ruling not of consent by the people, but by the divine right granted to fight terrorists as long as they exist, with little if any accountability. Was is congress's fault, or the president, our all of our fault? Good question.
As for the 22nd amendment, there's always the chance that little technicality might just get in the way of defending America. After all, how far is too far?
Convenient thing about the 'war on terror' is that its self-sustaining. The more we fight it, the more terrorists appear. Since we invaded Iraq, international acts of terror have increased, not decreased, and Iraq went from having no terrorist problem to a thriving terrorist export market. I think your point the congress is as much to blame makes sense in any event.
Killing all the lawyers will not be of much use, as law holds equal potential to benefit all. Its disparate application arises from inequalities in wealth not in lawyers, and large corporations are the wealthiest entities in the all the land, so they are best able to use the law to their advantage.
Therin lies the problem, that we allow beings (perhaps monsters) to roam the earth, who can taste neither death nor life, but can harm anyone without feeling the edge of a whip or the sting of a hand.
What - no quote from Cisco?
Actually, by declaring 'war on terror' (the pretense for invading Iraq and his mad rush for 'war powers'), GWB has done something that hasn't happened since King Charles I of England started a war with Scotland in 1637 without consulting Parliament. Parliament later didn't give him an army when the Irish rebelled, and in 1649 beheaded Charles.
GWB is trying to take the country in the direction of Caesar-like rule, in that a leader under the pretense of fighting defending the empire/country could act with total impunity and a complete lack of accountability. He's actively fighting the constitution itself, even though he twice swore to defend it. Separation of powers in a standing government isn't just a hallmark of democracy - its a sign of being a civilized society.
Also, its one thing to temporarily alter the separation and balance of powers laid out in the US constitution during a time of war - but in this case war has not been declared, and it also a 'war' with absolutely no end in site. As long as there is one terrorist group "plotting and planning", the undeclared war will continue. This is clearly a grab for permanent power, and he's using the pain of 9/11 to do it.
"Racism requires either preferential treatment, prejudice or implicit or explicit claim of superiority."
Preferential treatment (or any differentiated treatment) is by definition discrimination. As for what is racist and what isn't, ask someone who has to put up with it on a regular basis.
Making assessments based on race and not known genetics is at its best bad.
Its actually not surprising to find so many so quick to defend such an admittedly minor yet obviously racially biased remark. Racism always has and always will have ample defenders, even to the extent of trying to turn it into a laconic whine about 'being PC' or going to far.
Consider what racially based (rather than those based on known genetics) ideas about ethnic groups has done for humanity, and then decide if its worth defending. And, while you're at it, let us all know which gene is responsible for making latinas hot - is it purely a latin gene, or from that 'black blood' mixed in?
As for Arnie, I'd rather someone be up front about their racial biases than hide them. That beats people masquerading with some kind of self-righteous attitude, whilst harboring racial biases. Its easier for someone honest to change, rather than those who hide it.
"Simply attributing a neutral personality trait to a broad ethnic or cultural group and using historical ethnic or cultural heritage as supporting evidence is NOT racist."
That's justifying an idea or notion about an ethnic group because the idea has been around long enough to magically become true. Something isn't true simply because it been believed for a long time, or even if its believed by a majority of people. If that were the case, then every stereotype is scientifically accurate, which is not the case at all.
"I mean Cuban, Puerto Rican, they are all very hot," the governor says on the recording. "They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it."
Disparaging or not, and Arnold may or may not be racist, it still attributes personality traits based on racial ethnicity. That's racism by definition. It doesn't matter whether or not said traits are good or bad - its still racism.
'Garcia, who is Puerto Rican and the only Latina Republican in the assembly, appeared with Schwarzenegger yesterday and said she was not offended by the governor's comments. Garcia earlier told the Times that she refers to herself a "hot-blooded Latina."
Forgiveness or acceptance by one member of an ethnic group doesn't magically make it 'not racist'. Just because Chappell might refer to himself as a nigger, doesn't mean Arnold can refer to blacks that way and have everything turn out okay. It would still be racist. Believe it or not, racism involves race and is contextual.
I haven't looked at so-called screenshots that the RIAA produces in court, and haven't myself looked at a Kazaa screen (or limewire, etc) to see what kind of IP addresses are shown, but there are two possibilities: the public IP address or the Private IP address. More and more on the Internet, each public IP address has behind it some private IP addresses, that typically can't be connected reliably for a given time to a specific computer, let alone a specific hard drive.
Questions:
Does current 4th amendment legal precedent allow for the confiscation of anything capable of storing files from behind a public IP address?
In otherwords, if I'm running a 'Internet cafe', and someone in my place allegedly downloads a music file, and the public IP shows up on an RIAA screenshot, is it legal for a judge to order everything in my cafe to be confiscated and searched? Does 4th amendment legal precedent allow for such mass grab-everything-and-go searches?
Has anyone ever pointed out to a judge how easy it is to fake a screenshot? Are there any rules of discovery regarding such flimsy evidence? I mean, suppose I want to accuse the RIAA of threatening me with murder in a court, and produce a piece of paper with a death threat that has the RIAA's corporate headquarters letterhead on it, all on a very good looking piece of laser printed output. Wouldn't most courts throw out something so easily faked? What if I just handwrote in crayon "I'm the RIAA and I'm coming to kill you" on a piece of paper, and them sued them using that as evidence? How far would that get in a court of law?
Are there such things as 'vexatious litigant' laws is some states? If so, how does someone get declared to be a 'vexatious litigant', and what are the consequences?
"possibly sucking in a subatomic particle or two"
Wouldn't that change the atom in question into a different element? Possibly in a measurable way - or is that the Hawking radiation of which they speak?
"Why is ANY open-source project concerned about marketing? If it works, people will use it. You've already got the best kind of marketing there is: Word of mouth. If it doesn't work, a slick marketing campaign won't fix it."
http://xkcd.com/c125.html
Really, quite offtopic the the article, but relatively funny relative to the parent...
Reminds of 'Thrice upon a Time', where receiving information from the future was creating micro-black holes, which then were causing detectable micro-damage elsewhere, IIRC.
Cool book, anyway.
I think its somewhat relevant to 'news for nerds'. Also, its appearance on /. may indicate who has and hasn't fallen prey to the infamous Nigerian widow emails...
Hemos....
I think he's right about the underrated/overrated stuff. Those should be subject to meta-moderation as well. Can anyone offer a good reason under and over ratings not be meta modded?
"does not have sufficient evidence"
... Wait a minute - there aren't any woman here are there?
As if they ever did, ever have, or ever will.
I suppose they want exclusive access to his hard drive so they can find an MP3 file somewhere.
"He only had a few of the songs from exhibit B [the screenshot] on his computer, and those were from legally purchased CD's owned by Mr. Wilke"
Good god - screenshots (which are very hard to fake your honor). This circus of a crusade gets increasingly stupid with each instance of accusation.
--
Ooo look your honor - MP3's! He's guilty! He's guilty!
Blashphemer! Blasphemer! Stone him!
(women wearing beards respond with voices as low as they can) No no - no women here...
I was working on a project with equifax, one of the companies that keeps a repository of consumer credit data. We were setting up a VPN to their internal network. I offered to give them my public key so they could encrypt some configuration data. They promptly sent it all in the clear, keys and everything.
*sigh*
The sad part is there doesn't appear to be an effective evolutionary mechanism to rid the gene pool of such undesirable traits. Maybe this guy should be in charge of their data security, to help make sure the clueless don't contaminate the rest of the world.
thank
"I won't pollute it [NT] with crap!" -- Cutler to Bill Gates
Anything but a typical MS employee, it seems to me. At any rate, W2K is not an 'improvement' to the classic MacOS, really. Maybe he'll be the model of behaviour the new MS High School will use for students...
As for 'stealing' ideas and FOSS, you're right, but in the OSS arena people give permission for others to participate. Apple and MS did just the opposite, with ideas others did not did not give them permission to use, and then made claims on those ideas to try to prevent others from using them.
Apple should have paid for what they used. The fact they got away with it in no way indemnifies MS.
W2K was written by a team outside of MS headed by Dave Cutler, who came from a strong VMS background. Its in no way a successor to MacOS, other than having a graphical user interface.
They seem like they are taking over a high school, and trying to run it like they run their own company. How much more apples