Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right? I don't think ripoff is the right word, either. I posted the link to the Eckel's comment because I hoped to see some reaction from Ruby fans. I admire Eckel, but everyone is wrong sometimes, and Ruby folks should be the first to have valid arguments with Eckel's points. And even if it's valid to describe Ruby as a ripoff, that doesn't make it a bad thing, in my mind. More the merrier. I have to admit I haven't looked into Ruby too deeply, primarily because my initial glance led me to believe it was harder to type ('self.' is a lot easier for me to type than '@' believe it or don't--my hands start to hurt if I have to type too many shifted chars away from the home row). Silly way to judge a language, but there you have it.:) It's just a different way to do things, I guess. To each his own (and thank goodness there are choices!).
Here's the first Kurzweil article I read concerning the Singularity: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?pr intable=1 Got some funky graphs to support the claim of logarithmic technological progress.
I like the idea. I'm ready.. sign me up for the whole package.
Hold up there, cowboy. Reading that epa page a bit further down, it clearly states that the Maximum Contaminant Level goal (MCL) is set at zero. 'Course, that's an 'unenforcable' limit. The enforcable limit is mentioned here: "The regulation for acrylamide became effective in 1992. EPA requires your water supplier to show that when acrylamide is added to water, the amount of uncoagulated acrylamide is less than 0.5 ppb."
Here's the stink about why it gets into your drinking water in the first place: "The main source of concern for acrylamide in drinking water is from its use as a clarifier during water treatment. When added to water, it coagulates and traps suspended solids for easier removal. However, some acrylamide does not coagulate and remains in the water as a contaminant. Improvements in the production and use of acrylamide have made it possible to control this contamination to acceptable levels. "
And the health effects: "Short-term: EPA has found acrylamide to potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above the MCL for relatively short periods of time: damage to the nervous system, weakness and incoordination in the legs.
Long-term: Acrylamide has the potential to cause the following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL: damage to the nervous system, paralysis; cancer."
Nice stuff. If you're getting a lot of it, you should be concerned.
Just because you _can_ publish your opinion doesn't mean you've not been censored. Granted, the most common use of the word censorship probably relates to suppressive control exercised by a government, but the beauty of the English language lies in its flexibility. Given that the guy is a 'poet,' I wouldn't doubt that he used the word censorship precisely for the emotional response it generates. ('Course, maybe not.. I didn't find his poetry all that great.. I guess it must be _really_ good since I don't get it). You need to look at all of the definitions in the dictionary (and in more than one dictionary, really), before you can authoritatively claim that a word means one thing and nothing else.
Re:Solution: XP behind a firewall?
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 1
I agree, but isn't configuring the firewall not to trust the network the 'way to do it' anyway? Regardless of the OS's behind the firewall, it's my understanding you should start with everything blocked and then start turning things on as you need them. 'Course, maybe that's for the paranoid...
Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
"Underwater gliders work by being buoyantly nearly neutral while near the water's surface, so that they sink slowly down. Very slowly - full steam ahead is under one knot. As they sink, an internal weight is shifted toward the lateral direction the vehicle should go - if you want to go straight, just shift the weight forward to tilt the nose down a bit. Then to rise, pump an oil contained inside the hull into external sacks - this simple maneuver increases the craft's volume, and thus lowers its density just enough that now the surrounding water wants to push it upward."
Yup. Classic spin. Not only is it statistics-izing, but you might argue that it's an apples/oranges comparison. Perhaps the "open-source community" doesn't _need_ to do massive 'computer security code reviews' due to the nature of the process. Granted, it probably wouldn't hurt, but ye know.
Re:They MUST change the name
on
GeekPAC
·
· Score: 3, Informative
How about AMERICAN OPEN TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM ?
(Which is actually what it's called.)
Re:Perl, Python under .NET?
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 2
It's only nothing to sneeze at if you're a W2 employee with bene's. This would be more like 1099 work, and 31.25/hour is pretty low, once you start to throw in things like social security taxes, insurance, PTO, etc.
The big benefit would be to use it as a foot in the door for full-time employment with Google. Even if you don't win, it might be a good way to get an interview.
To me, all these arguments stem from the 'primary argument' - Will the singularity ever occur?
If you say 'no' then all the fancy pipe-dream-like stuff is out (most likely). If you say 'yes' then all bets are off and it's unlikely we can imagine what will happen, let alone predict.
I remember reading/hearing something about the networks and the pvr companies back when the pvr stuff first came out. Some network guy said they (networks) were very concerned about the pvr stuff, but they weren't sure what they could do about it, and they figured it was bound to happen eventually, so they invested in the companies developing the pvr stuff. Guy made it sound like the network's hadn't decided if they'd fight or join the pvr folks, so they hedged. Interesting to imagine what would've happened to napster if the RIAA invested instead of calling out the lawyers right away...
[off-topic, but in the interest of improving anti-RIAA examples across the globe]
Not sure about the 'never saw a penny' bit, but Dee Snider is doing fairly well, considering... got his own syndicated radio show...
http://www.deesnider.com/
One of Feingold's amendments would still allow police to perform "roving wiretaps" and listen in on any telephone that a subject of an investigation might use, but cops could only eavesdrop when the suspect is the person using the phone. The amendment was rejected, 90-7.
Meaning that any public phone that a "terrorist" ever uses can have a tap put on it and _all_ calls made from that phone can be monitored. Is that a big loophole to get around the illegal search clauses?
Not like anyone uses them anymore anyway, but this seems like a good example of the sort of thing that could've at least been debated.
I've seen that "tell me your address so I know you're one of my constituents" thing before. Makes sense to me, as long as you're contacting them about something that the entire House or Senate is considering. But what about issues that are currently in committee? I've read that this is where the real "action" happens on new bills, and is therefore the best place to get bad things changed. Even if I don't have a representative on the committee, shouldn't my opinion count just as much as anyone else's?
*starts rummaging for civics book*
Y'know, these petitions are nice and all, but sometimes I wonder if they actually hurt more than they help. Instead of people taking a bit more time to contact their legislators in a more traditional manner (which from everything I've read is far more effective), they can get the satisfaction of "doing something" without having to put in any real effort.
What I'd like to see is an 'issue' site where you could not only sign a petition but pump in your zip code and get a shotgun blast of response methods: a standard letter (editable); fax numbers to your representatives, important staffers, and committee members; auto-email capability; postal addresses and a pretty print page for snail mailing; etc.
Basically a page with a couple of input boxes, some checkboxes and a submit button that fires off a flurry of righteous indignation!:)
Nader? Naw, Gore cost the Democrats the White House. Gotta _earn_ those votes. Shameful of the Gore campaign to blame someone else for their own shortcomings. Wouldn't have taken much... just some, any, sign of resistance to the corporate bendover.. some indication of decent environmental policies.. maybe a little Labor in there too... not hard at all for Gore to get the majority of those votes back from Nader.
I like those remedies.
I'd also like to see the ol' "No more requiring OEMs to use the MS boot loader" remedy. That's the real biggie when it comes to alternative OS competition (which IMHO leads to improved competition everywhere).
Of course you'd want to pull the person aside... the first few weeks the system was in place. After a couple of weeks of false positives, human nature kicks in and you start letting people pass even if they are indicated as a match, and that's when the system becomes useless.
Not that I disagree with what you're saying about those in power using this threat to attack internal things they don't like, but I found it interesting that, considering the supposed strict beliefs of these terrorists, some of them apparently spent time in a strip club in Florida. Time article
If this is true, and it pertains to attitudes that more than just a few of these people have, perhaps the story about secret porn communication isn't so far fetched.
(personally, I still think it is a bogus story, but that's just me)
I've yet to hear any good arguments that opening backdoors in cryptography or increased surveillance would do anything to actually help prevent future terrorist attacks. Is there anything that makes you believe the current attack wouldn't have happened if the govt. could snoop on all encrypted communications traffic? It's one of those things that sounds almost obvious, but when I start to think about it further, I wonder if it really would do any good. Wouldn't terrorists just work outside the areas of communication these laws cover? I'm betting the terrorists didn't use encryption this last time. Weren't some of these guys wanted by the feds anyway? Why weren't they just picked up? Cracking encryption isn't likely to help you find someone is it? Just watch for encrypted traffic and set up surveillance on the sources... ?
I can just see the meeting:
"Let's make the Platinum available in three new colors."
"But people might get confused because they think Platinum means the color. Also, there's only so much marketing spin we can put on 'three new colors'.."
"Ok, let's give it a new name.. something vaguely techy, and new-ish sounding... Neo!"
"I love it! Start on the press release."
Slashdot Mirror
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right? :)
I don't think ripoff is the right word, either. I posted the link to the Eckel's comment because I hoped to see some reaction from Ruby fans. I admire Eckel, but everyone is wrong sometimes, and Ruby folks should be the first to have valid arguments with Eckel's points.
And even if it's valid to describe Ruby as a ripoff, that doesn't make it a bad thing, in my mind. More the merrier. I have to admit I haven't looked into Ruby too deeply, primarily because my initial glance led me to believe it was harder to type ('self.' is a lot easier for me to type than '@' believe it or don't--my hands start to hurt if I have to type too many shifted chars away from the home row). Silly way to judge a language, but there you have it.
It's just a different way to do things, I guess. To each his own (and thank goodness there are choices!).
Ever given Jython a try?
"Why did the language designers bother doing this? So far I keep coming to the conclusion that Ruby is just a bad ripoff of Python"...
http://www.mindview.net/Etc/FAQ.html#Ruby
Here's the first Kurzweil article I read concerning the Singularity:r intable=1
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?p
Got some funky graphs to support the claim of logarithmic technological progress.
I like the idea. I'm ready.. sign me up for the whole package.
Hold up there, cowboy. Reading that epa page a bit further down, it clearly states that the Maximum Contaminant Level goal (MCL) is set at zero. 'Course, that's an 'unenforcable' limit. The enforcable limit is mentioned here:
"The regulation for acrylamide became effective in 1992. EPA requires your water supplier to show that when acrylamide is added to water, the amount of uncoagulated acrylamide is less than 0.5 ppb."
Here's the stink about why it gets into your drinking water in the first place:
"The main source of concern for acrylamide in drinking water is from its use as a clarifier during water treatment. When added to water, it coagulates and traps suspended solids for easier removal. However, some acrylamide does not coagulate and remains in the water as a contaminant. Improvements in the production and use of acrylamide have made it possible to control this contamination to acceptable levels. "
And the health effects:
"Short-term: EPA has found acrylamide to potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above the MCL for relatively short periods of time: damage to the nervous system, weakness and incoordination in the legs.
Long-term: Acrylamide has the potential to cause the following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL: damage to the nervous system, paralysis; cancer."
Nice stuff. If you're getting a lot of it, you should be concerned.
Just because you _can_ publish your opinion doesn't mean you've not been censored. Granted, the most common use of the word censorship probably relates to suppressive control exercised by a government, but the beauty of the English language lies in its flexibility. Given that the guy is a 'poet,' I wouldn't doubt that he used the word censorship precisely for the emotional response it generates. ('Course, maybe not.. I didn't find his poetry all that great.. I guess it must be _really_ good since I don't get it). You need to look at all of the definitions in the dictionary (and in more than one dictionary, really), before you can authoritatively claim that a word means one thing and nothing else.
I agree, but isn't configuring the firewall not to trust the network the 'way to do it' anyway? Regardless of the OS's behind the firewall, it's my understanding you should start with everything blocked and then start turning things on as you need them. 'Course, maybe that's for the paranoid...
Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
"Underwater gliders work by being buoyantly nearly neutral while near the water's surface, so that they sink slowly down. Very slowly - full steam ahead is under one knot. As they sink, an internal weight is shifted toward the lateral direction the vehicle should go - if you want to go straight, just shift the weight forward to tilt the nose down a bit. Then to rise, pump an oil contained inside the hull into external sacks - this simple maneuver increases the craft's volume, and thus lowers its density just enough that now the surrounding water wants to push it upward."
(quote from the article)
> I love this quote; it's _so_ MS.
Yup. Classic spin. Not only is it statistics-izing, but you might argue that it's an apples/oranges comparison. Perhaps the "open-source community" doesn't _need_ to do massive 'computer security code reviews' due to the nature of the process. Granted, it probably wouldn't hurt, but ye know.
How about
AMERICAN OPEN TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM
?
(Which is actually what it's called.)
Mark Hammond did a lot of work on a .NET compiler for Python. Info available at http://www.activestate.com/Initiatives/NET/Researc h.html
Last I looked, they weren't going to pursue a complete implementation.
It's only nothing to sneeze at if you're a W2 employee with bene's. This would be more like 1099 work, and 31.25/hour is pretty low, once you start to throw in things like social security taxes, insurance, PTO, etc.
The big benefit would be to use it as a foot in the door for full-time employment with Google. Even if you don't win, it might be a good way to get an interview.
To me, all these arguments stem from the 'primary argument' - Will the singularity ever occur?
If you say 'no' then all the fancy pipe-dream-like stuff is out (most likely). If you say 'yes' then all bets are off and it's unlikely we can imagine what will happen, let alone predict.
I remember reading/hearing something about the networks and the pvr companies back when the pvr stuff first came out. Some network guy said they (networks) were very concerned about the pvr stuff, but they weren't sure what they could do about it, and they figured it was bound to happen eventually, so they invested in the companies developing the pvr stuff. Guy made it sound like the network's hadn't decided if they'd fight or join the pvr folks, so they hedged. Interesting to imagine what would've happened to napster if the RIAA invested instead of calling out the lawyers right away...
That info is kinda stale.
http://www.gmate.com/english/overview.htm
[off-topic, but in the interest of improving anti-RIAA examples across the globe]
Not sure about the 'never saw a penny' bit, but Dee Snider is doing fairly well, considering... got his own syndicated radio show...
http://www.deesnider.com/
One of Feingold's amendments would still allow police to perform "roving wiretaps" and listen in on any telephone that a subject of an investigation might use, but cops could only eavesdrop when the suspect is the person using the phone. The amendment was rejected, 90-7.
Meaning that any public phone that a "terrorist" ever uses can have a tap put on it and _all_ calls made from that phone can be monitored. Is that a big loophole to get around the illegal search clauses?
Not like anyone uses them anymore anyway, but this seems like a good example of the sort of thing that could've at least been debated.
I've seen that "tell me your address so I know you're one of my constituents" thing before. Makes sense to me, as long as you're contacting them about something that the entire House or Senate is considering. But what about issues that are currently in committee? I've read that this is where the real "action" happens on new bills, and is therefore the best place to get bad things changed. Even if I don't have a representative on the committee, shouldn't my opinion count just as much as anyone else's?
*starts rummaging for civics book*
Y'know, these petitions are nice and all, but sometimes I wonder if they actually hurt more than they help. Instead of people taking a bit more time to contact their legislators in a more traditional manner (which from everything I've read is far more effective), they can get the satisfaction of "doing something" without having to put in any real effort. :)
What I'd like to see is an 'issue' site where you could not only sign a petition but pump in your zip code and get a shotgun blast of response methods: a standard letter (editable); fax numbers to your representatives, important staffers, and committee members; auto-email capability; postal addresses and a pretty print page for snail mailing; etc.
Basically a page with a couple of input boxes, some checkboxes and a submit button that fires off a flurry of righteous indignation!
Nader? Naw, Gore cost the Democrats the White House. Gotta _earn_ those votes. Shameful of the Gore campaign to blame someone else for their own shortcomings. Wouldn't have taken much... just some, any, sign of resistance to the corporate bendover.. some indication of decent environmental policies.. maybe a little Labor in there too... not hard at all for Gore to get the majority of those votes back from Nader.
I like those remedies.
I'd also like to see the ol' "No more requiring OEMs to use the MS boot loader" remedy. That's the real biggie when it comes to alternative OS competition (which IMHO leads to improved competition everywhere).
Of course you'd want to pull the person aside... the first few weeks the system was in place. After a couple of weeks of false positives, human nature kicks in and you start letting people pass even if they are indicated as a match, and that's when the system becomes useless.
Not that I disagree with what you're saying about those in power using this threat to attack internal things they don't like, but I found it interesting that, considering the supposed strict beliefs of these terrorists, some of them apparently spent time in a strip club in Florida. Time article
If this is true, and it pertains to attitudes that more than just a few of these people have, perhaps the story about secret porn communication isn't so far fetched.
(personally, I still think it is a bogus story, but that's just me)
I've yet to hear any good arguments that opening backdoors in cryptography or increased surveillance would do anything to actually help prevent future terrorist attacks. Is there anything that makes you believe the current attack wouldn't have happened if the govt. could snoop on all encrypted communications traffic? It's one of those things that sounds almost obvious, but when I start to think about it further, I wonder if it really would do any good. Wouldn't terrorists just work outside the areas of communication these laws cover? I'm betting the terrorists didn't use encryption this last time. Weren't some of these guys wanted by the feds anyway? Why weren't they just picked up? Cracking encryption isn't likely to help you find someone is it? Just watch for encrypted traffic and set up surveillance on the sources... ?
I can just see the meeting:
"Let's make the Platinum available in three new colors."
"But people might get confused because they think Platinum means the color. Also, there's only so much marketing spin we can put on 'three new colors'.."
"Ok, let's give it a new name.. something vaguely techy, and new-ish sounding... Neo!"
"I love it! Start on the press release."