"It's stunning that this "sudden" event wasn't foreseen, and yet an often crushing certainty is paraded to explain it"
How complex is the earth? Billions of nonlinear factors. The scientists have always acknowledged that such feedback factors exist - but that it is impossible to find them all. It is obvious and inevitable when you have seen it, but zoomed out onto a global scale, it is hard to see anything coming but the really big things.
Right. Because obviously, the French are so pissed off about not wanting to support a war that they are going to start picking off US satellites.
In the modern world, a state of being where such space systems are at all needed is one that cannot be maintained. If France becomes so hostile, it would probably take most of Europe with it. An Europe/US cold war would precipitate a worldwide economic collapse. Losing satellite TV will be the least of our problems. The only plausible solution is to ensure that we never get to that state.
There's where we can see a difference between intelligence and space weapons. Intelligence on allies is to prevent future conflicts from occuring, or being too disruptive, and to sneak off minor benefits on the side. Space weapons is simply brinksmanship, and is simply insane.
Well, duh. Guess why they decided to describe this project using such language. In reality, they are probably aiming for a more general understanding of the brain. But that military grant is certainly tempting...
I remember talk in the past of creating a stablised fork - e.g. high quality articles would be copied to an authoritative version that is locked from editing, and only updated in case of significant improvements. If Jimbo is talking about that, then sure. It's the obvious thing to do.
But if he is talking about locking parts of wikipedia itself, then, erm, no. Firstly, it's unneccessary. Secondly, this is going to be so open for abuse. It just takes one borderline case to blow the community apart.
Information wants to be free, but sometimes, for practical reasons, information needs to be unfree. Information wanting to be free is a good catchphrase, but really we need to look at the rationalisation behind it. Information wants to be free because methods of control must be set up.
The free software stance is that of maximising the liberty of the individual to improve the conditions of himself and others. This does not involve being forced to give away information that can be used or abused to restrict his liberties, or those of others.
In theory, the need for privacy and security is because of the lack of freedom of other information. If government was truly open about what it does with our information, and truly respects the will of the individual, then few would care about them poking into our details. If fraudsters were unable to steal identities because their own information was open to banks and so on, then there would be little need to secure financial details.
The free information thing is about an ideal world, something to aim for, and so privacy and liberty are not contradictory.
I think the subtext is much more important here. Bush isn't just talking about ID, he is talking about establishing the creationist view of science as the one to be used in schools. The view that scientific theories are just matters of opinion, that science is based on tolerance and being open to different points of view. That being equal and pandering to wackos should take precedence over being right. If you are going to reward the ID people like that, how long will it be until answers to science exams are graded by their creativity? What you are doing is deprecating the skeptical rationalism which is central to science, and this will be bad indeed.
"The question is, why is the system this fragile? Sure, it's incredible engineering. I've read that every single one of the hundreds of tiles is uniquely shaped, a miracle of 1970s engineering."
It's not that fragile. This sort of thing has happened before. It's just that they are scared nowadays of every little risk, and so this little thing becomes suddenly a huge deal.
Well, he is writing in the Guardian, a newspaper, not slashdot, the church of FOSS. Slashdotters may all know this, but the general public don't. The average man on the street has no idea what software patents are, let alone why they are bad. It's a good thing for RMS to be countering the ignorance that Evil Software Corps are exploiting.
Seriously - the typical consumer of pirated software are not terribly afraid of running dodgy software, so all this will do is ensure that such users stop updating their copies of Windows. Thus will increase the number of outdated systems out there, and so increase the population of zombies and other compromised PCs.
The bottom line here is, if a consumer does not like the actions that a corporation is taking, then they can vote with their money by using a competing service.
I am suddenly reminded of those who say that people who don't like the policies of their government should just leave. The common ground being of course that competition is frequently imperfect, the set of offered products don't usually match demand, and that the choice of individuals are usually constrained by practical concerns.
Well, if you know how likely the liquid is to remain intact (and act to resist the object), then you know how much protection such a shield is likely to produce.
See Operation Plowshare. These aren't just idle words. For a while, people really believed that nuclear technology was going to change the world for the good. In part, it was denial. In part it was idealism. In part, it was seeking a sort of redemption for the roles they each had. (The life of Edward Teller is a good example.
"You gave 3 examples, all of which HAVE NOT HAPPENED in the lifetime of the ineternet so far, and there is no reason to believe they will."
Exactly. But the same is true of the examples grandparent gave. The motivation of the US to make the moves given above is equivalent to the motivation of the UN to make such moves, and the fact that a single nation with far less inertia does not make such moves shows that grandparent's claims are a load of BS paranoia.
The suggestion that such a clampdown on the internet CAN even happen is unproven. The suggestion that resolutions to initiate such a clampdown will ever pass UN decision making processes is unproven. Incompetence is a decent case to make, but the tinfoil hat claims being made here are just silly.
1. How much do you think the US charges everyone for using their internet?
2. How long do you think a cuban domain name would last?
3. How long do you think until the US tries to legislate against the existence of anti-war websites?
Problems are unchanged. The good thing with the UN is that it is less likely for them to get their act together and change things, leaving the internet pretty much as it is today.
Well, the remit of the BBC isn't just to provide a public service to UK license payers, but it has a broader aim to improve the global reputation and influence of the UK. Giving it away for free to the rest of the world costs nothing (in fact, it is cheaper than investing in a scheme to restrict access) and generates a decent amount of goodwill. So, success in the eyes of the BBC charter.
1. Stop trying to do everything for everyone. Some kids work well with intensive academic work. Some don't. Some prefer vocational study. Don't be afraid to be selective.
2. Teach kids the whys before the hows. Make sure they are motivated to learn what they are learning. Lay down the philosophy of science before teaching science.
3. Fewer exams. Focus on teacher assessments instead.
4. Better teachers. More enthusiastic teachers.
5. If you have to do exams, ban revision. Schedule exams at random times. A last minute crash course to burn things into short-term memory defeats the whole point.
The BSD vs GPL debate is a vast and oft-visited issue, and in no way will be resolved any time soon. The simple fact is that each is better for different things.
The poster of this story is just asking for trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's stunning that this "sudden" event wasn't foreseen, and yet an often crushing certainty is paraded to explain it" How complex is the earth? Billions of nonlinear factors. The scientists have always acknowledged that such feedback factors exist - but that it is impossible to find them all. It is obvious and inevitable when you have seen it, but zoomed out onto a global scale, it is hard to see anything coming but the really big things.
Think of the usefulness of this thing in monitoring political speeches....
Right. Because obviously, the French are so pissed off about not wanting to support a war that they are going to start picking off US satellites.
In the modern world, a state of being where such space systems are at all needed is one that cannot be maintained. If France becomes so hostile, it would probably take most of Europe with it. An Europe/US cold war would precipitate a worldwide economic collapse. Losing satellite TV will be the least of our problems. The only plausible solution is to ensure that we never get to that state.
There's where we can see a difference between intelligence and space weapons. Intelligence on allies is to prevent future conflicts from occuring, or being too disruptive, and to sneak off minor benefits on the side. Space weapons is simply brinksmanship, and is simply insane.
The simplest argument:
Who are the most plausible opponents in a war in space?
Note that these countries are almost uniformly our close allies, our essential trading partners, and fellow democracies.
Do we really want to militarise against our friends, diverting funding from protecting against clear and present and active offensive enemies?
Well, duh. Guess why they decided to describe this project using such language. In reality, they are probably aiming for a more general understanding of the brain. But that military grant is certainly tempting...
Really, it would be cool. Two people each with a remote control to their opponent's thingy. First one to fall over loses.
I remember talk in the past of creating a stablised fork - e.g. high quality articles would be copied to an authoritative version that is locked from editing, and only updated in case of significant improvements. If Jimbo is talking about that, then sure. It's the obvious thing to do.
But if he is talking about locking parts of wikipedia itself, then, erm, no. Firstly, it's unneccessary. Secondly, this is going to be so open for abuse. It just takes one borderline case to blow the community apart.
The free software stance is that of maximising the liberty of the individual to improve the conditions of himself and others. This does not involve being forced to give away information that can be used or abused to restrict his liberties, or those of others.
In theory, the need for privacy and security is because of the lack of freedom of other information. If government was truly open about what it does with our information, and truly respects the will of the individual, then few would care about them poking into our details. If fraudsters were unable to steal identities because their own information was open to banks and so on, then there would be little need to secure financial details.
The free information thing is about an ideal world, something to aim for, and so privacy and liberty are not contradictory.
I think the subtext is much more important here. Bush isn't just talking about ID, he is talking about establishing the creationist view of science as the one to be used in schools. The view that scientific theories are just matters of opinion, that science is based on tolerance and being open to different points of view. That being equal and pandering to wackos should take precedence over being right. If you are going to reward the ID people like that, how long will it be until answers to science exams are graded by their creativity? What you are doing is deprecating the skeptical rationalism which is central to science, and this will be bad indeed.
"The question is, why is the system this fragile? Sure, it's incredible engineering. I've read that every single one of the hundreds of tiles is uniquely shaped, a miracle of 1970s engineering."
It's not that fragile. This sort of thing has happened before. It's just that they are scared nowadays of every little risk, and so this little thing becomes suddenly a huge deal.
Well, he is writing in the Guardian, a newspaper, not slashdot, the church of FOSS. Slashdotters may all know this, but the general public don't. The average man on the street has no idea what software patents are, let alone why they are bad. It's a good thing for RMS to be countering the ignorance that Evil Software Corps are exploiting.
Personally, I'd list the Telegraph as bullshit for ignorant people as well.
Seriously - the typical consumer of pirated software are not terribly afraid of running dodgy software, so all this will do is ensure that such users stop updating their copies of Windows. Thus will increase the number of outdated systems out there, and so increase the population of zombies and other compromised PCs.
I'm inebriated you insensitive clod!
I am suddenly reminded of those who say that people who don't like the policies of their government should just leave. The common ground being of course that competition is frequently imperfect, the set of offered products don't usually match demand, and that the choice of individuals are usually constrained by practical concerns.
Well, if you know how likely the liquid is to remain intact (and act to resist the object), then you know how much protection such a shield is likely to produce.
USSR.
Nuke Redmond, please.
See Operation Plowshare. These aren't just idle words. For a while, people really believed that nuclear technology was going to change the world for the good. In part, it was denial. In part it was idealism. In part, it was seeking a sort of redemption for the roles they each had. (The life of Edward Teller is a good example.
Nobody needs pr0n.
"You gave 3 examples, all of which HAVE NOT HAPPENED in the lifetime of the ineternet so far, and there is no reason to believe they will."
Exactly. But the same is true of the examples grandparent gave. The motivation of the US to make the moves given above is equivalent to the motivation of the UN to make such moves, and the fact that a single nation with far less inertia does not make such moves shows that grandparent's claims are a load of BS paranoia.
The suggestion that such a clampdown on the internet CAN even happen is unproven. The suggestion that resolutions to initiate such a clampdown will ever pass UN decision making processes is unproven. Incompetence is a decent case to make, but the tinfoil hat claims being made here are just silly.
1. How much do you think the US charges everyone for using their internet? 2. How long do you think a cuban domain name would last? 3. How long do you think until the US tries to legislate against the existence of anti-war websites? Problems are unchanged. The good thing with the UN is that it is less likely for them to get their act together and change things, leaving the internet pretty much as it is today.
For him, this is not sin, but penance.
Well, the remit of the BBC isn't just to provide a public service to UK license payers, but it has a broader aim to improve the global reputation and influence of the UK. Giving it away for free to the rest of the world costs nothing (in fact, it is cheaper than investing in a scheme to restrict access) and generates a decent amount of goodwill. So, success in the eyes of the BBC charter.
1. Stop trying to do everything for everyone. Some kids work well with intensive academic work. Some don't. Some prefer vocational study. Don't be afraid to be selective. 2. Teach kids the whys before the hows. Make sure they are motivated to learn what they are learning. Lay down the philosophy of science before teaching science. 3. Fewer exams. Focus on teacher assessments instead. 4. Better teachers. More enthusiastic teachers. 5. If you have to do exams, ban revision. Schedule exams at random times. A last minute crash course to burn things into short-term memory defeats the whole point.
The BSD vs GPL debate is a vast and oft-visited issue, and in no way will be resolved any time soon. The simple fact is that each is better for different things.
The poster of this story is just asking for trouble.