Seriously though, which publications do you find to be more accurate in their reporting? And doesn't the last little dig about being more reputable and conducting independent research make you feel like a giant definitive example of 'hypocrite', being that you STARTED this whole thread with a prime example of running off at the keyboard without a drop of real information in your post?
Aww, FFS man, now I'm going to have nightmares about Secretary of State Microsoft, Secretary of Defense Haliburton and Secretary of Energy Exxon-Mobil serving under President General Electric and being advised by Speaker of the House NewsCorp.
I'd rather have dreams about genetically enhanced vampiric velociraptors with heavy cyberware mods and a computer-enhanced hivemind network hyperintelligence. Those are less dangerous than the image you conjure.
The whole thing about introducing chemicals (ignoring any distinctions between 'natural' and 'artificial') at a rate faster than the ability of the system to integrate and adapt to the changes still stands though. You can't be dismissive of an idea due to deficiencies in the language used to describe it.
Sorry if I sound snarky (I've started using that word a lot recently, odd) but it's close to 2am where I'm at, so I'm a bit tired. You raise a valid point about the language used; valid because there ARE many people that will argue artificial vs. natural, I'm just not that guy. For me, it's all systems and balances.
Check out the language Netlogo if you're into dynamic systems modeling, it makes them easy. It's not crunch-huge n-body problems tough, but it's good enough for fun 'how would THESE things interact' armchair stuff at home.
Yeah, you're right, my bad. I think the point still stands as valid though, in context.
Re:In breaking news...
on
I Will Derive
·
· Score: 1
And this is the argument that keeps me from bitching about it as opposed to an impassioned plea. You're 100% correct, R.Malda can run his site any damn way he wishes, and I'm thankful to him for keeping it censorship free (I know of only 1 instance of censorship (under threat of lawsuit) and it was explained to the point of almost including the original information).
I like the little nerdy stories that people seem to bitch about most often, I guess I just didn't see this one as staying in the nerdy direction, instead seeing it as a slide toward more fluff. Chalk it up to a bad judgment call of mine I guess, since the video seems popular with the (statistically) intelligent people here.
Once again, you're right though, this IS Taco's site, and that's what the whole thing boils down to. I'd hate to see the site slowly melt to fluffy pink sunshiny unicorns though, so I guess the moral of my story is: Taco, when you're cruizin the youtube or the digg, please wear a mental condom, avoid bastard offsping of those beasts. Now this plea my be a one-off reply that actually shouldn't exist, but better safe than sorry.
Actually, my post was on the commentary about 'rights', a much wider scope than filesharing. The point of it was that the word 'rights' has been stripped of any agreeable meaning, presumably by two different mindsets: the 'God-given rights' mindset and the 'what rights you can get from society' mindset (which is broken into 2 strong camps, right to enforced equality vs. right to be discriminatory with your personal property).
My comment was an attempt to point out that the banter about 'rights' that had started up wasn't going to go anywhere.
I agree with you, mostly. The part that I disagree with is that social changes aren't a type of evolution. Our particular social structures (starting with our advanced communication abilities(speech)) are the results of our brains gaining certain advantageous traits in order to survive. It's a way that a biological organism has learned to interact with nature. That's evolution.
but in the end, who really wants to live forever? Traditionally, liches. The really have to work at it. Some royal Egyptians too, from back in the day.
But you just prove the GPs point. We don't eat those things (anymore). Why? We've evolved NOT TO. Once again, natural systems adapting to change -AT ITS OWN PACE-. I think the GP's point is about the extreme rate of change our modern industrial society induces into the natural chemical dance of life.
Just for the record, and because the tone of the conversation leads me to believe it may be slightly relevant, I'm a Theist, but still believe in the awesome and undeniable power of natural laws in the universe.
I love slashdot, been here for years, and defend it often against the 'slashdot sucks' trolls, but this is ricackulous. Please oh please slashdot powers-that-be, reconsider your decision to put idle stories on the frontpage.
Yeah, but I've given that little speech before, with the 'different applications of physics' approach, and it didn't seem to have to 'oomph' that using the various subsets of physics does.
The laws of physics and biology! I have the physics granted right to accelerate a 2 kg mass toward your skull, and your skull has the biological imperative to give way. By the same token, your community has the physics granted right to tie me to biologically supplied horses and utilize the grand laws of physics to rend me limb from limb for doing so. Most societies today chose a more advanced version of the limb to limb thing, whatwith the 'justice' system and whatnot, but you'll find that all the 'rights' you know and rely upon spring directly from the ability to -organize- those first few universally applied rights (I neglected a few, like chemistry, who played an increasingly greater role as time went on, and the recent addition of electromagnetism) in a manor that acceptable to the ones applying.
What we need is to stop talking about rights and start talking about universally applied unrevokable privileges that we will not tolerate being denied, and by not tolerating, I mean by applying our rights.
You're absolutely right about that, but I'd like to point out that if the Air Force's recent little botnet experiment expands to the public, you might see the Third Amendment tested here soon.
The problem isn't that filesharing is like stealing a credit card, it's that some people are 'propagandized' enough to THINK that filesharing is like stealing a credit card.
Seriously, the first posted reply to this comment by jcgf points out why, but in his or her brevity jcgf doesn't bother to point out what everyone who's actually THOUGHT about this already knows: P2P is NOT inherently to be used to spread copyrighted information. Download a popular linux distribution with bittorrent and you'll max out your pipe (at least with residential broadband, 6MB down here), proving conclusively that P2P isn't remotely 'evil' no more than a gun is evil (in fact it would be LESS so, if both weren't EVIL==0).
The next point that you are (purposefully) ignorant of is a point mentioned in the summary of the article we're discussing; namely that wikileaks, a site that would be ludicrous to accuse of 'piracy' or 'theft', is going to come under the same draconian shield as distributors of Brittney Spears' new album (those evil unrepentant bastards). Now, I know that -some- people (those who very much enjoy their rose-colored lenses) are offended that wikileaks has the audacity to disrupt the 'socially acceptable' order of things, and will latch on to the flimsiest of pretexts to shut it down, but even they know they're trolling, but they're willing to troll for 'a good cause'.
Or, to sum this up: Quit trolling about piracy. You KNOW by now (as I've seen you be told numerous times) that your arguments are completely based on distortion and FUD, you're just making yourself look fanatical.
I think the Michelson-Morley experiment fails due to it's assumption that the observation device isn't at the center of the universe. The way I look at it, the point of observation (measurement) very well COULD be considered the center of the universe. Pardon my non-university foolishness, but don't waveforms collapse outward from the point of measurement?
Not that I'm an outspoken advocate of aether theory or anything, I've just been bugged by that little thought since high school, and this seemed like a good time to bring it up and run it by people who might actually have a clue.
When you talk to yourself while working out a problem, that's normal. When you talk to yourself as if you were another entity altogether, that's a sign it's time to up your meds. The fact that you feel the need to compliment yourself constantly suggests maybe you need to add an antidepressant to the schizo-cocktail.
One question I have for you; having never run into anyone else using your particular method of self-validation, do you honestly receive anything near the sense of value that one gets by receiving comments (like the ones you make to yourself) from other people?
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like someone has a case of the Mondays.
Seriously though, which publications do you find to be more accurate in their reporting? And doesn't the last little dig about being more reputable and conducting independent research make you feel like a giant definitive example of 'hypocrite', being that you STARTED this whole thread with a prime example of running off at the keyboard without a drop of real information in your post?
LOL, that just inspired the image of a cherry-red Model-T in my head. It's funny, and a bit relevant from a certain point of view.
Aww, FFS man, now I'm going to have nightmares about Secretary of State Microsoft, Secretary of Defense Haliburton and Secretary of Energy Exxon-Mobil serving under President General Electric and being advised by Speaker of the House NewsCorp.
I'd rather have dreams about genetically enhanced vampiric velociraptors with heavy cyberware mods and a computer-enhanced hivemind network hyperintelligence. Those are less dangerous than the image you conjure.
The whole thing about introducing chemicals (ignoring any distinctions between 'natural' and 'artificial') at a rate faster than the ability of the system to integrate and adapt to the changes still stands though. You can't be dismissive of an idea due to deficiencies in the language used to describe it.
Sorry if I sound snarky (I've started using that word a lot recently, odd) but it's close to 2am where I'm at, so I'm a bit tired. You raise a valid point about the language used; valid because there ARE many people that will argue artificial vs. natural, I'm just not that guy. For me, it's all systems and balances.
Check out the language Netlogo if you're into dynamic systems modeling, it makes them easy. It's not crunch-huge n-body problems tough, but it's good enough for fun 'how would THESE things interact' armchair stuff at home.
Yeah, you're right, my bad. I think the point still stands as valid though, in context.
And this is the argument that keeps me from bitching about it as opposed to an impassioned plea. You're 100% correct, R.Malda can run his site any damn way he wishes, and I'm thankful to him for keeping it censorship free (I know of only 1 instance of censorship (under threat of lawsuit) and it was explained to the point of almost including the original information).
I like the little nerdy stories that people seem to bitch about most often, I guess I just didn't see this one as staying in the nerdy direction, instead seeing it as a slide toward more fluff. Chalk it up to a bad judgment call of mine I guess, since the video seems popular with the (statistically) intelligent people here.
Once again, you're right though, this IS Taco's site, and that's what the whole thing boils down to. I'd hate to see the site slowly melt to fluffy pink sunshiny unicorns though, so I guess the moral of my story is: Taco, when you're cruizin the youtube or the digg, please wear a mental condom, avoid bastard offsping of those beasts. Now this plea my be a one-off reply that actually shouldn't exist, but better safe than sorry.
Actually, my post was on the commentary about 'rights', a much wider scope than filesharing. The point of it was that the word 'rights' has been stripped of any agreeable meaning, presumably by two different mindsets: the 'God-given rights' mindset and the 'what rights you can get from society' mindset (which is broken into 2 strong camps, right to enforced equality vs. right to be discriminatory with your personal property).
My comment was an attempt to point out that the banter about 'rights' that had started up wasn't going to go anywhere.
Cmon, I don't see why not. What's the worst that could go wronnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Yes, under cygwin.
Iteratively actually, IIRC.
That's it, you're not allowed to come to the party when rc is finally dropped from the release number.
:-P
No pin the tail on CowboyNeal for you Mr. Snarky Poster.
I agree with you, mostly. The part that I disagree with is that social changes aren't a type of evolution. Our particular social structures (starting with our advanced communication abilities(speech)) are the results of our brains gaining certain advantageous traits in order to survive. It's a way that a biological organism has learned to interact with nature. That's evolution.
But you just prove the GPs point. We don't eat those things (anymore). Why? We've evolved NOT TO. Once again, natural systems adapting to change -AT ITS OWN PACE-. I think the GP's point is about the extreme rate of change our modern industrial society induces into the natural chemical dance of life.
Just for the record, and because the tone of the conversation leads me to believe it may be slightly relevant, I'm a Theist, but still believe in the awesome and undeniable power of natural laws in the universe.
Yeah, but that's the RIGHT answer, and doesn't allow for the ultrahipubercool snarky comments that are all the rage.
Diggslot?
Tubedot?
Growingincreasinglyirrelevant.org?
I love slashdot, been here for years, and defend it often against the 'slashdot sucks' trolls, but this is ricackulous. Please oh please slashdot powers-that-be, reconsider your decision to put idle stories on the frontpage.
Was that your little troll attempt to tell me you'd downmod me if you ever had mod points?
WTF are you talking about? If you're going to go off on someone about incoherency, you should check the hypocrisy gauge before clicking submit.
Yeah, but I've given that little speech before, with the 'different applications of physics' approach, and it didn't seem to have to 'oomph' that using the various subsets of physics does.
The laws of physics and biology! I have the physics granted right to accelerate a 2 kg mass toward your skull, and your skull has the biological imperative to give way. By the same token, your community has the physics granted right to tie me to biologically supplied horses and utilize the grand laws of physics to rend me limb from limb for doing so. Most societies today chose a more advanced version of the limb to limb thing, whatwith the 'justice' system and whatnot, but you'll find that all the 'rights' you know and rely upon spring directly from the ability to -organize- those first few universally applied rights (I neglected a few, like chemistry, who played an increasingly greater role as time went on, and the recent addition of electromagnetism) in a manor that acceptable to the ones applying.
What we need is to stop talking about rights and start talking about universally applied unrevokable privileges that we will not tolerate being denied, and by not tolerating, I mean by applying our rights.
You're absolutely right about that, but I'd like to point out that if the Air Force's recent little botnet experiment expands to the public, you might see the Third Amendment tested here soon.
Should be interesting.
The problem isn't that filesharing is like stealing a credit card, it's that some people are 'propagandized' enough to THINK that filesharing is like stealing a credit card.
Seriously, the first posted reply to this comment by jcgf points out why, but in his or her brevity jcgf doesn't bother to point out what everyone who's actually THOUGHT about this already knows: P2P is NOT inherently to be used to spread copyrighted information. Download a popular linux distribution with bittorrent and you'll max out your pipe (at least with residential broadband, 6MB down here), proving conclusively that P2P isn't remotely 'evil' no more than a gun is evil (in fact it would be LESS so, if both weren't EVIL==0).
The next point that you are (purposefully) ignorant of is a point mentioned in the summary of the article we're discussing; namely that wikileaks, a site that would be ludicrous to accuse of 'piracy' or 'theft', is going to come under the same draconian shield as distributors of Brittney Spears' new album (those evil unrepentant bastards). Now, I know that -some- people (those who very much enjoy their rose-colored lenses) are offended that wikileaks has the audacity to disrupt the 'socially acceptable' order of things, and will latch on to the flimsiest of pretexts to shut it down, but even they know they're trolling, but they're willing to troll for 'a good cause'.
Or, to sum this up: Quit trolling about piracy. You KNOW by now (as I've seen you be told numerous times) that your arguments are completely based on distortion and FUD, you're just making yourself look fanatical.
Wouldn't a coffee can antenna be orders of magnitude easier?
I think the Michelson-Morley experiment fails due to it's assumption that the observation device isn't at the center of the universe. The way I look at it, the point of observation (measurement) very well COULD be considered the center of the universe. Pardon my non-university foolishness, but don't waveforms collapse outward from the point of measurement?
Not that I'm an outspoken advocate of aether theory or anything, I've just been bugged by that little thought since high school, and this seemed like a good time to bring it up and run it by people who might actually have a clue.
Aww, tough guy called on his extreme amount of bullshit puffs out his chest behind a monitor. Fuck off, your ego is the scariest thing about you.
When you talk to yourself while working out a problem, that's normal. When you talk to yourself as if you were another entity altogether, that's a sign it's time to up your meds. The fact that you feel the need to compliment yourself constantly suggests maybe you need to add an antidepressant to the schizo-cocktail.
One question I have for you; having never run into anyone else using your particular method of self-validation, do you honestly receive anything near the sense of value that one gets by receiving comments (like the ones you make to yourself) from other people?
Wow, these guys are dicks. I think I have a motto for them. "Exherbo, for when you're too 1334 to have things actually WORK."