I was going by the post you responded to, but it's not clear if he was talking about two different classes (apparently your interpretation), or just one class (they way I interpreted it). That is, I think he calls people who are "torture murderers" mentally insane. By society's definition, clearly something isn't right with them if they are a serial killer and torture for fun.
I think it's clear these people can't be rehabilitated. Without the death penalty, assholes like Dennis Rader will rot in jail forever. I'd rather see him put to death.
Those insane should get the therapy they need to effectively function in society. Executing them only punishes them for an act they are not responsible for.
So, do you know what "therapy" to give somebody who gets kicks from killing people? Why do you define somebody logical but evil as "insane"? Is anybody responsible for anything?
A civilized country doesn't kill their people, period.
What's the point of locking up somebody for life who enjoys torturing and killing people?
Your equation of killing somebody who changes their religion with murderers and rapists is laughable. "no fundamental difference" my ass. I don't think you're in any position to be giving people lectures over morality.
Regimes like this exist for the same reason that Iraq existed for so long. Western nations don't necessarily have the stomach to put an end to them.
It's not the West's job to invade other countries and impose governments on them. It isn't working too well in Iraq, now is it? Oddly enough, most people don't like to be invaded, and the Iraqis resent the United States occupying their country. How would you feel if Canada and Europe banded together to invade the United States, because of our oppressive government?
Life is grand with our cellphones, computers, lattes, and satellite TV. Why should they care?
Then can I assume you're in Afghanistan or Iraq risking your life and facing discomfort? Somehow I think not.
Countries like this focus the ire of their people outward so they continue the oppression internally. All the while declaring it is to crack down on people looking to harm them.
Patriot Act. Torture. Massive illegal spying. National Security Letters. The country is moving towards 1984, and even Obama didn't have the backbone to stand up to telecom immunity.
Then again occasionally that pesky world gets enough gumption to do something drastic like flying planes into buildings.
This was a reaction to troops and combat actions in the Middle East, not because of that baby food "they hate our freedoms" crap that Bush feeds to the American public.
Like if I tell you my plan for making a 1000 mpg car, and it turns out to depend fundamentally on steel being lighter than air. This dependence might be subtle enough that neither of us realized it at first, so I'm not necessarily a crackpot for coming up with such a plan.
Your post makes a good point, but this is the worst car analogy I've ever seen on Slashdot:)
Actually I recommend reading the article. It's short, understandable, and contains other cool facts about these neutron stars.
Also, as for that last "proved" bit, the article ends with:
"It's not quite right to say that we have now 'proven' General Relativity," Breton said. "However, so far, Einstein's theory has passed all the tests that have been conducted, including ours."
the chance aspect of the game disappears as the card distribution converges, and skill is all that is left to decide the winnings.
Most poker players "play the man", and this element has a rock-paper-scissors aspect to it: "I know my opponent plays a certain way, I will take advantage of it". "I know that my opponent knows I play a certain way, I will take advantage of this." "I know that my opponent knows that I know..."
That makes the idea of skill as a measurable quality very slippery. I don't think you could accurately pinpoint "the greatest player" as you could for somebody like Kasparov in the chess world. There are certainly classes of players, where top pros consistently make money, but skill is vastly overestimated in poker.
I learned more in the past 10 minutes than I would on CNN/MSNBC (Fox teaches you a lot, most of it wrong) over an entire week.
I scanned the article looking for something of interest, but it was fully of the typical empty and verbose writings you get from bureaucrats. I admit I didn't read it in detail.
So, could you tell me one single thing you learned?
Why would they? They argue themselves that IP addresses are NOT personally identifiable information. Google only cares when they don't make money on sharing that information. Giving it away for free undermines their business.
The stated purpose by Viacom is to get numbers for how often infringing videos were viewed, and compare that to how often non-infringing videos were viewed.
Google claimed that it would be too expensive to give them that information (they'd have to go through all the data themselves to summarize it). Viacom countered that Google could just give them a raw dump of the database, and Viacom would do the analysis.
Google then claimed that this would violate privacy concerns, because of usernames and IP addresses. And the kicker here, is the judge used Google's own publically argued policy against them:
They don't care about your privacy. They are an information vortex. They want every last piece of information about you, because it gives them more opportunities. Storing the data is cheap. Throwing away information is a sin in their eyes.
If you've ever seen Minority Report, you'll know where Google wants to be.
Honest question: why is this a big deal? What do I tell to my non-technical friends who say, OK, gobs of data, what's the significance?
Tell them if they watched any video that Viacom didn't want them to, Viacom will now have their personally identifying IP address. With this IP address and the time of viewing, Viacom can force their ISP into disclosing who the IP belonged to.
Have they watched a lot of videos that legally they weren't entitled to? RIAA-type "settlement offers" may follow, with lawsuits to back them up.
I typically run firefox, bit torrent, and then folding@home + World community grid at the same time. I close none of these to play TF2 and see no difference in FPS with the CPU hogging programs on or off.
Firefox is not CPU intensive unless you're sitting on a page that happens to hog the CPU with JavaScript. Not sure about BitTorrent, but it should be mostly IO bound. Folding@home is designed to use your idle CPU processes, so it won't detract from your game. I assume the same from World, though I'm not familiar with it.
In other words, you could probably get away with 1 CPU.
A good design should be independent of implementation constraints.
It's a guiding principle, but nowhere near attainable in the real world. Are you going to design the same with 1960 hardware as with 2000?
If an architect finds that his developers cannot do something, or if his tools cannot accomplish something, he should be be looking at finding new developers and new tools.
I wouldn't trust an architect that doesn't get his hands dirty as far as I could throw him. If developers and tools are having trouble with an architect's design, there's a good chance that there's something wrong with the design. If an architect can't demonstrate his design ideas in practice, he needs to go.
I'd go further to say that having the reality check is a bad thing - and is one of the culprits of poor design, and poor practices.
And in the real world, people build prototypes and learn as they go along. You can't anticipate everything. Feedback is essential. Your ideas are outdated, unpracticed, and naively idealistic.
When a technology encourages poor design, it's wise to speak out about it. The more people that understand the issues the better. Flash has it's place, but as a standard replacement for basic web pages it just doesn't cut it.
Fash: 99% Bad, written in 2000, still makes as much sense today as it did 8 years ago.
An ideal Flash would be truly integrated in the browser in a seamless way, however it just isn't there. Style sheets and JavaScript are better solutions for most applications.
It's a well known fact that the easiest way to get a level increase at the higher levels is to leave Microsoft and then come back.
I've heard this gimmick before, and it's not particular to Microsoft. I just don't get it. Why are companies so eager to hire back employees that wanted to leave in the first place, and reward them to boot? The fact that it seems to work and is widely acknowledged is just an encouragement for other employees to do the same thing.
Does it deserve the spot above the shift key? Probably not, but what else would go there?
Control, of course. Copy & paste is an obvious benefit if you touch type. Also lots of applications make generous use of control keys. And if you use Emacs at all, control needs to be convenient.
Either swapping caps lock and control or making caps lock an additional control is quite common with keyboard configuration software. Personally, I never use caps lock so I always turn it into control.
Granted I can get my company to help subsidize that but if I found out my ISP was throttling me I would more than likely take my business elsewhere.
Many people only have 1 choice for broadband, so they can't shop around. Even if you have 2 choices, you have to hope that the alternative doesn't have the same policies. Sounds like you have competition in your area, which is nice for you, but lots of people do not.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going by the post you responded to, but it's not clear if he was talking about two different classes (apparently your interpretation), or just one class (they way I interpreted it). That is, I think he calls people who are "torture murderers" mentally insane. By society's definition, clearly something isn't right with them if they are a serial killer and torture for fun.
I think it's clear these people can't be rehabilitated. Without the death penalty, assholes like Dennis Rader will rot in jail forever. I'd rather see him put to death.
Those insane should get the therapy they need to effectively function in society. Executing them only punishes them for an act they are not responsible for.
So, do you know what "therapy" to give somebody who gets kicks from killing people? Why do you define somebody logical but evil as "insane"? Is anybody responsible for anything?
A civilized country doesn't kill their people, period.
What's the point of locking up somebody for life who enjoys torturing and killing people?
Your equation of killing somebody who changes their religion with murderers and rapists is laughable. "no fundamental difference" my ass. I don't think you're in any position to be giving people lectures over morality.
Regimes like this exist for the same reason that Iraq existed for so long. Western nations don't necessarily have the stomach to put an end to them.
It's not the West's job to invade other countries and impose governments on them. It isn't working too well in Iraq, now is it? Oddly enough, most people don't like to be invaded, and the Iraqis resent the United States occupying their country. How would you feel if Canada and Europe banded together to invade the United States, because of our oppressive government?
Life is grand with our cellphones, computers, lattes, and satellite TV. Why should they care?
Then can I assume you're in Afghanistan or Iraq risking your life and facing discomfort? Somehow I think not.
Countries like this focus the ire of their people outward so they continue the oppression internally. All the while declaring it is to crack down on people looking to harm them.
Patriot Act. Torture. Massive illegal spying. National Security Letters. The country is moving towards 1984, and even Obama didn't have the backbone to stand up to telecom immunity.
Then again occasionally that pesky world gets enough gumption to do something drastic like flying planes into buildings.
This was a reaction to troops and combat actions in the Middle East, not because of that baby food "they hate our freedoms" crap that Bush feeds to the American public.
You spelt honour incorrectly as well
I use American spelling, not British.
but 'wrong' is your real failure here
I don't even know what this means.
Like if I tell you my plan for making a 1000 mpg car, and it turns out to depend fundamentally on steel being lighter than air. This dependence might be subtle enough that neither of us realized it at first, so I'm not necessarily a crackpot for coming up with such a plan.
Your post makes a good point, but this is the worst car analogy I've ever seen on Slashdot :)
Note that I could have refuted this proof, but who would have believed me?
So what papers have you published?
Li lost his honnor and should seppuku himself to preserve it.
Wrong nationality. Plus you spelled honor wrong. Failure all around.
Now THAT is a summary
Actually I recommend reading the article. It's short, understandable, and contains other cool facts about these neutron stars.
Also, as for that last "proved" bit, the article ends with:
"It's not quite right to say that we have now 'proven' General Relativity," Breton said. "However, so far, Einstein's theory has passed all the tests that have been conducted, including ours."
the chance aspect of the game disappears as the card distribution converges, and skill is all that is left to decide the winnings.
Most poker players "play the man", and this element has a rock-paper-scissors aspect to it: "I know my opponent plays a certain way, I will take advantage of it". "I know that my opponent knows I play a certain way, I will take advantage of this." "I know that my opponent knows that I know ..."
That makes the idea of skill as a measurable quality very slippery. I don't think you could accurately pinpoint "the greatest player" as you could for somebody like Kasparov in the chess world. There are certainly classes of players, where top pros consistently make money, but skill is vastly overestimated in poker.
I learned more in the past 10 minutes than I would on CNN/MSNBC (Fox teaches you a lot, most of it wrong) over an entire week.
I scanned the article looking for something of interest, but it was fully of the typical empty and verbose writings you get from bureaucrats. I admit I didn't read it in detail.
So, could you tell me one single thing you learned?
That's what checksums are for. It doesn't matter where a file comes from if the file size and md5sum match publicized numbers from a trusted source.
Google started out with such a positive image, but they are rapidly losing that and their "do no evil" mantra has become a joke.
I agree, I used to be a big fan of Google myself, but clearly they are more concerned about empire building than "doing the right thing".
Google should fight this tyrannical ruling.
Why would they? They argue themselves that IP addresses are NOT personally identifiable information. Google only cares when they don't make money on sharing that information. Giving it away for free undermines their business.
What would be the purpose of this?
The stated purpose by Viacom is to get numbers for how often infringing videos were viewed, and compare that to how often non-infringing videos were viewed.
Google claimed that it would be too expensive to give them that information (they'd have to go through all the data themselves to summarize it). Viacom countered that Google could just give them a raw dump of the database, and Viacom would do the analysis.
Google then claimed that this would violate privacy concerns, because of usernames and IP addresses. And the kicker here, is the judge used Google's own publically argued policy against them:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/02/are-ip-addresses-personal.html
"Are IP addresses personal? [...] The reality is though that in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot [identify you]."
Are there people that still think Google is looking out for their best interests?
Who the fuck cares about if my YouTube viewing habits get into a data warehouse as a statistical data?
You'd care if you got a "settlement offer" from Viacom because you watched their copyrighted videos and they tracked back to you via your IP.
They don't need that level of detail though.
They don't care about your privacy. They are an information vortex. They want every last piece of information about you, because it gives them more opportunities. Storing the data is cheap. Throwing away information is a sin in their eyes.
If you've ever seen Minority Report, you'll know where Google wants to be.
Honest question: why is this a big deal? What do I tell to my non-technical friends who say, OK, gobs of data, what's the significance?
Tell them if they watched any video that Viacom didn't want them to, Viacom will now have their personally identifying IP address. With this IP address and the time of viewing, Viacom can force their ISP into disclosing who the IP belonged to.
Have they watched a lot of videos that legally they weren't entitled to? RIAA-type "settlement offers" may follow, with lawsuits to back them up.
I typically run firefox, bit torrent, and then folding@home + World community grid at the same time. I close none of these to play TF2 and see no difference in FPS with the CPU hogging programs on or off.
Firefox is not CPU intensive unless you're sitting on a page that happens to hog the CPU with JavaScript. Not sure about BitTorrent, but it should be mostly IO bound. Folding@home is designed to use your idle CPU processes, so it won't detract from your game. I assume the same from World, though I'm not familiar with it.
In other words, you could probably get away with 1 CPU.
A good design should be independent of implementation constraints.
It's a guiding principle, but nowhere near attainable in the real world. Are you going to design the same with 1960 hardware as with 2000?
If an architect finds that his developers cannot do something, or if his tools cannot accomplish something, he should be be looking at finding new developers and new tools.
I wouldn't trust an architect that doesn't get his hands dirty as far as I could throw him. If developers and tools are having trouble with an architect's design, there's a good chance that there's something wrong with the design. If an architect can't demonstrate his design ideas in practice, he needs to go.
I'd go further to say that having the reality check is a bad thing - and is one of the culprits of poor design, and poor practices.
And in the real world, people build prototypes and learn as they go along. You can't anticipate everything. Feedback is essential. Your ideas are outdated, unpracticed, and naively idealistic.
HTML/XHTML/Javascript/CSS/PHP
One of these things is not like the others.
You're a "dork".
When a technology encourages poor design, it's wise to speak out about it. The more people that understand the issues the better. Flash has it's place, but as a standard replacement for basic web pages it just doesn't cut it.
Fash: 99% Bad, written in 2000, still makes as much sense today as it did 8 years ago.
An ideal Flash would be truly integrated in the browser in a seamless way, however it just isn't there. Style sheets and JavaScript are better solutions for most applications.
It's a well known fact that the easiest way to get a level increase at the higher levels is to leave Microsoft and then come back.
I've heard this gimmick before, and it's not particular to Microsoft. I just don't get it. Why are companies so eager to hire back employees that wanted to leave in the first place, and reward them to boot? The fact that it seems to work and is widely acknowledged is just an encouragement for other employees to do the same thing.
Does it deserve the spot above the shift key? Probably not, but what else would go there?
Control, of course. Copy & paste is an obvious benefit if you touch type. Also lots of applications make generous use of control keys. And if you use Emacs at all, control needs to be convenient.
Either swapping caps lock and control or making caps lock an additional control is quite common with keyboard configuration software. Personally, I never use caps lock so I always turn it into control.
Granted I can get my company to help subsidize that but if I found out my ISP was throttling me I would more than likely take my business elsewhere.
Many people only have 1 choice for broadband, so they can't shop around. Even if you have 2 choices, you have to hope that the alternative doesn't have the same policies. Sounds like you have competition in your area, which is nice for you, but lots of people do not.