I understand your argument, and the perceived relevance of Teach's - I simply don't agree with it, as it is presented as absolutist. You can not be so absolutist about language, in any meaningful way. Reading some Wittgenstein may convince Teach of this if he feels my protestations incredible. The Tractatus Philisophicus being a good, if heavy going start.
to quote Teach "We have literally no other way to judge you as a rhetor."
This is not true. Is it? (read back for context of quote)
You seem to concede this yourself by saying "though one would hope that the quality of his [Einstein's] ideas would overcome this limitation.". i.e. the quality of Einstein's ideas is another way to judge him (and anyone for that matter) as a "rhetor". One erroneously denied by Teach.
If you truly "hope" this to be the case, promoting the absolutism that Teach has, is rather counter productive, isn't it?
Just like inaccuracy of syntax, superficiality is inevitable, to a degree. It doesn't mean we should aim towards it. Maybe then we'd have managed to talk on topic (re snakes) for a little longer...?
Hate to burst your bubble, but this Internet of ours is primarily a textual medium.
Well I hate to pop yours, but I actually access the text content of the web via a screen reader, so, text is not the primary medium for all users. Nor is it the only medium for most. But this is not my point. My point is that a wise reader (IMO) assesses the value of comment not on the style of its writing, nor on the accuracy of its execution as a piece of prose, but rather on the merit of its content when regarded conceptually. Einstein was a terrible speller (hence my name). Should GR and SR have been dismissed because of pedantic grammar Nazis regarding his work as 'childish'? (as was implied about my post - dispite me actually knowing a great deal about snakes and snake robots).
No. Literacy is not equatable to intelligence or knowledge. We as humans (most of us at least) have amazing powers of error correction. Thus if I spell speech 'speach', it may give rise to an easy op. for a jibe, but anyone reading will still understand what I've said.
So I strongly disagree with your assertion that this Internet of ours is primarily a textual medium.. It is a collection of mixed media for the storage, retrieval and presentation of information. And 'We have literally no other way to judge you as a rhetor' is not true either. As I have described, we can correct the errrors made in text to see passed such inaccuracies, and then judge on induction, argument, empirical evidence and other such 'deeper' indications of true merit.
I feel my point is proven by this distraction from the topic at hand. i.e. robot snakes. Let me know if you want to know more about them.
BTW this is not meant as a flame/troll. I feel rather strongly about this sub thread's topic. Anyone truly interested in this "literacy [!]= merit of putative argument" please read up about dyslexia. I personally have an IQ similar to that of Einstein in abstract reasoning, but the 'Reading Age' of a 10 year old. Neurodivercity is a reality for more than 10% of web users. So dismissing us would be more foolish than dismissing Firefox users 2 years ago. Or Safari users now.
---rant ends---
Urm? Right. Well actually I am making a snake. Its on my desk. I'm using Oopic-r for the brain and building my own desing for the body, curently using 8 servos, 50 universal joints and one range finder. What I hope to do, is solve the rectalinear motion issue by using a derivitive of real snakes own process, which is a longditudinal wave of flexing rib muscles, which creates a "slip and grip" tranfer of force and motion via the belly scales. Though this tends only to be used by larger constrictors.
Try not to make assumptions regarding posts and their posters on the basis of their literacy skills. Ever. It makes you look foolish in the long run.
Is there anywere in either artical that says how it moves forwards? I'm currently making a robot snake of my own, and the rectilinear motion is by far the most difficult part of the physical design. I'm assuming it uses wheel, but can tell from the images.
Good question. I use XP's SP2 with Advanced Security Tech, plus Router, on my every day machine. I'll not publicise the security I use on more critical machines (eccentricityplus obfuscation is THE only way to minimise security breaches in my opinion). But no AV. I don't open untrustworthy apps, and as TFA goes some way to explain, AV software doesn't work. However I dev and support web apps that must circumvent 'intrusions' made by Norton.
One such feature is their referrer blocking. This seems to serve no purpose, and is simple to work around. Without the work-around, my software, and many other web apps and sites out there are broken by this "security measure". It took me precisely 1 hour to work around this issue, and I'm not that fast a coder.
Am I some kind of evil, nija hacker trying to phish people's personal details? No, I'm a developer trying to make web based accessibility software.
So what DO I suggest? Have a quick and easy backup and recover system. And use it. Oh, and don't think Norton does anything practical to help your system security. It simply stops you from using many honest, trust worthy sites and services, while marginally improving your chances against old, 'orthodox' malware.
AV software, and even most firewall software, which goes beyond port control simply prevents the user using the whole of the internet, but rarely stops the internet using them. This is just one reason why.
Still an interesting point it raises, and a good example to give to none believers if you ever have to give the "Nothing is perfectly secure" speach to a client.
I can not argue with the fact that she should have been doing the job they paid her to do and not be expressing her opinion on a system that was developed for business use only
And the Nazi prison guards should have kept shtum, and busied themselves with what they were being paid to do as well? No, I think she deserves a medal! And so does anyone else who is willing to risk their job (or more)to stand up for what is clearly a barbaric and strategically idiotic practise. May she live a long, healthy and wealthy life, knowing SHE'S done the right thing. And may those who condone this madness see the error of their ways, before the US's name is irreparably damaged for generations.
I remember how not too long ago (80s - early 90s) the world did look up to the US. Or at the very least respect its achievements. Soon, it won't matter what 'great' achievements the US manages to succeed in. The rest of the world will sneer at them all, in the same manner that a cheat who wins is despised by all who see their foul. Even by those on the same team.
What if it were YOU who talked to the intruder. Just send your ugly mush from you phone's camera, to the mirro, and you could tell the nere do well what you thought of him 'in person'.
The worry comes from how the rest of the world reacts to this (and of course the worry in the effected area is very real and worth noting!).
If Syria, and Iran, and Afghanistan can coerce Pakistan (or some other sizable ally) then World War is not far away. This was unlikely before. But after questionable actsperformedin the area, committed by Israeli allies, this is more likely. If Pakistan were to 'join in' then it means two opposing aggressors have Nuclear 'deterrents'.
lol
yes. Well... no. But I've seen leaks before, and they tend to get worse. Erosion and corrosion increase with flow-rate, causing an unpredictable runaway effect.
I would say well said, but it wasn't particularly. But I like that you said it.
At a time when waste, recycling, energy crisis, wars to 'solve' the energy crisis, and other related topics are of paramount importance, such missions seem ridiculous. And a waste of money to boot.
Let just hope the current escalations are not going to grow, and further illustrate the need for strategic prioritisation.
If you want to stride forward, like the great nation you are/were/could be - then how about using nano tubes to make space elevators. At attach gigantic solar arrays, and pass the electrical energy back to earth. Solving the wasted energy getting out of orbit, AND producing very large scale renewable energy.
No they shouldn't have patented their software (I thought everyone on/. thought this way?...). Patents for software are stupid. They just don't work. This is yet another reason why. Even if they had, It's unlikely it would be valid in China. Just as European and US companies rarely check for prior art in China or Russia in case of infringment.
I love how the Chinese innovate. Corporate espionage, reverse engineering and overall IP infringement...
And no that is not how the Chinese inovate. That is how people inovate.
Can you please give me an example of a technology NOT vulnerable to governmental interference?
Influence/interferance is different to absolute or even majority control. In the UK the Government has most of the guns, and thereby majority control of guns in the UK. I still think thats actually a good thing. They don't control them all. But most of them. In America, the Police influence who has a gun, but do not control the majority. Neither government controls the majority of all guns.
The Interweb is no different. No one government will control the majority of the internet. If ICANN and Washington try to take control of the internet away from the WORLD'S masses, then the world will invent a new one, that is not controllable via those means used.
Generally, I believe the market is going to sort this problem out.
Just like it sorted out Katrina? This blind faith in the economy is THE biggest problem we face on this issue. Because not only will people keep rationalising doing nothing, using this argument, but also it is seen by so many intelligent people as being a solution. It is not. It is doing nothing. The markets are driven by greedy bankers and speculators. They do like a long bet sometimes, but usually they're after a quick buck. Plus they don't have the expertise to predict the fallout from a slow but final oil crisis. When they do invest in a long term payoff, they want it to be rock solid. When it goes bad, they'll just invest in the next best "stable" investment (copper, grain, water....). They will not switch their vast accounts over to biodeisel.
The government MUST force the hand of industry, for the betterment of the majority! Such situations are rare, but this one is clear to me.
For everyone who thinks, and says BEWARE THE WIKI! for it is not academically sound. Thre's nothing sound about academia. There are as many lecturers who believe they know more than they do, as there are wiki contributors.
"2) establish an even stronger marketshare in the EU such as giving away windows/office/etc to schools, businesses, etc."
I wouldn't bank on it. This could dig them in deeper. And in the UK at least, they may be fighting yet another front shortly. It may not sound such a biggy, but believe me BECTA is educational IT in the UK. Read here
Like I said, the debate could rage forever (and probably will). One atrocity deserves another? It was Gandhi who said it best:
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and soon we will all be blind and toothless"
Just re-read my position.
'My' country (the UK) has committed countless barbarisms throughout history. Should I (and my young American family) die of smallpox because of them? No, is the only conclusion I can come to. I've said it before in here (and been marked a troll, and worse - but that is hardly going to sway my opinion or still my tongue). America, is my friend, and I'm telling you, the current hawkish madness that it's proffering is dangerous for the world, including the US. And if its people can't see that, even when friends tell them so, then they invite less friendly nations/organisations/individuals, to make their view known in a far more bloody manner.
Right now, even though half my family is American, and I'm from the closed military ally of the US, America and its WMD scare the crap out of me more the idea of Iran (and yes I know what Iran is like) getting their hands on nukes. Doesn't that say something? I hope it does.
I'm no pacifist. I know the world and the people in it will for ever be violent and volatile. But that is why governments must do what can be done to lessen this, not further the violent cause.
Imagine this. One day a country is pushed too far. And it realises that it will most likely be annihilated, but it or its neighbours are already on their knees. So it sends a few dirty bombs and a couple of ground nukes to the US. Not so hard. US retaliates 'decisively' with bigger nukes. Now the rest of the world is watching and thinking about self preservation. Precisely because the US has such a vast arsenal of WMD, makes the likely hood of overwhelming retaliation from other country greater. i.e. not a warning shot across her bows, but all out demolition of major cities and facilities. Many Americans believe the rest of the world combined couldn't do this, but actually, there are a small but significant number of countries that could do it alone. That is theterrifying thing about WMD.So your bio 'defence' (and US citizens may see it as benign research, but the rest of the world - rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter - perceive it as otherwise) is no defence. In fact all it does is up the stakes. Even for you in the states.
"The anthrax research is for a vaccine. In order to make a vaccine, you have to make some anthrax. To say the US 'stockpiles bioweapons' in an abuse of both words."
Are you serious? How niave is this? Like the Nukes are defenisive? Some nation blows up a few ships, the US 'defends itself' by blowing up 2 cities. Yer sure you could call that defence. I'd call it an atrocity, but of course that debate could rage on forever. Which is my point.
What would a small group of people from any given country need to do, before the US was justified in unleashing such a bioagent on their population? You can argue that the US is making a vaccine for these agents, but will they make it freely available to the rest of the world? Does that lower the risk of Bush et al using what they have agressively some day? You can not argue that the US is not stockpiling bioagents, just because they 'might' use them for the greater good. They are still a risk. Don't be fooled by your own country's propoganda.
LOL
OK You're right. I'm actually quite a good physicist, but I'm also dyslexic - getting symetrical qualities confused some times (hense my name) which is just one reason I'm not a pro physicist
I worry about the "physics" people here on/. Time to go get drunk. beat you to it.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I understand your argument, and the perceived relevance of Teach's - I simply don't agree with it, as it is presented as absolutist. You can not be so absolutist about language, in any meaningful way. Reading some Wittgenstein may convince Teach of this if he feels my protestations incredible. The Tractatus Philisophicus being a good, if heavy going start.
to quote Teach "We have literally no other way to judge you as a rhetor."
This is not true. Is it? (read back for context of quote)
You seem to concede this yourself by saying "though one would hope that the quality of his [Einstein's] ideas would overcome this limitation.". i.e. the quality of Einstein's ideas is another way to judge him (and anyone for that matter) as a "rhetor". One erroneously denied by Teach.
If you truly "hope" this to be the case, promoting the absolutism that Teach has, is rather counter productive, isn't it?
Just like inaccuracy of syntax, superficiality is inevitable, to a degree. It doesn't mean we should aim towards it. Maybe then we'd have managed to talk on topic (re snakes) for a little longer...?
Hate to burst your bubble, but this Internet of ours is primarily a textual medium.
Well I hate to pop yours, but I actually access the text content of the web via a screen reader, so, text is not the primary medium for all users. Nor is it the only medium for most. But this is not my point. My point is that a wise reader (IMO) assesses the value of comment not on the style of its writing, nor on the accuracy of its execution as a piece of prose, but rather on the merit of its content when regarded conceptually. Einstein was a terrible speller (hence my name). Should GR and SR have been dismissed because of pedantic grammar Nazis regarding his work as 'childish'? (as was implied about my post - dispite me actually knowing a great deal about snakes and snake robots).
No. Literacy is not equatable to intelligence or knowledge. We as humans (most of us at least) have amazing powers of error correction. Thus if I spell speech 'speach', it may give rise to an easy op. for a jibe, but anyone reading will still understand what I've said.
So I strongly disagree with your assertion that this Internet of ours is primarily a textual medium.. It is a collection of mixed media for the storage, retrieval and presentation of information. And 'We have literally no other way to judge you as a rhetor' is not true either. As I have described, we can correct the errrors made in text to see passed such inaccuracies, and then judge on induction, argument, empirical evidence and other such 'deeper' indications of true merit.
I feel my point is proven by this distraction from the topic at hand. i.e. robot snakes. Let me know if you want to know more about them.
BTW this is not meant as a flame/troll. I feel rather strongly about this sub thread's topic. Anyone truly interested in this "literacy [!]= merit of putative argument" please read up about dyslexia. I personally have an IQ similar to that of Einstein in abstract reasoning, but the 'Reading Age' of a 10 year old. Neurodivercity is a reality for more than 10% of web users. So dismissing us would be more foolish than dismissing Firefox users 2 years ago. Or Safari users now. ---rant ends---
Urm? Right. Well actually I am making a snake. Its on my desk. I'm using Oopic-r for the brain and building my own desing for the body, curently using 8 servos, 50 universal joints and one range finder. What I hope to do, is solve the rectalinear motion issue by using a derivitive of real snakes own process, which is a longditudinal wave of flexing rib muscles, which creates a "slip and grip" tranfer of force and motion via the belly scales. Though this tends only to be used by larger constrictors.
Try not to make assumptions regarding posts and their posters on the basis of their literacy skills. Ever. It makes you look foolish in the long run.
Is there anywere in either artical that says how it moves forwards? I'm currently making a robot snake of my own, and the rectilinear motion is by far the most difficult part of the physical design. I'm assuming it uses wheel, but can tell from the images.
Great stuff. It not entirely new though.
This is my fave out there at the mo. Snake link (click the images for vids)
And what crappy firewall do you use?
Good question. I use XP's SP2 with Advanced Security Tech, plus Router, on my every day machine. I'll not publicise the security I use on more critical machines (eccentricityplus obfuscation is THE only way to minimise security breaches in my opinion). But no AV. I don't open untrustworthy apps, and as TFA goes some way to explain, AV software doesn't work. However I dev and support web apps that must circumvent 'intrusions' made by Norton.
One such feature is their referrer blocking. This seems to serve no purpose, and is simple to work around. Without the work-around, my software, and many other web apps and sites out there are broken by this "security measure". It took me precisely 1 hour to work around this issue, and I'm not that fast a coder.
Am I some kind of evil, nija hacker trying to phish people's personal details? No, I'm a developer trying to make web based accessibility software.
So what DO I suggest? Have a quick and easy backup and recover system. And use it. Oh, and don't think Norton does anything practical to help your system security. It simply stops you from using many honest, trust worthy sites and services, while marginally improving your chances against old, 'orthodox' malware.
AV software, and even most firewall software, which goes beyond port control simply prevents the user using the whole of the internet, but rarely stops the internet using them. This is just one reason why.
Still an interesting point it raises, and a good example to give to none believers if you ever have to give the "Nothing is perfectly secure" speach to a client.
Your not alone. You are far from alone.
I can not argue with the fact that she should have been doing the job they paid her to do and not be expressing her opinion on a system that was developed for business use only
And the Nazi prison guards should have kept shtum, and busied themselves with what they were being paid to do as well? No, I think she deserves a medal! And so does anyone else who is willing to risk their job (or more)to stand up for what is clearly a barbaric and strategically idiotic practise. May she live a long, healthy and wealthy life, knowing SHE'S done the right thing. And may those who condone this madness see the error of their ways, before the US's name is irreparably damaged for generations.
I remember how not too long ago (80s - early 90s) the world did look up to the US. Or at the very least respect its achievements. Soon, it won't matter what 'great' achievements the US manages to succeed in. The rest of the world will sneer at them all, in the same manner that a cheat who wins is despised by all who see their foul. Even by those on the same team.
What if it were YOU who talked to the intruder. Just send your ugly mush from you phone's camera, to the mirro, and you could tell the nere do well what you thought of him 'in person'.
Mod up informative /\
The worry comes from how the rest of the world reacts to this (and of course the worry in the effected area is very real and worth noting!). If Syria, and Iran, and Afghanistan can coerce Pakistan (or some other sizable ally) then World War is not far away. This was unlikely before. But after questionable actsperformedin the area, committed by Israeli allies, this is more likely. If Pakistan were to 'join in' then it means two opposing aggressors have Nuclear 'deterrents'.
As for Bird flu. Great news!
When you're trying to measure gravity waves.
lol
yes. Well... no. But I've seen leaks before, and they tend to get worse. Erosion and corrosion increase with flow-rate, causing an unpredictable runaway effect.
I would say well said, but it wasn't particularly. But I like that you said it.
At a time when waste, recycling, energy crisis, wars to 'solve' the energy crisis, and other related topics are of paramount importance, such missions seem ridiculous. And a waste of money to boot.
Let just hope the current escalations are not going to grow, and further illustrate the need for strategic prioritisation.
If you want to stride forward, like the great nation you are/were/could be - then how about using nano tubes to make space elevators. At attach gigantic solar arrays, and pass the electrical energy back to earth. Solving the wasted energy getting out of orbit, AND producing very large scale renewable energy.
Mod up for informative! Nice vid too.
But are you saying this makes it less or more worrying?...
I wonder if those on board would call a fuel leak a minor technical fault?
It may be slow now, but in my experience leaks tend to get worse...
I'm trying not to flame, but what an awful post.
/. thought this way?...). Patents for software are stupid. They just don't work. This is yet another reason why. Even if they had, It's unlikely it would be valid in China. Just as European and US companies rarely check for prior art in China or Russia in case of infringment.
No they shouldn't have patented their software (I thought everyone on
I love how the Chinese innovate. Corporate espionage, reverse engineering and overall IP infringement...
And no that is not how the Chinese inovate. That is how people inovate.
lasts for more than several years Thats a good's good enough for me! hmmm...
Can you please give me an example of a technology NOT vulnerable to governmental interference?
Influence/interferance is different to absolute or even majority control. In the UK the Government has most of the guns, and thereby majority control of guns in the UK. I still think thats actually a good thing. They don't control them all. But most of them. In America, the Police influence who has a gun, but do not control the majority. Neither government controls the majority of all guns.
The Interweb is no different. No one government will control the majority of the internet. If ICANN and Washington try to take control of the internet away from the WORLD'S masses, then the world will invent a new one, that is not controllable via those means used.
Generally, I believe the market is going to sort this problem out.
Just like it sorted out Katrina? This blind faith in the economy is THE biggest problem we face on this issue. Because not only will people keep rationalising doing nothing, using this argument, but also it is seen by so many intelligent people as being a solution. It is not. It is doing nothing. The markets are driven by greedy bankers and speculators. They do like a long bet sometimes, but usually they're after a quick buck. Plus they don't have the expertise to predict the fallout from a slow but final oil crisis. When they do invest in a long term payoff, they want it to be rock solid. When it goes bad, they'll just invest in the next best "stable" investment (copper, grain, water....). They will not switch their vast accounts over to biodeisel.
The government MUST force the hand of industry, for the betterment of the majority! Such situations are rare, but this one is clear to me.
For everyone who thinks, and says BEWARE THE WIKI! for it is not academically sound. Thre's nothing sound about academia. There are as many lecturers who believe they know more than they do, as there are wiki contributors.
"2) establish an even stronger marketshare in the EU such as giving away windows/office/etc to schools, businesses, etc."
I wouldn't bank on it. This could dig them in deeper. And in the UK at least, they may be fighting yet another front shortly. It may not sound such a biggy, but believe me BECTA is educational IT in the UK. Read here
Like I said, the debate could rage forever (and probably will). One atrocity deserves another? It was Gandhi who said it best: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and soon we will all be blind and toothless"
Just re-read my position.
'My' country (the UK) has committed countless barbarisms throughout history. Should I (and my young American family) die of smallpox because of them? No, is the only conclusion I can come to. I've said it before in here (and been marked a troll, and worse - but that is hardly going to sway my opinion or still my tongue). America, is my friend, and I'm telling you, the current hawkish madness that it's proffering is dangerous for the world, including the US. And if its people can't see that, even when friends tell them so, then they invite less friendly nations/organisations/individuals, to make their view known in a far more bloody manner.
Right now, even though half my family is American, and I'm from the closed military ally of the US, America and its WMD scare the crap out of me more the idea of Iran (and yes I know what Iran is like) getting their hands on nukes. Doesn't that say something? I hope it does.
I'm no pacifist. I know the world and the people in it will for ever be violent and volatile. But that is why governments must do what can be done to lessen this, not further the violent cause.
Imagine this. One day a country is pushed too far. And it realises that it will most likely be annihilated, but it or its neighbours are already on their knees. So it sends a few dirty bombs and a couple of ground nukes to the US. Not so hard. US retaliates 'decisively' with bigger nukes. Now the rest of the world is watching and thinking about self preservation. Precisely because the US has such a vast arsenal of WMD, makes the likely hood of overwhelming retaliation from other country greater. i.e. not a warning shot across her bows, but all out demolition of major cities and facilities. Many Americans believe the rest of the world combined couldn't do this, but actually, there are a small but significant number of countries that could do it alone. That is theterrifying thing about WMD.So your bio 'defence' (and US citizens may see it as benign research, but the rest of the world - rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter - perceive it as otherwise) is no defence. In fact all it does is up the stakes. Even for you in the states.
strategy is everything.
"The anthrax research is for a vaccine. In order to make a vaccine, you have to make some anthrax. To say the US 'stockpiles bioweapons' in an abuse of both words."
Are you serious? How niave is this? Like the Nukes are defenisive? Some nation blows up a few ships, the US 'defends itself' by blowing up 2 cities. Yer sure you could call that defence. I'd call it an atrocity, but of course that debate could rage on forever. Which is my point.
What would a small group of people from any given country need to do, before the US was justified in unleashing such a bioagent on their population? You can argue that the US is making a vaccine for these agents, but will they make it freely available to the rest of the world? Does that lower the risk of Bush et al using what they have agressively some day? You can not argue that the US is not stockpiling bioagents, just because they 'might' use them for the greater good. They are still a risk. Don't be fooled by your own country's propoganda.
The Worlds Most Expensive Etch-a-scetch!
LOL /. Time to go get drunk. beat you to it. :)
OK You're right. I'm actually quite a good physicist, but I'm also dyslexic - getting symetrical qualities confused some times (hense my name) which is just one reason I'm not a pro physicist I worry about the "physics" people here on