Robot Muhammed? I presume you're referring to "Reason." The reasoning process the robot goes through struck me as very Thomistic; if Asimov was making fun of anything, I think it was of Christian apologetics.
Yes, I am talking about "Reason".
To quote:
"There is no master but the Master and QT-1 is his prophet!"
Compare with:
"There is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet!"
There are several others, but that is the most glaring.
It is not Christianity.
QT-1 didn't get nailed to anything.
He didn't even turn water into motor oil.
Doubtfull. Nowhere in the preview did I see the word "Asimov." Sure, it might have been in the tiny text that the show and the end of the preview for 1.5 seconds, but I doubt that's going to get anybody into the bookstores that didn't already know of Asimov. You'd think that they'd title it "Isaac Asimov's 'I, Robot'" as a selling point.
I actually bought the book Wednesday, and read it yesterday, primarily because I wanted to read the book before I saw the movie.
What I was actually amazed by was how bad the book really was.
I have read other stuff by Asimov that I liked a lot.
The characters were pretty one-dimensional, with the most developed one in the whole book, Dr. Susan Calvin, basically amounting to nothing more that a "woman scientist" with nothing more to her than that. Those two field engineers also were pretty annoying, whose only apparent goal in life is to bicker like an old married couple constantly.
I thought that the reporter who was "interviewing" Dr. Calvin could have turned into someone interesting, but he wasn't even given a name, definitely not any of the story himself.
The way the robots broke down was stupid as well.
A robot supposedly smarter than most humans, running in circles on Mercury, singing Gilbert and Sullivan?
Another group of robots who think they are the chorus line?
The robotic Muhammad was kind of funny, and actually more along the lines of breakdown I would expect in something so advanced as they are supposed to be, but I am pretty sure I would be offended by it if I were a Muslim.
And then the book degenerates into a Socialist wet-dream, with a robot elected president of the Earth, and all of the economic activities of the Earth dictated by four robotic brains, who "know what is best for us", as they purposefully and selectively destabilize parts of the world economy in order to discredit people who disagree with robotic control, the "Fundies" (is that where the term first showed up?), with the good Dr. Calvin just assuming that it is for the best, because "our entire technical civilization has created more unhappiness and misery then it has removed", therefore we will be happy when we give up control, and it will be for our own good.
I see nothing in the Amendment I that says "except vulgarity" or "only political speech". Nor do I see anything in Article I Section 8, or anywhere else in the Constitution, granting Congress the power to regulate "vulgarity" - but I do see Amendments IX and X.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There are valid reasons to require that you should be able to freely discuss the government, or religion, or other issues;
it seems pretty obvious to me that is what is being talked about in the Bill of Rights.
There is no valid reason to require that you should be able to be freely use vulgar language, or display pornography.
I agree that this censorship was hypocritical, but the post I was originally replying to referred to censoring political messages, not sex talk.
That is basically the way I view it.
Example of protected Free Speech:"President Bush is a dumb-ass fuck!"
(a viewpoint I disagree with by the way).
Example of vulgarity, not protected by any amendment, that shouldn't be broadcasted:"I'm Howard Stern, and I want to see a midget get fucked up his ass!"
See the difference?
Same words, different context.
I think the key here, and the point the parent poster was trying to make is that "it's not our country". Morality is not even a factor in this equation. That is their country and their internal dispute, and no other country has the right to intervene. That's why there are these things called 'borders'. Somehow this philosophy has been lost on recent administrations but it's validity exists nonetheless.
When you are talking about countries, you are talking about soveriegn entities which, in spite of however much the United Nations might like it, are by definition completely under there own control.
We have the right (a word that isn't appropriate to use in reference to nations) to intervene in anything that is convenient to us.
It is in our best interest that Taiwan remains a free and democratic society, and not fall under the control of the mainland communists.
It is most definitely in the best interests of the Taiwanese that they remain free.
Do you happen to have a reference for the "over 95 of the top 100 servers" bit? I'm feeling skeptical about that, but I don't want to make a judgement until I find out...
Netcraft confirms it: BSD isn't dying!
Ever.
Seriously though, his statistics about FreeBSD are incorrect, but check out this list.
At the time I posted, The only ones on the list are FreeBSD and BSD/OS.
No Linux. No Windows. No Solaris. Nothing but FreeBSD and BSD/OS. BSD/OS has the most systems, but FreeBSD has the top two slots.
That job security through code obscurity thing really doesn't work because the ones who do the hiring and firing probably have no idea what it is you do other than "some computer stuff" and they probably don't have any clue that the whole system is going to crash a couple months after you're gone.
Which is when they realize how good of a programmer you are, and hire you back for twice your previous salary.
That would still leave 10%. That's too little for a presidential election, but if the US had a fair proportional system like most democratic countries, that would still be a significant amount in parliamentary elections. And it's not just the Libertarian party, e.g. I suppose also the Green party would have quite a number of seats in a parliament elected in a fair proportional way.
I don't think political views of Americans are so much more limited than those of people in other democracies and that therefore two parties alone, which aren't that distant from each other, anyway, can represent all Americans. Its rather the flawed majoritarian election system that gives people too few choices and leads to money and not democratic debates about ideas decide.
That is, rather, exactly the problem with parlimentarian systems: they give way too much power to small but vocal groups. The reason the two parties are so similar is because they are forced to play towards the will of the majority, which basically agree on most things. There is a balancing act between "majority rule" and "minority rights", and our system is designed to be more favorable towards majority rule, by design.
When I said 90% wouldn't vote for a Libertarian candidate, I meant ever: their views are quite different from what most of America would go for; they are way too extreme. 10% of the population would possibly consider voting for them. The same is true of the Green party.
When 90% of the citizens actively disagree with a group, it would be unfair (as if fairness ever mattered in politics) to give any real weight to their opinions.
As for money versus democratic debate: nothing is stopping democratic debate. The Green party and the Libertarians can spread their message to anybody that cares to hear. If anything, their is even less of a barricade to the debate then there ever was. I can find out all that I couldn't care less to know about their ideas from their website, or your political ideas if you just care to share them.
NASA baby? Speaking French is a problem? I'm even more confused now!
I am referring to the ESA as a "Baby NASA", since it is basically the same thing as NASA, even basically the same acronym, just much smaller.
Speaking French isn't a problem in itself, but I listed it since it is one of the few noticable differences.
I thought there already was competition between Titan, Delta, Ariane, Pegasus (for smaller payloads) and the Russian launchers. Am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing something.
Titan: NASA
Delta: NASA
Ariane: unreliable, and run by a baby NASA that speaks French
Pegasus: NASA
Russian launchers: you're kidding right?
To put it in terms understandable to this crowd, that is like saying you have competition between Windows 98, NT, and XP.
I want names of everyone involved! Who were these fifteen that are kowtowing to SCO? I want the CEO/Presidents/Owners to come out and explain why they're supporting SCO.
I am amazed it is that small (as is Mr. McBride I'm sure).
After all, if you are a multi-million dollar corporation, what do you really care about $699?
I am 99.99% certain that SCO is completely full of it and will be out of business in very short order, but what about that remaining 0.01%?
Those fifteen companies probably viewed it as $699 to never have to hear about it again.
If you like that, you'll love automatic transmissions. They're so funky that no one really understood how and why they worked until relatively recently, except the man who invented them.
Actually, lots of people understood them, but they all had mullets, so nobody took them seriously.
I would imagine that was a typo, and they really wanted MS in CE, computer engineering. If you have a Ph.D. in comp e, you don't need as much experience.
Slashdot Mirror
You are forgetting however, that as a FreeBSD user, he isn't going to be an ass-hat about that sort of thing.
Yes, I am talking about "Reason". To quote: "There is no master but the Master and QT-1 is his prophet!" Compare with: "There is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet!" There are several others, but that is the most glaring. It is not Christianity. QT-1 didn't get nailed to anything. He didn't even turn water into motor oil.
Doubtfull. Nowhere in the preview did I see the word "Asimov." Sure, it might have been in the tiny text that the show and the end of the preview for 1.5 seconds, but I doubt that's going to get anybody into the bookstores that didn't already know of Asimov. You'd think that they'd title it "Isaac Asimov's 'I, Robot'" as a selling point.
I actually bought the book Wednesday, and read it yesterday, primarily because I wanted to read the book before I saw the movie. What I was actually amazed by was how bad the book really was. I have read other stuff by Asimov that I liked a lot.
The characters were pretty one-dimensional, with the most developed one in the whole book, Dr. Susan Calvin, basically amounting to nothing more that a "woman scientist" with nothing more to her than that. Those two field engineers also were pretty annoying, whose only apparent goal in life is to bicker like an old married couple constantly. I thought that the reporter who was "interviewing" Dr. Calvin could have turned into someone interesting, but he wasn't even given a name, definitely not any of the story himself.
The way the robots broke down was stupid as well. A robot supposedly smarter than most humans, running in circles on Mercury, singing Gilbert and Sullivan? Another group of robots who think they are the chorus line? The robotic Muhammad was kind of funny, and actually more along the lines of breakdown I would expect in something so advanced as they are supposed to be, but I am pretty sure I would be offended by it if I were a Muslim.
And then the book degenerates into a Socialist wet-dream, with a robot elected president of the Earth, and all of the economic activities of the Earth dictated by four robotic brains, who "know what is best for us", as they purposefully and selectively destabilize parts of the world economy in order to discredit people who disagree with robotic control, the "Fundies" (is that where the term first showed up?), with the good Dr. Calvin just assuming that it is for the best, because "our entire technical civilization has created more unhappiness and misery then it has removed", therefore we will be happy when we give up control, and it will be for our own good.
The book sucked.
That isn't 3Com, in the book, the main company that builds the robots is "U.S. Robot and Mechanical Men, Inc.", usually shortened to "U.S. Robots".
I thought they killed off Data in the last movie. I guess not.
May I recommend Weather.gov? After all, you are paying for it even if you don't use it, and it is actually better too.
I see nothing in the Amendment I that says "except vulgarity" or "only political speech". Nor do I see anything in Article I Section 8, or anywhere else in the Constitution, granting Congress the power to regulate "vulgarity" - but I do see Amendments IX and X.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There are valid reasons to require that you should be able to freely discuss the government, or religion, or other issues; it seems pretty obvious to me that is what is being talked about in the Bill of Rights. There is no valid reason to require that you should be able to be freely use vulgar language, or display pornography.
That is basically the way I view it.
Example of protected Free Speech: "President Bush is a dumb-ass fuck!" (a viewpoint I disagree with by the way).
Example of vulgarity, not protected by any amendment, that shouldn't be broadcasted: "I'm Howard Stern, and I want to see a midget get fucked up his ass!"
See the difference? Same words, different context.
My point is that most people view all of those as synonyms.
You're splitting hairs ...
When you are talking about countries, you are talking about soveriegn entities which, in spite of however much the United Nations might like it, are by definition completely under there own control. We have the right (a word that isn't appropriate to use in reference to nations) to intervene in anything that is convenient to us. It is in our best interest that Taiwan remains a free and democratic society, and not fall under the control of the mainland communists. It is most definitely in the best interests of the Taiwanese that they remain free.
Well, I got all the way to here in the article before I actually broke down and put in a dvd+rw to do a backup of my computer. It's been a few weeks.
Berkeley isn't known for heavy usage of speed. Berkeley is known for BSD, and for another three-letter acronym ending in SD.
Netcraft confirms it: BSD isn't dying! Ever. Seriously though, his statistics about FreeBSD are incorrect, but check out this list. At the time I posted, The only ones on the list are FreeBSD and BSD/OS. No Linux. No Windows. No Solaris. Nothing but FreeBSD and BSD/OS. BSD/OS has the most systems, but FreeBSD has the top two slots.
Which is when they realize how good of a programmer you are, and hire you back for twice your previous salary.
That would still leave 10%. That's too little for a presidential election, but if the US had a fair proportional system like most democratic countries, that would still be a significant amount in parliamentary elections. And it's not just the Libertarian party, e.g. I suppose also the Green party would have quite a number of seats in a parliament elected in a fair proportional way. I don't think political views of Americans are so much more limited than those of people in other democracies and that therefore two parties alone, which aren't that distant from each other, anyway, can represent all Americans. Its rather the flawed majoritarian election system that gives people too few choices and leads to money and not democratic debates about ideas decide.
That is, rather, exactly the problem with parlimentarian systems: they give way too much power to small but vocal groups. The reason the two parties are so similar is because they are forced to play towards the will of the majority, which basically agree on most things. There is a balancing act between "majority rule" and "minority rights", and our system is designed to be more favorable towards majority rule, by design.
When I said 90% wouldn't vote for a Libertarian candidate, I meant ever: their views are quite different from what most of America would go for; they are way too extreme. 10% of the population would possibly consider voting for them. The same is true of the Green party. When 90% of the citizens actively disagree with a group, it would be unfair (as if fairness ever mattered in politics) to give any real weight to their opinions.
As for money versus democratic debate: nothing is stopping democratic debate. The Green party and the Libertarians can spread their message to anybody that cares to hear. If anything, their is even less of a barricade to the debate then there ever was. I can find out all that I couldn't care less to know about their ideas from their website, or your political ideas if you just care to share them.
90% of Americans wouldn't vote for a Libertarian candidate even if they did know what they stood for. Plus, their candidate looks like a dork.
I am referring to the ESA as a "Baby NASA", since it is basically the same thing as NASA, even basically the same acronym, just much smaller. Speaking French isn't a problem in itself, but I listed it since it is one of the few noticable differences.
I thought there already was competition between Titan, Delta, Ariane, Pegasus (for smaller payloads) and the Russian launchers. Am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing something.
- Titan: NASA
- Delta: NASA
- Ariane: unreliable, and run by a baby NASA that speaks French
- Pegasus: NASA
- Russian launchers: you're kidding right?
To put it in terms understandable to this crowd, that is like saying you have competition between Windows 98, NT, and XP.I am amazed it is that small (as is Mr. McBride I'm sure). After all, if you are a multi-million dollar corporation, what do you really care about $699? I am 99.99% certain that SCO is completely full of it and will be out of business in very short order, but what about that remaining 0.01%? Those fifteen companies probably viewed it as $699 to never have to hear about it again.
- Microsoft Windows
List of operating systems I have used:- MS-DOS, PC-DOS
- Mac OS, both the older ones and X.
- Microsoft Windows 3.x, 95, 98, NT4, XP.
- Linux (all sorts of distributions)
- FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD
- Solaris
- HP-UX
List of operating systems whose existance I am aware of: very very long, but not including Xandos until now.Amendment VIII (1791): Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Define excessive. Define cruel. Define unusual; if they are doing something to all of the prisoners, it isn't unusual is it?
It could be worse, he could be using the word FLOSS, and not referring to something he does to his teeth.
Actually, lots of people understood them, but they all had mullets, so nobody took them seriously.
I would imagine that was a typo, and they really wanted MS in CE, computer engineering. If you have a Ph.D. in comp e, you don't need as much experience.