Also, for clarification, the plane's dimensions 2 space would be in distance and you would have to take level curves to see the circles because time would make it 3 space.
position = x velocity = dx/dt acceleration = (d^2 x) / (dt)^2
And if we want to achieve an even greater level of pedantry:
We don't care if it is a vector or not, because we haven't specified a direction. You can have vectors with unspecified directions. For example I could define a vector in 2 space as follows: v= , |v| = 60 mph.
This would define a circle of directions on a Cartesian plane with radius 60t where t is time. Provided we were working with hours and miles on our plane.
The only reason this is better than one is because the rain that hits it has less drag force on it (D=1/2 rho Area v^2). You could cascade them so that the drops reach 8 m/s each time. That might be cool.
This was first proposed by Skinner way back when in his operant conditioning theory. I'm sure that operant conditioning is part of it, but if IIRC, there are a bunch of experiments that show that isn't it. I'm too lazy to drag out my psych book.
I was once talking with my roommate about educational games and how you could make them fun. One thing we figured out that would be easy to do would be (in the context of an FPS) was use a small easy to learn scripting language to direct rocket trajectories for bombing the crap out of each other. In turn, the opponents have a missile defense system where they can program in counter scripts. Players must prepare scripts before starting a match etc. You could even make it a visually based language with icons and such with a more complicated text backed for the hardcore guys.
I think this would be very easily adapted to a space race kind of objective for NASA's MMORPG.
I'm not sure about the specifics of CAT5/6, but I do know that some electronic transmission media need to be DC balanced. If you have these large spikes, you'll have to compensate somehow, which can double the power draw that it actually needs - I think. I'm no expert on transmission media or engineering these devices, so don't take this as gospel by any means. If this is the case, you could probably rig up an overflow battery or something. You would still see some conversion inefficiencies though, the amount depending on the system obviously.
We cannot verify your position, so better to stick to the facts.
That may be true, but I know a soldier or two and they say the same stuff. OTOH, terrorists over there have the hometeam advantage so it's not like it's directly directly to terrorism in the US. I completely agree with your point about not overcompensating simply because you can imagine something bad. If you can justify it with some sort of risk assessment that involves high probability and obscenely high mortality (Millions is the kind of number I have in mind), then we can start talking about drastic measures.
Having a free society is worth lives as our forefathers often said. People lose sight of the fact that simply being alive isn't enough. Being alive AND free, while not easily quantifiably valuble (although you could argue that free societies are rich societies as Paul Graham has done), IS worth some number of lives. Judging by the way our ancestors (not just the US, everyone) have acted, it is worth a fucking TON of lives (hundreds of thousands or millions at a time on occasion). You could even argue that dictators, in order to preserve their own personal freedom, kill millions because it is that valuable. Don't go giving the government mass surveillance powers if you can avoid it is a good rule of thumb to go by.
Hey slashdot! This guy is an obvious troll. He always responds with the same kind of emotional stuff sans logic and always uses the most provocative way to do it (jesus hates you or whatever, america sucks). He started a huge flame war and no one is able to figure this out?
But does that really matter? Your atoms are being replaced all the time, just small bits at a time.
About a year ago, I tried to answer that question and I came up with an interesting answer. Excluding religious answers (ie assuming everything in the universe is physically based), your consciousness has to be somewhere physically. There are two places where this could be (one of which I just thought of incidentally). Either it resides in matter, or it resides in an energy field (like an electric field for example). If it is in a field, then that probably means your conscious state is an artifact of the surroundings. I don't like this idea because we walk near strong energy fields all the time without feeling affected (something would budge!), but I don't think it is impossible.
The other idea is that it has to reside in matter. What level of matter though? My guess would be that it would be a fundamental property of elementary particles like mass or charge (something like that can't just appear out of higher order, there has to be something basic that it arises from). If that is true, and the state is changed based on its interactions with other particles nearby, then you can have transient particles, ones that just wander by, taking on an organized consciousness. It also means they can lose this property by acquiring another spontaneously (such as when they exit your body).
Since consciousness is a fundamental property like mass, spin, or charge, there must be a set of variables that describe it. This means is that consciousness is a singular state that evolves in time in a way that should be possible to describe mathematically (at t0 consciousness parameters = and at t_F they = for instance according to some law). This also means that as you disbelieve this, the next instant those parameters could change and you could be lung or a rock with no memory of your past. IE: you are the parameters, and if the parameters are different, you would not know how it would be like to have a different set.
The upshot of this is that (IF IT IS TRUE OF WHERE THERE IS NO PROOF.... YET?), since everyone is just transient particles, human affairs are transient things that could last anywhere from nanoseconds to years. It also means that when a human representation dies, some of those particles will retain their representation for some time, others will reconfigure immediately, etc. It means that the physical-chemical model of humans is right and there really is no such thing as morality because no human is conscious, they are just chemical automations AND everyone survives a human's death anyway, albeit with a different state (until they meet an antiparticle?).
Anyway, the way this would resolve the teleportation thing is that, if it's true, it does and doesn't matter that you're made of different stuff. It matters because none of the old particles will be in the same state anymore. However, they wouldn't have been in that state very long anyway and would have been replaced.
Food for thought?
PS: I didn't really review this carefully so if something is unclear just ask.
Yes it's true that the kid maybe didn't comply immediately, but assuming all he did was argue his point, the real failing is on the school for not countering his arguments with logical reasons. Schools that only teach because I said so are the worst kind. They should only react with disciplinary measures in the face of malicious or illogical disobedience.
Well it makes sense. If I see a fight going on in a hallway, am I more inclined to resort to violence if need be? Hell yes. It doesn't mean I will, but if you see a fight, it makes good sense to drop your inhibitions against committing violence against someone for your own and others sakes. Obviously, when you walk away, you'll be on guard for a bit with continued decreased inhibition. Then your inhibitions reestablish, most likely with a small drop in the average inhibition level.
If you are constantly in areas where fights are going on, the inhibitions are going to tank until there is a counteracting stimulus over a prolonged period of time to reestablish a high baseline inhibition level. This is common sense people.
Maybe I'm uneducated, but if you're using a logic probe on a general purpose computer, aren't the high low transitions too fast for you to deal with using just a logic probe? Don't you need some sort of oscilloscope configured for TTL logic?
Moreover, in order for someone to use a computer, they would have to collect special gems and meditate for days using the force to fuse them together with the chips into a cohesive whole - grinding inefficiencies out of the chips lest they short circuit and explode.
Then the apprentice would have to learn the code, and apply it following the sacred rules:
Do, or do not. There is no try.
Booleans, only with the Sith deal in.
Your buffers: mind well them.
Be mindful of your emotions. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to vengeance and cracking.
Excuse my blatant thievery from the rest of the threads.
As far as my understanding goes, to post a take down notice, all you need to do is state that you are the copyright holder under penalty of perjury. Well the one thing I think is missing is verification that someone is in fact the copyright holder. Yes there is currently the perjury threat, but what we need is a way for the ISPs or content hosts like Youtube to retain their safe harbor while still requiring some sort of proof of identity before they are forced to act. If that was in place, then I think it would be fine provided you make sure the proof of ID you use isn't too easily gamed.
The difference between the two approaches is that with the verification, the speech stays public until someone with known authority asks for it to be brought down rather than it automatically coming down and someone else has to object. I admit I may be confused and it may be a case of overzealous ISPs trying to protect their asses, but if that is the case, just make it law that they must verify it is in fact the rights holder.
Hmm, I went to google and I typed in DMCA reform and I got a hodgepodge of links. There were one or two to the EFF, but you're right; there is no well formed and well publicized body that is dedicated to lobbying for change. Although I admit I have a strong distaste for Washington lobbyists, until they are all banished somehow, there should be decently powerful counterlobbyists to ensure a somewhat level playing field.
Oh sorry, I was only really interested in why you were uncomfortable and you have a legitimate reasons that I should have thought of by myself (I've been out of it the past week). I completely understand your stance on the GPL and it's also the only reason I'd use it. However, I am torn because the *PAAs have used their influence to ruin lives and savage our laws and customs - this is a great way to strike back a politically meaningful blow if it's played correctly.
I don't want to expose you or anyone to legal troubles, so let's just leave it at that.
That would actually be really cool if cyber self defense was a regular part of school curriculum. You can have an advanced class for developers, but everyone gets the basic stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL you got me
Damned slashcode stripped out my vector:
v=(x1,x2)
Also, for clarification, the plane's dimensions 2 space would be in distance and you would have to take level curves to see the circles because time would make it 3 space.
And if we're being REALLY pedantic, it's:
position = x
velocity = dx/dt
acceleration = (d^2 x) / (dt)^2
And if we want to achieve an even greater level of pedantry:
We don't care if it is a vector or not, because we haven't specified a direction.
You can have vectors with unspecified directions. For example I could define a vector in 2 space as follows:
v= , |v| = 60 mph.
This would define a circle of directions on a Cartesian plane with radius 60t where t is time. Provided we were working with hours and miles on our plane.
Cheers!
The only reason this is better than one is because the rain that hits it has less drag force on it (D=1/2 rho Area v^2). You could cascade them so that the drops reach 8 m/s each time. That might be cool.
This was first proposed by Skinner way back when in his operant conditioning theory. I'm sure that operant conditioning is part of it, but if IIRC, there are a bunch of experiments that show that isn't it. I'm too lazy to drag out my psych book.
I was once talking with my roommate about educational games and how you could make them fun. One thing we figured out that would be easy to do would be (in the context of an FPS) was use a small easy to learn scripting language to direct rocket trajectories for bombing the crap out of each other. In turn, the opponents have a missile defense system where they can program in counter scripts. Players must prepare scripts before starting a match etc. You could even make it a visually based language with icons and such with a more complicated text backed for the hardcore guys. I think this would be very easily adapted to a space race kind of objective for NASA's MMORPG.
I'm not sure about the specifics of CAT5/6, but I do know that some electronic transmission media need to be DC balanced. If you have these large spikes, you'll have to compensate somehow, which can double the power draw that it actually needs - I think. I'm no expert on transmission media or engineering these devices, so don't take this as gospel by any means. If this is the case, you could probably rig up an overflow battery or something. You would still see some conversion inefficiencies though, the amount depending on the system obviously.
Hey I liked that movie....
Man you guys are weak. I've traveled the NYC subways at all hours of the day in all boroughs except brooklyn. Never once ever needed to defend myself.
That may be true, but I know a soldier or two and they say the same stuff. OTOH, terrorists over there have the hometeam advantage so it's not like it's directly directly to terrorism in the US. I completely agree with your point about not overcompensating simply because you can imagine something bad. If you can justify it with some sort of risk assessment that involves high probability and obscenely high mortality (Millions is the kind of number I have in mind), then we can start talking about drastic measures.
Having a free society is worth lives as our forefathers often said. People lose sight of the fact that simply being alive isn't enough. Being alive AND free, while not easily quantifiably valuble (although you could argue that free societies are rich societies as Paul Graham has done), IS worth some number of lives. Judging by the way our ancestors (not just the US, everyone) have acted, it is worth a fucking TON of lives (hundreds of thousands or millions at a time on occasion). You could even argue that dictators, in order to preserve their own personal freedom, kill millions because it is that valuable. Don't go giving the government mass surveillance powers if you can avoid it is a good rule of thumb to go by.
Hey slashdot! This guy is an obvious troll. He always responds with the same kind of emotional stuff sans logic and always uses the most provocative way to do it (jesus hates you or whatever, america sucks). He started a huge flame war and no one is able to figure this out?
About a year ago, I tried to answer that question and I came up with an interesting answer. Excluding religious answers (ie assuming everything in the universe is physically based), your consciousness has to be somewhere physically. There are two places where this could be (one of which I just thought of incidentally). Either it resides in matter, or it resides in an energy field (like an electric field for example). If it is in a field, then that probably means your conscious state is an artifact of the surroundings. I don't like this idea because we walk near strong energy fields all the time without feeling affected (something would budge!), but I don't think it is impossible.
The other idea is that it has to reside in matter. What level of matter though? My guess would be that it would be a fundamental property of elementary particles like mass or charge (something like that can't just appear out of higher order, there has to be something basic that it arises from). If that is true, and the state is changed based on its interactions with other particles nearby, then you can have transient particles, ones that just wander by, taking on an organized consciousness. It also means they can lose this property by acquiring another spontaneously (such as when they exit your body).
Since consciousness is a fundamental property like mass, spin, or charge, there must be a set of variables that describe it. This means is that consciousness is a singular state that evolves in time in a way that should be possible to describe mathematically (at t0 consciousness parameters = and at t_F they = for instance according to some law). This also means that as you disbelieve this, the next instant those parameters could change and you could be lung or a rock with no memory of your past. IE: you are the parameters, and if the parameters are different, you would not know how it would be like to have a different set.
The upshot of this is that (IF IT IS TRUE OF WHERE THERE IS NO PROOF.... YET?), since everyone is just transient particles, human affairs are transient things that could last anywhere from nanoseconds to years. It also means that when a human representation dies, some of those particles will retain their representation for some time, others will reconfigure immediately, etc. It means that the physical-chemical model of humans is right and there really is no such thing as morality because no human is conscious, they are just chemical automations AND everyone survives a human's death anyway, albeit with a different state (until they meet an antiparticle?).
Anyway, the way this would resolve the teleportation thing is that, if it's true, it does and doesn't matter that you're made of different stuff. It matters because none of the old particles will be in the same state anymore. However, they wouldn't have been in that state very long anyway and would have been replaced.
Food for thought?
PS: I didn't really review this carefully so if something is unclear just ask.
It's what ears crave.
There, fixed it for you.
Yes it's true that the kid maybe didn't comply immediately, but assuming all he did was argue his point, the real failing is on the school for not countering his arguments with logical reasons. Schools that only teach because I said so are the worst kind. They should only react with disciplinary measures in the face of malicious or illogical disobedience.
Well it makes sense. If I see a fight going on in a hallway, am I more inclined to resort to violence if need be? Hell yes. It doesn't mean I will, but if you see a fight, it makes good sense to drop your inhibitions against committing violence against someone for your own and others sakes. Obviously, when you walk away, you'll be on guard for a bit with continued decreased inhibition. Then your inhibitions reestablish, most likely with a small drop in the average inhibition level.
If you are constantly in areas where fights are going on, the inhibitions are going to tank until there is a counteracting stimulus over a prolonged period of time to reestablish a high baseline inhibition level. This is common sense people.
Maybe I'm uneducated, but if you're using a logic probe on a general purpose computer, aren't the high low transitions too fast for you to deal with using just a logic probe? Don't you need some sort of oscilloscope configured for TTL logic?
Moreover, in order for someone to use a computer, they would have to collect special gems and meditate for days using the force to fuse them together with the chips into a cohesive whole - grinding inefficiencies out of the chips lest they short circuit and explode.
Then the apprentice would have to learn the code, and apply it following the sacred rules:
Excuse my blatant thievery from the rest of the threads.
As far as my understanding goes, to post a take down notice, all you need to do is state that you are the copyright holder under penalty of perjury. Well the one thing I think is missing is verification that someone is in fact the copyright holder. Yes there is currently the perjury threat, but what we need is a way for the ISPs or content hosts like Youtube to retain their safe harbor while still requiring some sort of proof of identity before they are forced to act. If that was in place, then I think it would be fine provided you make sure the proof of ID you use isn't too easily gamed.
The difference between the two approaches is that with the verification, the speech stays public until someone with known authority asks for it to be brought down rather than it automatically coming down and someone else has to object. I admit I may be confused and it may be a case of overzealous ISPs trying to protect their asses, but if that is the case, just make it law that they must verify it is in fact the rights holder.
As do the Cylons
Hmm, I went to google and I typed in DMCA reform and I got a hodgepodge of links. There were one or two to the EFF, but you're right; there is no well formed and well publicized body that is dedicated to lobbying for change. Although I admit I have a strong distaste for Washington lobbyists, until they are all banished somehow, there should be decently powerful counterlobbyists to ensure a somewhat level playing field.
Google SearchI wonder if slashdot is listening ;-)
Ah I picked a bad example although you have to admit that was a bit abusive of the spirit of copyright if not the letter.
Here is a study that suggests that as many as 1/3 of DMCA takedowns could readily be challenged in court on clear grounds.
Here is an outright abuse of the DMCA to silence discussion of a topic: DMCA Abused
Oh sorry, I was only really interested in why you were uncomfortable and you have a legitimate reasons that I should have thought of by myself (I've been out of it the past week). I completely understand your stance on the GPL and it's also the only reason I'd use it. However, I am torn because the *PAAs have used their influence to ruin lives and savage our laws and customs - this is a great way to strike back a politically meaningful blow if it's played correctly.
I don't want to expose you or anyone to legal troubles, so let's just leave it at that.
Go to chillingeffects.org
They watch this stuff. Here is a fun link for you though: DMCA Takedown For Professor Showing How Copyright Owners Exaggerate Their Rights
I don't understand why you are uncomfortable. It can only lead to the vicious mobs at least having evidence rather than conspiracy theories.
That would actually be really cool if cyber self defense was a regular part of school curriculum. You can have an advanced class for developers, but everyone gets the basic stuff.