Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

I'd rather measure my days by means of ...

trolltalk.com Re:The Body Count Unit of Time (534 comments)

The "0-dimension point" doesn't exist in the real universe.

Lines are supposed to be made up of an infinite series of points. This would imply that individual points are infinitely small. However, we know that it's impossible to divide space below a certain size - it becomes impossible to determine, for example, which side of a given boundary the two "ends" are on, since, below a certain resolution, the probability that either"end" would actually be on the other side of the boundary is high enough that, half the time, both "points" are still on the same side after the division. This isn't a limitation of our ability to resolve stuff, but a limitation of the physics of our universe. We cannot locate any one "point" in space with absolute (infinite) precision.

The universe is grainy. Infinitely small points simply don't exist in the real world.

more than 5 years ago
top

I'd rather measure my days by means of ...

trolltalk.com Re:The Body Count Unit of Time (534 comments)

Read the rest of the thread. Points and lines are theoretical constructs for our convenience. but their "real-world" equivalence isn't a one-to-one mapping. For example, a line is supposed to be infinitely divisible. In the real world, at a certain value, you can no longer determine if you've actually divided the "line", because of the uncertainty of the measurement - both the "graininess" and probabilistic nature of the universe render it impossible. So, the absolute minimum to describe a "real-life" point is a combination of possible positions, times and probabilities. That's more than a simple x/y/z coordinate. In other words, the point has a certain (none-zero), size. It has "dimension-ness", since it's not infinitely small. (Infinitely small points quite simply cannot exist in our universe, so the concept, while convenient, is nonsense).

more than 5 years ago
top

Coffee Can Reduce the Risk of Alzheimer's

trolltalk.com Re:This reminds me... (242 comments)

You should see my top 10 reasons why a dog is better than getting married :-)

As for people with psychological problems, some of them are genetic, and we really should be doing what we can to make sure those genes get weeded out. For those problems that are environmental/situational, on the other hand, it would be in our best interests as a society to invest in proper treatment and in prevention.

For example, we can go a long way towards preventing battered spouse syndrome by making it socially unacceptable for people to hit each other - and this applies also to hitting their own kids. It's not much of an extension from whacking a kid to beating up on another adult. There seems to be an "it's not so bad if its' in the family" attitude.

Same thing with post-traumatic stress disorder, or seasonally-affected depression. We lose billions in productivity every year, but instead of treating the problems, the publics' attitude is "snap out of it" or "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." People don't seek help in part because of shame and internalized built, in part because of their fear of how others will perceive them, and in part because of the cost. Silly, but there it is. Spending some money to educate the general public is a good investment. Better, though, is to make it part of the curriculum, so that the next generation will know how to seek help.

Prevention where possible, treatment where practical (some things we just don't know how to treat yet), and cure when we can. The same rules as for physical problems.

more than 5 years ago
top

Ubisoft Expecting New Consoles By 2012

trolltalk.com So maybe they'll finally have a Wii in stock ... (118 comments)

So maybe I'll be able to find a store that actually has Wiis in stock by 2011, since they'll be obsolete by then?

Seriously, of the 3 - Playstation, XBox, Wii - only Nintendo hasn't made any price cuts, and they still can't keep them on the shelves for more than a day or two.

more than 5 years ago
top

I'd rather measure my days by means of ...

trolltalk.com Re:The Body Count Unit of Time (534 comments)

Let's look at the standard model. You cannot define both a position and a vector for an abject, and the more accurately you try to define one, the more the other will vary (Heisenberg). Thus, when you define the "position" of an object in time, it has to have a duration component. An object with a duration of zero (or just a "point in time" to mangle the language) simply doesn't exist. So, right away we're beyond a simple one-dimensional model of time when it comes to any object in the physical universe.

Now, since any one dimension of time can be swapped for one in space to get the same math, and we've defined n dimensions of space, time similarly has n dimensions.

Throw in the probabilities for both time and space if you want to get as close to the real universe as we can. After all, we know that the description of a line as being an infinite set of points between a and b is nonsense in the real world, because of the graininess of the universe. There is no such thing as "an infinite set" of anything, just useful approximations. See the links from the front-page article on The Universe as Hologram for more about the inherent graininess of the universe and the possibility that it may have already been detected/measured.

more than 5 years ago
top

I'd rather measure my days by means of ...

trolltalk.com Re:The Body Count Unit of Time (534 comments)

See, but, without a way to measure how long someone has lived, the body count is pretty worthless. You can only compare your body count to people that have lived for an amount of time equal to or less than your current age.

Why can't you count people older than yourself? If they were a PITA, and now they're at room temperature, that's still a win.

more than 5 years ago
top

Woman Claims Ubuntu Kept Her From Online Classes

trolltalk.com Re:Humor? Entertainment? (1654 comments)

Most libraries have free classes in how to use the Internet, computers, etc. No books required. Libraries - it's not just dead trees any more :-)

Also, do you really believe that someone who, at this late stage in the game, doesn't know how to use a computer but has been on the workforce for 30 years, can (or even should) be "retrained" to do menial typing on a PC, as opposed to something else more in line with their skills? How, even after taking a few courses in Word and Windows, are they going to compete against people half their age that know that shit without even trying?

It's the same as all those "technical colleges" that say that after 1 year, you too can be a computer programmer or internet security expert. Frauds preying on desperate people.

more than 5 years ago
top

I'd rather measure my days by means of ...

trolltalk.com Re:The Body Count Unit of Time (534 comments)

A point has zero dimensions, because given the origin (the point itself), you can describe everywhere on the point with zero coordinates.

You cannot describe a point in a higher-coordinate system via zero coordinates. You cannot describe "everywhere" on the point with zero coordinates because, as *you* point out, you need to be "given the origin(the point itself)". This is a 1-dimensional description of the point, and as such, it does describe the point completely. However, that "description" is one dimension, not zero. Something with zero "dimensions" has zero information, and cannot exist. Your "point" is a mathematical falsehood with no analogue in the real universe.

Your "line" can be treated the same way. In the real universe, there is no such thing as a line such that "because given an origin, you can describe every point on the line with "one" coordinate." Real objects (not imaginary mathematical constructs that have no real-life analogue) are impossible to "describe every point on the line" because we have NO way of even knowing exactly how many points are in that line at any particular time. Both space and time are grainy, as is the probability of any particular point, and our description of a line has to take that into account. To describe a line in the real universe requires much more information than you can provide with only 2 "dimensions".

As for traveling through time, since time and space can be shown to be equivalent, you can trade one dimension in one for one in the other, so double up on dimensions in time. Also, entropy requires that time actually exist; otherwise, there is no probability based on space and time, and hence no object can ever exist. No objects == no entropy.

more than 5 years ago
top

I'd rather measure my days by means of ...

trolltalk.com Re:The Body Count Unit of Time (534 comments)

Points, Lines, Planes, Cubes ... these are all mathematical descriptions of "something", right?

Are they, by themselves, real? Can a point (whether you use is as a first "dimension" building block in constructing a series of dimensions, or as a "zero-dimension" "point", exist? As a zero-dimension object, the concept is nutzo - something with no dimensions has no existence. It lacks ANY dimensions. However, if we use it as a starting point, assigning it a "dimension" of 1, it has at least 1 dimension of existence. It is self-consistent, and self-contained.

Of course, to have it interact in our universe, we could give it position coordinates, time coordinates, and probability coordinates. Let's take an electron. We can describe its' orbit to a certain degree of probability and time. If we add more time, we can describe more probabilities, to the point where, if we have enough time (duration), we can, to a "good enough degree" predict the chemical properties of the atom it orbits.

We'll never be 100% right 100% of the time, because the underlying graininess of the universe doesn't permit that, just like we can never describe any real object 100% of the time with 100% accuracy. Doesn't that sound exactly like what we see with such things as the two-slit experiment - we cannot make an arbitrary, linear prediction as to which of the two slits a photon will go through, and photons "interfere" with photons that have passed through before and after, IF they are observed. A grainy universe in all dimensions (time, probability, as well as space) allows for the graininess of time that would allow individual photons to interfere with others that "aren't there at the same time".

Now I don't know about you, but I've never been happy with the "collapse of the wave function" and "superposition of states", nor with the "branching universes." While they're allowed under this model, they're not required. More importantly, normal interactions would appear to have superpositions of states under certain circumstances, so we don't have to resort to the voodoo of the copenhagen crowd. Schrodinger's cat never is really both dead and alive, but can, until we open the box, be described as being in that state - or not. (okay, those last 2 words are a bad pun).

It also explains "spooky effects at a distance" without having to get into "quantum entanglement", provided we allow for conservation of probability, which seems a reasonable assumption - it just becomes a natural part of our universe, and by definition, not spooky. Heck, it becomes required, which means we can have our quantum cryptography being based on fundamental physical properties of the universe

more than 5 years ago
top

My Genome, My Self?

trolltalk.com Re:That's what abortions are for ... (194 comments)

You're arguing that schizophrenia somehow "protects" against other mental diseases. I don't buy it.

I've lost all patience with dealing with them, after seeing how much damage, up to and including death, schizophrenics can cause.

This turned out to be a "good thing" years later when one of my friends had a relative staying with her who refused to take his meds. He indulged in a lot of bizarre behaviour, including never flushing the toilet. I told her that's easy enough to fix. Next time he came out of the can (without flushing) I confronted him just outside the door to the toilet and told him to go back in and flush. He said he had. I shoved him in the can and pointed to the bowl he had just filled with disgusting turds. He then tried to claim it wasn't his. I shoved his face in it, and told him that if he EVER EVER didn't flush, I'd make him eat it.

From then on, he ALWAYS flushed, even though he was off his meds and doing all sorts of weird shit. And as long as he flushed the toilet, I treated him civilly enough. He might have been crazy but he was using it as a lever to engage n his own style of passive-aggressive bullshit.

What most people fail to realize is that, while you're not doing anyone a favour by enabling them to continue such behaviours, trying the "normal methods of communication" not only won't work - you become an enabler. You have to communicate the same way you would with an angry dog. Fearless, and in command. They have to KNOW, at the lowest level possible, bypassing all (ir)rationalization, that this is the way it is. No if, no else, no but. The behaviour modification has to be done at a bio-chemical, instinctive level, and this is one way to do it.

Of course, most people can't do it, because they lack confidence, same as they can't grab a snarling 120-pound dog that has just tried to attack another one by the face and shove their face into its', and say "You EVER do that again and I'll turn you into a fucking rug!" That dog went on to become the best-behaved dog anyone had ever seen, super-loyal and very happy, but everyone who had seen the original incident said he should be put down immediately, and nobody wanted to go near him for months after, even though his change in behaviour was immediate and permanent.

Sometimes all it takes is one act to permanently alter behaviour. But we're too "nice" to be "mean enough" to actually do it. Just like we want to maintain the illusion that we're too "humane" to cull destructive genes, when in actual fact we betray future generations by condemning them to suffer with diseases we can eliminate in a couple of generations.

There's no excuse for not sterilizing all schizophrenics and bi-polars as a public health and safety measure.

more than 5 years ago
top

Woman Claims Ubuntu Kept Her From Online Classes

trolltalk.com Re:Humor? Entertainment? (1654 comments)

Nice stereotype of auto workers as dumb air-wrench monkeys who can't do anything as simple as send an email.

The people *I'm* insulting are the fools who believe that by paying a "Technical College" for some basic skills that they could get in 15 minutes for free at the local library - they have more money than brains, which, generally speaking, isn't saying much.

True technical colleges? Look to the European model, or Quebec's CEGEP system. Not these "take a few courses and in less than a year you too can have an exciting new career as a [insert whatever]".

more than 5 years ago
top

I'd rather measure my days by means of ...

trolltalk.com Re:The Body Count Unit of Time (534 comments)

Sorry, linky got eaten. See here for more of what I mean.

One of the interesting side-effects is that we can state with certainty that god does not and cannot exist in this universe, since the basic requirement for god in most peoples' minds is perfect knowledge of everything along all the axis, and our universe requires as part of its' existence that there can be ONLY imperfect knowledge of it. Even positing a "god" in a higher set of dimensions doesn't work, because any "god" with "perfect knowledge of a universe" could not, by definition, have any such knowledge that pertains to our universe - it would have to be some other universe, where the constraints are different. In other words, god can't even interact with our universe, so we're safe :-)

more than 5 years ago
top

I'd rather measure my days by means of ...

trolltalk.com Re:The Body Count Unit of Time (534 comments)

We're not arguing the same things . Once you introduce time, you have to throw out the conventional concepts of space - they don't describe the real universe. (Actually, they never did - they just look like they did until guys like Heisenberg and Einstein screwed things up :-)

more than 5 years ago
top

South Carolina Seeking To Outlaw Profanity

trolltalk.com Re:Now we can get the Bible banned! Awesome! (849 comments)

I'm not worried about MY ultimate destination. I'm satisfied that the mathematics of the current universe preclude the possibility of the existence of your "god". The graininess of the universe is sufficient proof that god (an all-knowing being) cannot exist - no such encoding of all the information required is possible, in this or a higher set of dimensions.

I'm sure you believe in the "big bang" or some such nonsense as that. How did the objects that started the big bang get there? How did the universe just appear? It had to come from somewhere.

So, using your logic, god had to come from somewhere. "Where did god come from. After all, to use your own words, you believe in "god" or some such nonsense as that. How did god get there? How did god just appear? It had to come from somewhere."

Look, god is impossible, at least for this universe. Your religious beliefs, as you so clearly stated, are entirely based on faith, which means they have absolutely no basis in reality. The cold hard facts of the underlying structure of the universe trump your unfounded beliefs. God simply doesn't exist. This universe simply does not allow, never mind have, the "perfect knowledge" that "god" would require. And no, putting god in another universe doesn't work, because again, it doesn't change the fact that our universe doesn't allow "perfect knowledge"; A god such as you believe in could only interact with or "rule over" a universe where there is no such thing as the graininess of space, time, and probability.

Whether such a universe exists is irrelevant our universe, since such a god could never interface with ours.

more than 5 years ago
top

I'd rather measure my days by means of ...

trolltalk.com Re:The Body Count Unit of Time (534 comments)

A point, a line, a cube, etc.,are all just mathematical constructs. None of them actually exists without the support of the other dimensions, time and probability.

For example, a cube of zero duration or undefined probability just doesn't exist. We can describe it, but we can also describe Shrek. Doesn't make it real.

more than 5 years ago
top

I'd rather measure my days by means of ...

trolltalk.com Re:The Body Count Unit of Time (534 comments)

You're referring to the euclidean concept of space, which you can't do as soon as you add time.

Neither linear, planar, nor spatial worlds exist on their own, so the concept of dimensions without including both time and probability is inaccurate.

more than 5 years ago
top

I'd rather measure my days by means of ...

trolltalk.com Re:The Body Count Unit of Time (534 comments)

Space-time has more than 4 dimensions :-) See my argument here. How we talk about it doesn't change the reality. We also talk about the 4 corners of the earth, but it's still slightly pear-shaped.

more than 5 years ago
top

Coffee Can Reduce the Risk of Alzheimer's

trolltalk.com Re:This reminds me... (242 comments)

I prefer W.C. Fields' approach

"I keep a flask of whiskey with me in this box at all times, for my nerves, just in case I see a snake ... which I also keep in this box."

more than 5 years ago
top

I'd rather measure my days by means of ...

trolltalk.com Re:The Body Count Unit of Time (534 comments)

You mistake euclidean geometry with reality.

There are at least 8 dimensions, and more likely at least 11.

Lets do some simple NON-euclidean composition/decomposition here:

  1. a point is a specific place in a higher-dimensional space. It cannot be described in its' own coordinate system. It's just "there", so we'll assign it a dimension of 1. You cannot "see" a point, for example, though you can describe a points' coordinates, but only in terms of higher dimensions (this should be your first clue that points cannot be perceived in 1 dimensional space). Inside it's own space, a point has NO coordinates - it just "is".
  2. now let's imagine a sufficient number of "points" with all but one coordinate varying, in sufficient quantity so that, on the balance of probabilities at any one time, they are close enough together that they do in fact define what we would call a "line". The line itself only exists inside the larger coordinate system; lines have added a second "type" to our system. We can now describe things in terms of points (items with 1 dimension) OR lines (items with 2 dimensions, such as a start and a direction). However, a line in and of itself would not be perceptible in a 3-dimensional space, since it would have none of the higher "dimensions" needed to actually exist in that space, such as height and depth;
  3. So we now take and repeat our transformative operation, taking a multitude of lines and changing a 2nd coordinate - so now they describe what we would call a plane or surface. Would we be able to perceive a pure planar object? No, because it has zero thickness, so while it might exist in the lower dimensions, to us, it would be invisible.
  4. Next, repeat our transformative operation. Add a 3rd coordinate, and vary it so that our plane now describes some sort of cubic object. Normally, we would say that it has height, width, and depth. Could we now perceive it? No, because it lacks DURATION.
  5. Duration, or time, like the spatial dimensions, is useless if it is only a point. A point in time, same as the spatial point in #1 above, is not perceptible. We have to apply the same iterative transformation to get a TIME that is actually useful. In all, we've taken 2 starting objects (point in time, point in space), and given each 3 new dimensions, so depending on whether you like zero-based or one-based numbers, we need a minimum of 6 to 8 dimensions for any object.

Normally, we'd prefer zero-based, except that zero-based would tend to get people to think that the 3 dimensions described above are strict analogues with euclidean 3-d space, when they aren't. The point is just as real/fictitious as the line, the plane, and the cube. None of them are real without ALL their time analogues being present, so 1-based it is, for 8 dimensions as the bare minimum for an object in conventional space-time.

Unfortunately, it doesn't end there, but it does show why an infinitely thin monitor can be as "opaque" as you want, but it would have no effect on space-time, and as such would, to your eyes, not exist.

The graininess of the universe allows us to add the necessary mathematical dimensions to "glue" all the above together, as well as explaining some of the "WTF" of quantum mechanics. Consider that, while we now, with 8 dimensions, can come close to describing a conventional object, we are overlooking both the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle and the Plank constant, which determines the ultimate "graininess" of the universe. The universe simply does NOT allow perfect encoding of any of the above dimensions, so we have to add a mapping of uncertainty to each of them. Fortunately, we can do this with only 3 more "dimensions" - probability for space, probability for time, and probability for space*time, giving us 11 dimensions. (we don't need the underlying probabilities for point, line, plane, because they are implicit in the aggregate probability). We now have an "object" that can exist in and interact with the rest of the grainy objects in our grainy universe.

more than 5 years ago

Submissions

top

10% Risk Lake Mead Dry by 2014.

trolltalk.com trolltalk.com writes  |  more than 6 years ago

trolltalk.com writes "Unlike the usual hand-wringing, the researchers were very conservative in their calculations. For example, they only assumed climate change began last year, and they use the average water inflow over the last 100 years, as opposed to the lower inflow of recent decades. Even so, Science Daily reports,

There is a 50 percent chance Lake Mead, a key source of water for millions of people in the southwestern United States, will be dry by 2021 if climate changes as expected and future water usage is not curtailed, according to a pair of researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego.
"The researchers estimated that there is a 10 percent chance that Lake Mead could be dry by 2014. They further predict that there is a 50 percent chance that reservoir levels will drop too low to allow hydroelectric power generation by 2017.
Are we in for a repeat of the "Dirty Thirties" — recession to depression and western drought?"

Journals

top

One of my better first posts ...

trolltalk.com trolltalk.com writes  |  more than 6 years ago

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=532234&cid=23174116

For once, an "I for one welcome our .... Overlords" that's 100% on topic.

top

SCOXQ.PK - SCO delisted!

trolltalk.com trolltalk.com writes  |  more than 6 years ago It's official. SCO is now trading with the "pinks" - the "over-the-counter penny stocks". They knew on the 21st, but didn't want us to celebrate too much over the holidays, I guess. Well, there's always New Years.

PR Newswire release: here

"27-Dec-2007 Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Tra Item 3.01 Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of Listing.

On September 18, 2007, The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") received a Nasdaq Staff Determination letter (the "Determination") from the Listing Qualifications Department (the "Staff") of The Nasdaq Stock Market indicating that, as a result of the Company's having filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the Staff determined, using its discretionary authority under Nasdaq Marketplace Rules 4300 and IM-4300, that the Company's securities would be delisted from The Nasdaq Stock Market and that trading in the Company's common stock would be suspended unless the Company filed an appeal of the Determination.

The Company filed for an appeal of the Determination. On November 8, 2007, the Company had a hearing before the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel (the "Panel") to review the Determination.

On December 21, 2007, the Company received a letter from the Panel, informing the Company that the Panel had determined to delist the Company's securities from The Nasdaq Stock Market and will suspend trading of the securities effective at the open of business on Thursday, December 27, 2007.

To Teh Moon? More like cratered.

top

SCO forced back to Utah - stay lifted!

trolltalk.com trolltalk.com writes  |  more than 6 years ago

What we all felt would be inevitable - the bankruptcy court has ordered (warning - pdf) the SCO vs. Novell trial to continue to its' conclusion.

The bankruptcy judge concluded that:

  1. SCO would not be "unduly prejudiced" (gotta love that ...)
  2. Judge Kimball is the best one to decide how much SCO owes Novell
  3. SCO cannot make any "reorganization" plans - including any "fire sale" of assest - until it knows just how much it owes Novell

Any bets on a quicky Chapter 7 filing?

top

Prince is at it again ...

trolltalk.com trolltalk.com writes  |  more than 6 years ago

El Reg is reporting that Prince is still on the prowl, making the Internet safe from parodies of His Ridiculousness via DMCA takedown notices, now sanitizing the UK, where the DMCA has no legal basis. Guess he didn't like b3ta.com's contest to photoshop him as their "image challenge of the week".

Lawyers acting on behalf of Prince have sent out a flurry of US copyright infringement notifications to individual members of a popular UK website which encourages its community to create satirical images of well-known stars.

A number of users of b3ta.com have been slapped with DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) notifications after posting images that poke fun at the pint-sized popstar's ongoing crusade to rid

the internet of unauthorised Prince material.

B3ta co-founder Rob Manuel told The Register that he was "surprised Prince's lawyers had bitten".

Someone should tell him that his 15 minutes of fame are long over (To put this into proper perspective, here's what Kevin Smith has to say about the guy)

top

Anne Coulter thinks Jews need "Perfecting" ...

trolltalk.com trolltalk.com writes  |  more than 6 years ago

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003657196

Ann Coulter on CNBC Show: Jews Need 'Perfecting'

Published: October 11, 2007 12:15 AM ET updated 1:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Appearing on Donny Deutsch's CNBC show, "The Big Idea," on Monday night, columnist/author Ann Coulter suggested that the U.S. would be a better place if there weren't any Jewish people and that they needed to "perfect" themselves into -- Christians.

It led Deutsch to suggest that surely she couldn't mean that, and when she insisted she did, he said this sounded "anti-Semitic."

Asked by Deutsch whether she wanted to be like "the head of Iran" and "wipe Israel off the Earth," Coulter stated: "No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament."

Deutsch told E&P's sibling magazine, Adweek, today, "I was offended. And then, and this was interesting, she started to back off and seemed a little upset."

Asked to gauge her reaction, Deutsch said, "I think she got frightened that maybe she had crossed a line, that this was maybe a faux pas of great proportions. I mean, did it show ignorance? Anti-Semitism? It wasn't just one of those silly things."

A transcript, provided by Media Matters, follows.

DEUTSCH: Christian -- so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.

DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But -- so we would be better if we were - if people -- if there were no Jews, no Buddhists --

COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by --

DEUTSCH: -- in this country? You can't believe that.

COULTER: -- you know, liberals on diversity --

DEUTSCH: Here you go again.

COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And --

DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.

COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire Seinfeld episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.

DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some Seinfeld episode? OK.

COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches -- the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.

DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not -- we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or --

COULTER: Yeah.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly -- you're too educated, you can't -- you're like my friend in --

COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean --

COULTER: We have the fast-track program.

DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.

COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.

DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" --

COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.

DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?

COULTER: No, we think -- we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners --

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued -- when you say something absurd like that, there's no --

COULTER: What's absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself --

COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.

DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally. And we'll have more Big Idea when we come back.

[...]

DEUTSCH: Welcome back to The Big Idea. During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?

COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said -- your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that's what you said -- don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic --

COULTER: No!

DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.

DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought.

top

More Microsoft-Novell stuff ...

trolltalk.com trolltalk.com writes  |  more than 6 years ago

Everyone's still in a twist over the Microsoft-Novell deal, and the latest marketing spin "Do you want the linux that works with Windows ...". Like most, I wish the deal had never happened, but that doesn't mean I'm going to write off Novell just yet. The deal has 4 more years to go, and I believe that in those intervening 4 years, Novell will do the smart thing and abandon Miguel de Icaza, Mono, and Silverlight.

There are already indications that Mono is on the way out - which is a *good thing*. For example, the latest opensuse doesn't need Mono for updates, etc. Novell is playing their cards close to their chest - using Mono as a temporary bridge over the next few years, but making sure that, when the time comes, it can be dimpted int he trashbin where it belongs.

Novell isn't stupid (I hope). They saw lots of users end up installing 3rd-party updating software and disabling beagle search, because Mono, quite frankly, is terrible (not to mention that a lot of us don't like it in principle, on the basis of its "pedigree").

Silverlight? Its not a flash killer, just as C# wasn't a java killer, and .NET wasn't a LAMP stack killer. 4 years from now, Microsoft will be trying to peddle something else as "the next big thing" ... after all, been there, done that, ....

I'm inclined to cut Novell some slack, if only for their actions with SCO, and the amount of code they've contributed in the past. If they dump Icaza in the next year or two, and continue migrating away from Mono, fine. Actions speak louder than words (or "marketspeak"). If they don't, well, again, actions speak louder than words.

BTW: What the marketing people say is irrelevant. They're just marketroids. Anyone who makes a purchasing/deployment decision based on market-speak is incompetent, and given time, the market will route around them and their employers, same as the Internet routes around damage. We have the better product in linux ... why not show confidence in it by not getting in a tizzy at every Microsoft "pronouncement"? -- This post brought to you by Western Digital, because Seagate ate my RAID.

top

SCO selling text ads, resellers jumping into SEO business

trolltalk.com trolltalk.com writes  |  more than 6 years ago

I found it hard to believe, but I saw this story about how SCO is selling text ads on their site, checked it out, and sure enough, its true.

Why are there links for Search Engine Optimisation (or SEO) and website design on the footer of www.sco.com? SCO is a business built on selling hardware and software, not SEO or web design.

If you read the full article, you'll find out that the ads are from SCO's UK reseller; unlike SCO HQ, they can read the writing on the wall.

top

Now that SCO is officially bankrupt ...

trolltalk.com trolltalk.com writes  |  about 7 years ago

Now that SCO is bankrupt, Act 2 begins ...

You can be sure that Novell is going to go for the jugular ... while chapter 11 normally allows businesses to "continue" while they reorganize, Novell, as they already have a decision that SCO owes them (the only question being "how much") is going to get to sit on the creditors' committee.

Was the outcome predictable? Of course. It's obvious that SCO never wanted to face a judge. As of now, SCO truly resembles a "Caldera" ...

top

Drupal gets the seal of disapproval

trolltalk.com trolltalk.com writes  |  more than 7 years ago

Drupal - another POS of a CMS.

Too many issues to even bother starting with, but lets just say that administration is counter-intuitive.

top

Contaminated coders

trolltalk.com trolltalk.com writes  |  more than 7 years ago

Reminder to self, from a post that I made in this discussion earlier today:

What I'd be more concerned about is that the code written under the "covenants" with Microsoft. And with the status of the people who work on that code. Both the code and the coders will be contaminated, unable to work on related GPL products, the same as if they had partaken of the flavor-aid of Microsoft Shared Source.

Funny how this real threat - contaminated coders - is being overlooked. 5 years from now, Microsoft will be in a position to get injunctions against any distro that uses code touched by them, based on tried and tested copyright law, not patents. That's a real danger, and one that Microsoft will have no fear of retaliation from, unlike a patent war.

Remember, Microsoft has always been very skilled at getting people to look at the wrong hand, just like a magician.

I really need to expand this into an editorial for trolltalk.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>