The story is here. It’s a problem with gopher. Does anyone use gopher any more other than the University of Minnesota?

By the way, that headline ranks right up there with:

Sun Due To Rise Tomorrow

Earth Remains Roughly Spherical

Robert Fisk Writes Odious And Asinine Article

Neil Boortz speaks truth to inanity, as he exposes leftist hijacking of the language, in which “racism” and “hate” simply mean “anything with which I disagree, but don’t have a valid or effective argument against.”

Neil Boortz speaks truth to inanity, as he exposes leftist hijacking of the language, in which “racism” and “hate” simply mean “anything with which I disagree, but don’t have a valid or effective argument against.”

Neil Boortz speaks truth to inanity, as he exposes leftist hijacking of the language, in which “racism” and “hate” simply mean “anything with which I disagree, but don’t have a valid or effective argument against.”

They’ve come up with a virus that can jump back and forth from Windows to Linux. It randomly changes its size to make it harder to identify.

Great.

I’ve been wondering for a couple years what the killer app is for these new high-speed processors. Surfing the net and word processing don’t require a two-gigahertz Pentium. The only thing that I’ve been able to see that a home user might want these new supercomputers for is gaming.

But if virii are getting more sophisticated, and more intensive analysis is required to identify and block them, then it may be that, as they become more complex and sophisticated, much of the CPU time may start to become dedicated to doing nothing but security and defense, so you’ll have to have a lot of processing power just to have enough left over for the actual tasks you’re trying to accomplish.

In fact, if I were the paranoid type, I might wonder if Intel is covertly funding virus development…

Andrew Sullivan and Susanna Cornett are in the two percent. So am I. (I wonder if bloggers are out of proportion to the general population?) I’m not sure what this means.

What bothers me about it is that there’s no way to do a controlled experiment. You can only take the test once.

What do all the math questions have to do with it? Why should we think you’d come up with a different answer if you just asked the final question up front?

Also, just to show how weird I really am, I didn’t think of a modified object. I thought of the object, and the modification, as separate entities (that’s what it actually asked for).

I think it’s because I don’t think in pictures. I think with words (one reason that I’m a natural speller).

Feynman tells the story of how he was trying to do some literal thought experiments to distinguish subjective from objective time. He would count in his head while doing various tasks, to see if his internal clock was accurate and consistent. But he discovered that he couldn’t talk while counting. He told a friend of his, and his friend said, “Why not? I can.”

And he demonstrated, jabbering away for a while, at the end of which he said, “I just got to number thirty.”

He figured out that when he counted in his head, he was subvocalizing, “one, two, three, …” and it was occupying the part of his brain that does speech, so he couldn’t say anything else. His friend, on the other hand, was watching an imaginary banner roll by in his mind, with the numbers on it.

I’m like Feynman was (in that regard, not the physics genius part…). I can’t talk and count to myself simultaneously. I also can’t visualize the banner, (or much of anything else) which is why I can’t be a visual artist–I am pretty much unable to retain images. I recognize things and people when I see them, but I have a great deal of difficulty visualizing them when they’re not present.

For those who haven’t had enough of the “ID is not science” debate, Iain Murray takes one more whack at it in The American Prospect.

Leonard David reports on the International Space Development Conference, and particularly on Rick Steiner’s (loony) proposal to fence off the Moon from development.

Diving headlong into the lair of wannabe lunar colonists, Steiner said that the industrial development paradigm that’s existed on Earth for some three centuries has been “utterly devastating”. Imposing a George Bush senior idiom, the conservationist urged that a “kinder and gentler” approach to space is needed.

What was it that was devastated? Is he looking at it from the viewpoint of rocks, or people?

“We should put our best foot forward, not as greedy industrialists or empire builders or with militant intention, but rather with compassion, respect, humility and with genuine curiosity,” Steiner said.

How does one have compassion and respect for a lifeless sphere of rock?

What’s wrong with greed? Doesn’t he have any idea how economics works?

Why do I even ask?

What about using lunar or other space resources to help an energy-impoverished Earth?

“Personally, and I think millions and millions of people on Earth see the Moon as a sacred icon and it should remain as such,” Steiner said. “To turn the Moon into a quarry and strip mine?I think if you put this out to a global referendum, I would virtually predict that 80 percent to 90 percent of people on Earth would object to this idea,” he said.

Yes, I’m sure that the billions on earth will be happy to live in squalor and poverty, as long as the Moon is untouched…

“If the Moon is owned by anybody?it’s owned by everybody,” Steiner argued.

That’s an argument? It sounds more like a mindless polemic. It doesn’t even make any sense. My house is owned by me. Does that make it owned by everybody? To economic illiterates like Rick Steiner, it probably does.

Actually the reality is just the opposite. That which is owned by everybody, is owned by nobody, to disastrous effect. But I’m guessing he’s never read anything by Garrett Hardin, despite the fact that he’s supposedly a “professor.”

“Most of the people on this planet would object to the notion that the primary reason or even a reason to go to the Moon or into space is for resource extraction and exploitation. That’s my political guess,” he added.

Yes, and of course, politics should reign, rather than economics or rationality.

Though I suspect that, given the choice between additional resources to improve their lives, or a pristine Moon, most on earth would choose the former. That’s my political guess. Not that political guesses should mean anything.

There is virtually no way, Steiner said, that space resources can be applied in the near-term aggressively enough to reverse the course of biosphere destruction on our home planet.

Well, attitudes like his make it a certainty. It’s called “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

The way to short-circuit the prospect of a dead-end Earth is to control population and consumption. “We need to start living within our means. We need to deal with this in the next 10 to 20 years. This is hugely serious,” Steiner said.

Indeed. Authoritarian notions like this are always serious.

Leonard David reports on the International Space Development Conference, and particularly on Rick Steiner’s (loony) proposal to fence off the Moon from development.

Diving headlong into the lair of wannabe lunar colonists, Steiner said that the industrial development paradigm that’s existed on Earth for some three centuries has been “utterly devastating”. Imposing a George Bush senior idiom, the conservationist urged that a “kinder and gentler” approach to space is needed.

What was it that was devastated? Is he looking at it from the viewpoint of rocks, or people?

“We should put our best foot forward, not as greedy industrialists or empire builders or with militant intention, but rather with compassion, respect, humility and with genuine curiosity,” Steiner said.

How does one have compassion and respect for a lifeless sphere of rock?

What’s wrong with greed? Doesn’t he have any idea how economics works?

Why do I even ask?

What about using lunar or other space resources to help an energy-impoverished Earth?

“Personally, and I think millions and millions of people on Earth see the Moon as a sacred icon and it should remain as such,” Steiner said. “To turn the Moon into a quarry and strip mine?I think if you put this out to a global referendum, I would virtually predict that 80 percent to 90 percent of people on Earth would object to this idea,” he said.

Yes, I’m sure that the billions on earth will be happy to live in squalor and poverty, as long as the Moon is untouched…

“If the Moon is owned by anybody?it’s owned by everybody,” Steiner argued.

That’s an argument? It sounds more like a mindless polemic. It doesn’t even make any sense. My house is owned by me. Does that make it owned by everybody? To economic illiterates like Rick Steiner, it probably does.

Actually the reality is just the opposite. That which is owned by everybody, is owned by nobody, to disastrous effect. But I’m guessing he’s never read anything by Garrett Hardin, despite the fact that he’s supposedly a “professor.”

“Most of the people on this planet would object to the notion that the primary reason or even a reason to go to the Moon or into space is for resource extraction and exploitation. That’s my political guess,” he added.

Yes, and of course, politics should reign, rather than economics or rationality.

Though I suspect that, given the choice between additional resources to improve their lives, or a pristine Moon, most on earth would choose the former. That’s my political guess. Not that political guesses should mean anything.

There is virtually no way, Steiner said, that space resources can be applied in the near-term aggressively enough to reverse the course of biosphere destruction on our home planet.

Well, attitudes like his make it a certainty. It’s called “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

The way to short-circuit the prospect of a dead-end Earth is to control population and consumption. “We need to start living within our means. We need to deal with this in the next 10 to 20 years. This is hugely serious,” Steiner said.

Indeed. Authoritarian notions like this are always serious.

Leonard David reports on the International Space Development Conference, and particularly on Rick Steiner’s (loony) proposal to fence off the Moon from development.

Diving headlong into the lair of wannabe lunar colonists, Steiner said that the industrial development paradigm that’s existed on Earth for some three centuries has been “utterly devastating”. Imposing a George Bush senior idiom, the conservationist urged that a “kinder and gentler” approach to space is needed.

What was it that was devastated? Is he looking at it from the viewpoint of rocks, or people?

“We should put our best foot forward, not as greedy industrialists or empire builders or with militant intention, but rather with compassion, respect, humility and with genuine curiosity,” Steiner said.

How does one have compassion and respect for a lifeless sphere of rock?

What’s wrong with greed? Doesn’t he have any idea how economics works?

Why do I even ask?

What about using lunar or other space resources to help an energy-impoverished Earth?

“Personally, and I think millions and millions of people on Earth see the Moon as a sacred icon and it should remain as such,” Steiner said. “To turn the Moon into a quarry and strip mine?I think if you put this out to a global referendum, I would virtually predict that 80 percent to 90 percent of people on Earth would object to this idea,” he said.

Yes, I’m sure that the billions on earth will be happy to live in squalor and poverty, as long as the Moon is untouched…

“If the Moon is owned by anybody?it’s owned by everybody,” Steiner argued.

That’s an argument? It sounds more like a mindless polemic. It doesn’t even make any sense. My house is owned by me. Does that make it owned by everybody? To economic illiterates like Rick Steiner, it probably does.

Actually the reality is just the opposite. That which is owned by everybody, is owned by nobody, to disastrous effect. But I’m guessing he’s never read anything by Garrett Hardin, despite the fact that he’s supposedly a “professor.”

“Most of the people on this planet would object to the notion that the primary reason or even a reason to go to the Moon or into space is for resource extraction and exploitation. That’s my political guess,” he added.

Yes, and of course, politics should reign, rather than economics or rationality.

Though I suspect that, given the choice between additional resources to improve their lives, or a pristine Moon, most on earth would choose the former. That’s my political guess. Not that political guesses should mean anything.

There is virtually no way, Steiner said, that space resources can be applied in the near-term aggressively enough to reverse the course of biosphere destruction on our home planet.

Well, attitudes like his make it a certainty. It’s called “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

The way to short-circuit the prospect of a dead-end Earth is to control population and consumption. “We need to start living within our means. We need to deal with this in the next 10 to 20 years. This is hugely serious,” Steiner said.

Indeed. Authoritarian notions like this are always serious.