Most people are bad at math and logical reasoning.
Compared to what?
Thank you for providing that excellent example of how most people are bad at logical reasoning.
Mainframers have been using this most simple of all utilities for decades - literally. The Wikipedia entry on it has a good write-up about this (literal) do-nothing program. It's whole purpose is to provide a mechanisim to to exploit the various functions contained in JCL to create, delete, and otherwise manipulate datasets on mainframes.
The wikipedia entry is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEFBR14
The muppetlabs link ends with the entire program overlapped into the ELF header, and part of the header left off.
(It is just a toy program that returns 42 to the OS, but he gets it down to 45 bytes.)
I'm totally going to watch the Iran Contra hearings. Inouwe chewing out North FTW.
Ah. Prejudiced. I suspected as much.
(Yes, I know. Pot, kettle, black.)
You're probably sick of seeing this repeated on Cryptogon, over and over, but here it is again: An understanding of food is a gateway to potentially much better realities. In other words, there's no chance for a woowoo utopia, or anything approaching it, without understanding food. (And money, but that's a whole different can of worms.)
Everyone needs food. Only the dimmest bulbs on the strand aren't seeing that the industrial food system represents a clear and present danger to individuals and the environment. As the state stupidly tries to crush suppliers of delicious, nutritious and safe food, people become radicalized. For our purposes, radicalized means increasingly seeking out and paying cash or bartering for outlaw meat, raw milk, free range eggs, heirloom vegetables, etc.
Why does the state respond to people who sell homekilled meat in the same way that it responds to people who violently attack the state? If you think it has anything to do with public safety, you've already read too far. Stop now. Turn the TV back on.
It's because ubiquitous, small scale agriculture represents a greater threat to state power than armed resistance. Small scale and underground food economies defund the state's ability to kill and imprison people. Where's the state when you hand over cash, a bottle of homemade liquor, or some other fungible thing for your goods at a farmer's market or a farm gate? The state is far away, slowly dying as your network strengthens.
The person who feels empowered by supplying and/or consuming delicious, nutritious and safe food and then witnesses the state's fascist response, thinks, "If the state is my enemy when it comes to something as basic as food, in what other ways does the state threaten my security?"
That's it. Lesson learned. The floodgates are open.
Small scale agriculture is the foundation, the baseline requirement of any positive shift outside the useless political system. Small scale agriculture is netwar, and more effective at neutralizing fascism than violently attacking the state. So, start with food, and maybe some of the woowoo utopia stuff will follow. I wouldn't count on it, but I've been wrong before.
Most people don't utilize the function of an "undo disk" in VPC, which allows you to restore a VM to a previous state when you turn off the VM.
So the infection will stay there, if somebody use it as a spam or phishing server, the FBI will be knocking on your door.
I know, its hard when your black and white world starts all looking a little grey.
Ok, then one more point the environmental movement has:
Nuclear energy can not be regulated very well. On the other hand, wind and solar and everything else fluctuates _a lot_. So you have the permanent base supplied by nuclear, but just let the energy produced by e.g. stronger winds just go to waste? There are studies (the ones I know of are in German, sorry), that 24/7 energy is possible through using a broad array of different (renewable) energy sources, like wind, solar, water, biogas etc.
The advantage of water and biogas is that it is much better at adjusting to current demand.
So the way I see it, nuclear development would hinder the development of cleaner energy, as it would lead to certain amounts of it going unused, thus making it that much less profitable.
Yet this whole debate can hardly be held in slashdot comments, as it is much too complex.
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.