Finally!
find . | grep -i ds_store | while read i; do rm "$i"; done
find . | grep -i ds_store | while read i; do rm "$i"; done
Juni 2011 Archive
Tröööt! There is a new protocol joining the small group of network protocols which I like. The Network Block Device protocol. It seems like it is exactly as complicated as it needs to be. It just has a major disadvantage: It is not well documented. Surprisingly, the German Wikipedia has a quite nice article about NBD, and this article is not that bad! It even has a protocol documentation - as one wishes when consulting an encyclopedia. (So it will probably be deleted soon.)Actually, I had a closer look at NBD while I was actually looking for something else, but the implementation of an NBD server took some time. I wanted to create an NBD server which allocates a specified amount of memory and populates it as block device - just as a proof of concept telling me that I have "understood" the protocol and that I am able to implement it.
I began with C and finally succeeded, after finding out that every adress has to be sent in network byte order, and finding some useful header files like <linux/nbd.h>. Still, my C implementation has some bug, and as I did not have any special aim, I re-implemented everything in Common Lisp. The code can be found at GitHub (exercise: find out where its name comes from).
Its only dependency so far is usocket, and as I did not yet create an asd file it has to be loaded manually, which I do via Quicklisp.
CL-USER> (ql:quickload "usocket")
Then I load my file and start a server with a 10 megabyte block device.
CL-USER> (load #P"~/projects/7-chloro-4-nitrobenzofurazan/nbdserver.lisp")
CL-USER> (defvar *pool* (run-rampool 13337 (* 10 1024 1024)))
This will block until an nbd client connected and returned again. So let us connect via the linux nbd client. We create an ext2 filesystem and then mount it and create a file GANS with the content NILPFERD in the shell
# nbd-client localhost 13337 /dev/nbd0
Negotiation: ..size = 10240KB
bs=1024, sz=10240
# mkfs.ext2 /dev/nbd0
[...]
# mount /dev/nbd0 /mnt
# echo "NILPFERD" > /mnt/GANS
# sync
# cat /mnt/GANS
NILPFERD
Then we unmount it again and detatch the device.
# umount /mnt
# nbd-client -d /dev/nbd0
Disconnecting: que, disconnect, sock, done
Now, the REPL is free again, and *pool* contains the data. We have just created an ext2 filesystem on a lisp vector. Now we should find the word "NILPFERD" in *pool*, and indeed
CL-USER> (search (map 'list #'char-code "NILPFERD") *pool*)
2098176
Now let us see what happens if we replace this string (as this returns the whole *pool*, we set *print-length* first):
CL-USER> (setf *print-length* 10)
10
CL-USER> (replace *pool* (map 'list #'char-code "nilpferd") :start1 2098176)
#(0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...)
Now, let us re-run the nbd-server with the modified *pool*
CL-USER> (run-rampool 13337 (* 10 1024 1024) *pool*)
And attatch and mount it again
# nbd-client localhost 13337 /dev/nbd0
Negotiation: ..size = 10240KB
bs=1024, sz=10240
# mount /dev/nbd0 /mnt
Now, about the file:
# cat /mnt/GANS
nilpferd
Yep, it is indeed lowercase now. Which is ... nice ... somehow. Though useless, of course.
Besides that, I found an implementation of a server in python, though I have not tested it. Same for this Java implementation.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of clients. A port to some other Unices and Windows would be nice. Especially, looking at these implementations of block device drivers, there should be people who can easily implement an NBD Client for Windows.
As the German Wikipedia keeps getting destroyed by arrogant pimple faced pubescent high schoolers, unlike the English Wikipedia, there is no article about the Glivenko Theorem in the German Wikipedia anymore. As far as I remember, there has been one in the past. Currently, this article in the English Wikipedia is suggested to be merged with the article about the Gödel Gentzen Negative Translation, which sounds reasonable, as it is a generalization - but it also does not have an article in the German Wikipedia anymore.
The German Wikipedia does not have any form of the quality it used to have. There is no "freedom" anymore: The last time I edited something, it took weeks (!) for the article's usurper to confirm my changes. I do not see the "freedom" it proclaims anymore.
Besides general boredness, I take that as an occasion to blog about the Glivenko Theorem. Especially, I want to try out how good (or bad) I can get MathJax to produce proof trees. Apparently, it does not look so bad, but there is no real possibility to create horizontallines, stuff like \cline does not work in MathJax. If someone has suggestions on how to make them look better, please let me know. I am using my own pre-generated HTML tables currently, which look good, but I would prefer a solution that is more integrated into MathJax.
Especially, this post's primary purpose is to be informative for people who were not concerned with logic so far. Every mathematician should already know everything stated here.
The Glivenko Theorem sais that in propositional logic, if <m>P\rightarrow Q</m> is provable classically, then <m>\lnot\lnot P \rightarrow \lnot\lnot Q</m> is provable intuitionistically.
There are several ways to prove this. But let us first look at what that means.
In the end, a sufficiently simple calculus for this is the Hilbert Calculus, which only implements Modus Ponens, that is, has only one rule: From <m>A</m> and <m>A\rightarrow B</m> we may derive <m>B</m>. Additionally, if we have a proof of <m>B</m> from <m>A</m>, we may derive <m>A\rightarrow B</m> and strike <m>A</m> from the list of axioms.
We get intuitionistic propositional logic by the axiom schemes (<m>\rightarrow</m> is right-associative and binds less strict than <m>\vee</m> and <m>\wedge</m>)
Furthermore, we introduce a special propositional symbol <m>\bot</m>, the falsum, and add the axiom of ex falso quodlibet
which means that from a wrong proposition we may derive everything.
For classical logic, we define <m>\lnot A := A\rightarrow\bot</m>, "not <m>A</m>". Then to get classical logic, we add the axiom scheme of duplex negatio affirmat
which becomes
in the above notation.
To prove the Glivenko Theorem, we show that every rule and axiom for classical logic is derivable in double-negated form in intuitionistic logic. Therefore, the first thing we shall prove is that from <m>\lnot\lnot(A\rightarrow B)</m> and <m>\lnot\lnot A</m> we may derive <m>\lnot\lnot B</m>, corresponding to the modus ponens. In words, the proof goes:
Assuming <m>A\rightarrow B</m> and <m>\lnot B</m>, we know that <m>\lnot A</m> must also hold, which contradicts <m>\lnot\lnot A</m>. Therefore we know that one of our assumptions is wrong. Assuming <m>\lnot (A\rightarrow B)</m>, we get a contradiction with <m>\lnot\lnot(A\rightarrow B)</m>. Therefore, the assumption <m>\lnot B</m> must be wrong, therefore <m>\lnot\lnot B</m>.
Formally, it goes:
Furthermore, we need to show that if <m>\lnot\lnot B</m> can be implied by <m>\lnot\lnot A</m>, also <m>\lnot\lnot(A\rightarrow B)</m> holds. So let us assume that <m>\lnot\lnot B</m> follows from <m>\lnot\lnot A</m>, but <m>\lnot(A\rightarrow B)</m>. Assuming <m>\lnot A</m> holds, using ex falso quodlibet <m>\bot\rightarrow B</m> gives us <m>A\rightarrow B</m> which contradicts <m>\lnot(A\rightarrow B)</m>. So <m>\lnot\lnot A</m> which implies - by assumption - <m>\lnot\lnot B</m>. Now, assuming <m>B</m>, we can follow <m>A\rightarrow B</m>, which also contradicts <m>\lnot(A\rightarrow B)</m>, so <m>\lnot B</m>. But <m>\lnot\lnot B</m> and <m>\lnot B</m> contradict each other. So <m>\lnot\lnot (A\rightarrow B)</m>. I admit, this proof is somewhat hard to understand. Here is the formal tree:
Notice that from <m>B</m> we followed <m>A\rightarrow B</m>. This is correct according to the above definitions, but maybe not clear immediately.
An easier proof can be given for <m>A\rightarrow\lnot\lnot A</m>, which we need to be able to convert all of our additional axioms for the junctors.
Finally, we need <m>\lnot\lnot(\lnot\lnot A \rightarrow A)</m> to be derivable, and by the above proof, it is sufficient to prove <m>\lnot\lnot\lnot\lnot A\rightarrow \lnot\lnot A</m>, because that is <m>\lnot\lnot(\lnot\lnot A)\rightarrow \lnot\lnot(A)</m> and therefore implies <m>\lnot\lnot((\lnot\lnot A)\rightarrow (A))</m>. It can be derived by:
We have proved the Glivenko Theorem. W00t.
The German Wikipedia does not have any form of the quality it used to have. There is no "freedom" anymore: The last time I edited something, it took weeks (!) for the article's usurper to confirm my changes. I do not see the "freedom" it proclaims anymore.
Besides general boredness, I take that as an occasion to blog about the Glivenko Theorem. Especially, I want to try out how good (or bad) I can get MathJax to produce proof trees. Apparently, it does not look so bad, but there is no real possibility to create horizontallines, stuff like \cline does not work in MathJax. If someone has suggestions on how to make them look better, please let me know. I am using my own pre-generated HTML tables currently, which look good, but I would prefer a solution that is more integrated into MathJax.
Especially, this post's primary purpose is to be informative for people who were not concerned with logic so far. Every mathematician should already know everything stated here.
The Glivenko Theorem sais that in propositional logic, if <m>P\rightarrow Q</m> is provable classically, then <m>\lnot\lnot P \rightarrow \lnot\lnot Q</m> is provable intuitionistically.
There are several ways to prove this. But let us first look at what that means.
In the end, a sufficiently simple calculus for this is the Hilbert Calculus, which only implements Modus Ponens, that is, has only one rule: From <m>A</m> and <m>A\rightarrow B</m> we may derive <m>B</m>. Additionally, if we have a proof of <m>B</m> from <m>A</m>, we may derive <m>A\rightarrow B</m> and strike <m>A</m> from the list of axioms.
<m>\begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{cc}A\rightarrow B & A\end{array} \\ \hline B\end{array}</m><m>\begin{array}{c} [A] \\ | \\ B \\ \hline A\rightarrow B \end{array}</m>
We get intuitionistic propositional logic by the axiom schemes (<m>\rightarrow</m> is right-associative and binds less strict than <m>\vee</m> and <m>\wedge</m>)
<m>A\rightarrow A\vee B</m>, <m>B\rightarrow A\vee B</m>, <m>A\rightarrow B\rightarrow A\wedge B</m>
<m>A\vee B\rightarrow(A\rightarrow C)\rightarrow(B\rightarrow C)\rightarrow C</m>, <m>A\wedge B\rightarrow (A\rightarrow B\rightarrow C)\rightarrow C</m>
<m>A\vee B\rightarrow(A\rightarrow C)\rightarrow(B\rightarrow C)\rightarrow C</m>, <m>A\wedge B\rightarrow (A\rightarrow B\rightarrow C)\rightarrow C</m>
Furthermore, we introduce a special propositional symbol <m>\bot</m>, the falsum, and add the axiom of ex falso quodlibet
<m>\bot\rightarrow A</m>
which means that from a wrong proposition we may derive everything.
For classical logic, we define <m>\lnot A := A\rightarrow\bot</m>, "not <m>A</m>". Then to get classical logic, we add the axiom scheme of duplex negatio affirmat
<m>((A\rightarrow\bot)\rightarrow\bot)\rightarrow A</m>
which becomes
<m>\lnot\lnot A\rightarrow A</m>
in the above notation.
To prove the Glivenko Theorem, we show that every rule and axiom for classical logic is derivable in double-negated form in intuitionistic logic. Therefore, the first thing we shall prove is that from <m>\lnot\lnot(A\rightarrow B)</m> and <m>\lnot\lnot A</m> we may derive <m>\lnot\lnot B</m>, corresponding to the modus ponens. In words, the proof goes:
Formally, it goes:
| <m>[A\rightarrow B]</m> | <m> </m> | <m>[A] </m> | ||||
| <m> [\lnot B] </m> | <m> B </m> | |||||
| <m> \bot </m> | ||||||
| <m> \lnot\lnot A </m> | <m> \lnot A </m> | |||||
| <m> \bot </m> | ||||||
| <m> \lnot\lnot(A\rightarrow B)</m> | <m>\lnot(A\rightarrow B)</m> | |||||
| <m> \bot </m> | ||||||
| <m> \lnot\lnot B </m> |
| <m> [\lnot A] </m> | <m> </m> | <m> [A] </m> | |||||||
| <m> \bot\rightarrow B </m> | <m> </m> | <m> \bot </m> | |||||||
| <m> B </m> | |||||||||
| <m> [\lnot (A\rightarrow B)] </m> | <m> A\rightarrow B </m> | ||||||||
| <m> \bot </m> | <m> [B]</m> | ||||||||
| <m> \lnot\lnot A </m> | <m> [\lnot (A\rightarrow B)] </m> | <m> </m> | <m> A\rightarrow B </m> | ||||||
| <m> \vdots </m> | <m> \bot </m> | ||||||||
| <m> \lnot\lnot B </m> | <m> \lnot B </m> | ||||||||
| <m> \bot </m> | |||||||||
| <m> \lnot\lnot(A\rightarrow B) </m> |
Notice that from <m>B</m> we followed <m>A\rightarrow B</m>. This is correct according to the above definitions, but maybe not clear immediately.
An easier proof can be given for <m>A\rightarrow\lnot\lnot A</m>, which we need to be able to convert all of our additional axioms for the junctors.
| <m> A </m> | <m> [\lnot A] </m> | |
| <m> \bot </m> | ||
| <m> \lnot\lnot A </m> |
| <m>[\lnot\lnot A]</m> | <m>[\lnot A] </m> | ||
| <m> \bot </m> | |||
| <m> \lnot\lnot\lnot\lnot A</m> | <m> \lnot\lnot\lnot A </m> | ||
| <m>\bot </m> | |||
| <m> \lnot\lnot A </m> |
We have proved the Glivenko Theorem. W00t.
The feel when diving into a virtual world. For a healthy person it can be relaxing, for a disabled person, I guess it can be a form of escape from his body.
Unfortunately, while those who would be able to go outside are given several kinds of gadgets, those who cannot appear to be widely forgotten by the game industry.
How refreshing to read that there is some person who cares. Of course, this is not the first time I hear of disabled gamers but this time in a completely different manner.
One may ask whether quadriplegic people do not have more important problems - at least this is a question I expect from the ordinary™ person. Actually, most people have more important problems than gaming, regardless of whether they are disabled or not. But thinking about it, I actually do not know anything I could do without moving. I do not like to walk, I do not like to get up, but I am aware and thankful that I can. Without this ability, what can you do all the day? You cannot eat without help, you cannot even read a book yourself, without some gadget that helps you. Playing a video game, getting a bit of the feeling of being able to move, I am pretty sure that this can make a disabled person less depressed. And there are games that can be played together. In the virtual world, they are not disabled anymore.
Above that, let us not forget that these controls, and the expierience with it, might soon or later help developing better gadgets for real life for those people.
Unfortunately, while those who would be able to go outside are given several kinds of gadgets, those who cannot appear to be widely forgotten by the game industry.
How refreshing to read that there is some person who cares. Of course, this is not the first time I hear of disabled gamers but this time in a completely different manner.
One may ask whether quadriplegic people do not have more important problems - at least this is a question I expect from the ordinary™ person. Actually, most people have more important problems than gaming, regardless of whether they are disabled or not. But thinking about it, I actually do not know anything I could do without moving. I do not like to walk, I do not like to get up, but I am aware and thankful that I can. Without this ability, what can you do all the day? You cannot eat without help, you cannot even read a book yourself, without some gadget that helps you. Playing a video game, getting a bit of the feeling of being able to move, I am pretty sure that this can make a disabled person less depressed. And there are games that can be played together. In the virtual world, they are not disabled anymore.
Above that, let us not forget that these controls, and the expierience with it, might soon or later help developing better gadgets for real life for those people.
Today was the first time that I ran into an unexpected race condition. With a bash script for a self made automounter. The automounter is invoked by udev. I did not expect udev to run the same script twice parallely, and so, an error occured.
The theoretical solution is simple, use locking. But in fact, I never have seen bash scripts doing something beyond
I would have been surprised if this problem did not have a solution, and in fact, it does:
The theoretical solution is simple, use locking. But in fact, I never have seen bash scripts doing something beyond
[ -e my_lock_file ] || touch my_lock_file && ...to create locks, and this is dangerous, because between testing and touching a logfile, there might be the time for another test - the locking is not atomic.
I would have been surprised if this problem did not have a solution, and in fact, it does:
lockfile-create /tmp/my.lockNice. Especially, it allows simple experiments with lockfiles through remote file systems.
...
lockfile-remove /tmp/my.lock
In my school, there were a lot of projects trying to tell pupils how to do successful learning. Some of them were useful in special settings, but most of them were just ignored by most students, like me.One example is the record card based learning of vocabulary. I always hated learning vocabulary, because it is just plain memorizing, there is no understanding behind it. Additionally having to maintain a bunch of cards never really helped, actually, I found it even more annoying to learn them. At that time however, computer aided vocabulary trainers were not yet widespread, maybe a record card based learning strategy is more helpful with a computer.
Even worse was everything regarding social sciences, history for example. I would have been glad if it just had been about learning dates and names. But additionally, it was about reading and "understanding" the stupid opinions of posers and explaining one's opinion (or at least the opinion the teacher wants you to have) to them.
While I never really had problems in science, I saw several people having problems because they simply did not find any way of seeing how science works. In everyday life, there is no need for proper definitions or fireproof reasoning as it is when doing science. You are rolling around opinions of yourself and others, but you have no need to prove them in an empirical or logical way, and learning to do this would probably be better than knowing the periodic table by heart.
So, well, I have done school, and I know others who have. I know people who were quite good, and I know people who were quite bad. I guess this gives me at least some eligibility to write a blog post about successful learning. However, I can only give suggestions, everybody must find his own way - probably the first thing to know: If you have found your own learning strategy, then keep it, even though others tell you it is bad.
The main lack regarding most recommended learning strategies I have seen is that they address exactly one thing very well. Namely the fact that if you practice things often enough, you will remember them. I cannot remember any learning strategy not being focused on efficient memorizing of matter. They give a way of learning certain kinds of matter fast. But they miss one crucial point: The personal interest.
No matter how hard I try, it is hard to learn something I do not really want to know. For some people, getting good grades is enough motivation to be willing to know matter. And in my expierience, the people with a better average grade were usually the people who did not really have any deeper interest in the actual matter but getting good grades. Just to make that clear, I am talking about the better people, not about the best people. And I am not talking about "nerdy" pupils who do not have any hobbies except learning for school, I am only talking about their interests regarding school matter.
So before you even try to make your learning more "effective", ask yourself whether you really want to be good at the certain subject. Ask yourself, why do you learn for that subject. It can be hard to be honest to oneself, so take your time thinking about it.
Maybe you have a deeper interest for the subject - which does not mean that every of your grades needs to be perfect. I had a deeper interest in Mathematics, still, my grades were not always perfect. School can also underchallenge you, and you should never forget that every school subject can be separated in a lot more subjects, and even if you like one subject in general, there may be parts of it that you do not like (like stochastics for me).
Still, if you have a deeper interest, then you should be able to learn it quickly, and therefore you should do so. And you should not stop at the level of current school matter: If school is too slow for you in a certain subject, try to get further information on it - books for the next class for example, or even university books, if you are good enough. Almost every subject has its own competitions on which pupils can take part. Even if you are not good enough to win a prize, participate, just to show other people that you are interested!
If a teacher notices that you become good at something, depending on how much of an asshole he is, he either will support you - then you should take this support and be thankful - or he will try to get you away from doing this - then you should ignore it. Do not try to discuss with teachers, you can only lose, and if you lose, you will probably lose more than just a discussion. Life is hard and cannot be lived without some kickbacks, and if you cannot manage to achieve all your goals, do not expect teachers to be able to console you. Some teachers may be able to, but some will also be glad about your failures, especially when they tried to keep you away from something before. Expect this. Teachers are just human, in the end. The older you get, the thinner becomes the facade of wisdom they want their pupils to see. And you are a factor that creates additional work. Keep that in mind.
Now, let us assume you have such a subject, then if you do not suck completely at everything else, you will probably not be the best of all pupils, but your grades will be sufficient for most things you want. There is no need to become good at everything.
In case you do not have any subject of interest, but you still do not feel successful enough, you should wonder why you go to school at all. Make up your mind about what you want to achieve. If it requires finishing the school you go to, then you should be able to find at least something interesting, because that usually means that school should teach at least some skill that is needed. If you do not think so, then you are probably missing something about your plans.
If you do not have any plans at all, then it is still better to finish school, to have a broader range of possibilities later. Then you will just have to learn to ignore your boredness while learning. This is probably the hardest part, because the usual learning strategies cannot handle this situation, they all assume that you actually want to learn the matter rather than being forced to.
They usually tell you not to have things that may distract you from learning. But presumably you are familiar with the situation that even though you try to keep away distracting things, you will find everything distracting if you do not really want to learn. The solution is simple: Have something that distracts you while learning. Do something else while looking at the matter. This is quite the opposite of what almost every learning strategy will tell you, and in fact, you will not even learn half as much as you could when just concentrating on the matter. So if you can manage to concentrate on it try to do it, but since concentrating on the matter is not always possible, having something distracting is basically the best possibility to find a balance between your boredness and your duty. Your grades will probably not be the best, but they should always be sufficient.
Trying to enforce your interest on a topic will fail, you can try to find something interesting in a topic, but if you cannot find anything of interest, you just have to accept that. Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants, as Schopenhauer said.
And - even more important - never rely on teachers to make something more interesting to you. Probably there are some teachers who are able to achieve this. But mostly, either the teacher is pretentious and therefore not willing to give you instructions on why his or her subject is interesting, and therefore might hate you from the day you have asked, or he is not even interested himself. I coached pupils while I was still at school, and I have marked tests of teacher trainees at the university - I can say that at least in Germany, the latter case definitely occurs. Very often.
You may have noticed that I gave a quite bad image of teachers. Teachers are, as I said, humans. Teachers are the persons who give instructions to you - some of them enjoy their job, some of them hate their job. In any case, they are your instructors, not your friends.
You may like them on a personal level, as soon as you get old enough to have them let you know more about their personality. I have talked to teachers outside school, and some of them had quite interesting personalities. Of a few of them I even wondered how such a friendly person in real life can be such a dick during the lessons.
But that is how it is: They might be enjoyable in real life, but at school, which is clearly not real life, they are your instructors, not your friends. They have work to do, and you are part of the material they work with, and if you are difficult to handle, that is more work for them.
Pierre Vogel, seinerseits zum erlesenen Kreis der Personen von einer Relevanz von mindestens der Relevanz von Bauchnabelfusseln dem auch Astrid Herbold und Felix von Leitner angehören gehörend, teilt sein großes Wissen zum Thema Kreationismus mit uns.
Es sei zum Beispiel ein Fakt, dass Tiere von unterschiedlichen Arten keine zeugungsfähigen Nachkommen produzieren können, man sehe sich nur an was aus Eseln und Pferden entsteht. Eine tiefe Erkenntnis, der man vielleicht entnehmen kann, dass er Wikipedia gelesen hat.
Es könne auch keiner beantworten, wie aus unbelebter Materie belebte Materie entstanden ist, ganz besonders nicht das Experiment von Stanley Miller.
Und überhaupt, Antilopen die ihren Hals strecken werden nicht zu Giraffen.
Dafür sei es andererseits normal dass man auf seine Schwester steht, und es ist auch völlig nachvollziehbar dass Gott anstatt gleich mehrere Menschen herzustellen lieber zwei Menschen schafft, deren Nachkommen dann fröhlich Inzest betreiben, um später den Menschen die freie Liebe und den Inzest wieder per Scharia zu verbieten. Das ist viel plausibler. Welches intelligente Wesen würde nicht genauso handeln? Ist ja auch viel lustiger wenn die sich immer wieder mal gegenseitig steinigen.
Ich freue mich auf die kognitive Dissonanz diverser politischer Gruppen, sollten sie sich dereinst damit auseinandersetzen müssen, und damit erkennen, wie ähnlich sie doch dem fundamentalistischen Islam sind. Erfahrungsgemäß wird es aber am Ende so sein dass sich das Schlechteste beider Kulturen durchsetzt.
Es sei zum Beispiel ein Fakt, dass Tiere von unterschiedlichen Arten keine zeugungsfähigen Nachkommen produzieren können, man sehe sich nur an was aus Eseln und Pferden entsteht. Eine tiefe Erkenntnis, der man vielleicht entnehmen kann, dass er Wikipedia gelesen hat.
Es könne auch keiner beantworten, wie aus unbelebter Materie belebte Materie entstanden ist, ganz besonders nicht das Experiment von Stanley Miller.
Und überhaupt, Antilopen die ihren Hals strecken werden nicht zu Giraffen.
Dafür sei es andererseits normal dass man auf seine Schwester steht, und es ist auch völlig nachvollziehbar dass Gott anstatt gleich mehrere Menschen herzustellen lieber zwei Menschen schafft, deren Nachkommen dann fröhlich Inzest betreiben, um später den Menschen die freie Liebe und den Inzest wieder per Scharia zu verbieten. Das ist viel plausibler. Welches intelligente Wesen würde nicht genauso handeln? Ist ja auch viel lustiger wenn die sich immer wieder mal gegenseitig steinigen.
Ich freue mich auf die kognitive Dissonanz diverser politischer Gruppen, sollten sie sich dereinst damit auseinandersetzen müssen, und damit erkennen, wie ähnlich sie doch dem fundamentalistischen Islam sind. Erfahrungsgemäß wird es aber am Ende so sein dass sich das Schlechteste beider Kulturen durchsetzt.
... lese ich gerade hier. Welch evokatorische kakophonie.
Source currently unknown
Was machen wir da nur? Ich weiß: Deutsche Ingenieurskunst: Wir bauen einen Satire-Roboter.
Source currently unknown
Was machen wir da nur? Ich weiß: Deutsche Ingenieurskunst: Wir bauen einen Satire-Roboter.
I hate firewalls, but I have no choice, with gigabytes of spam-traffic. By a mistake of mine, I probably locked out a lot of IP adresses that should not have been locked out. I am sorry for that.
If you notice that I locked somebody out, please let me know.
There is apparently no simple possibility to find out whether a given IP adress is blocked. So I cannot easily filter my logfiles. Above that, the default whois-answer gives an IP range, but iptables wants CIDR-notation.
I could not find any software calculating this (if somebody knows a good one, then please tell me). What I quickly wrote in a file range2cidr.c is:
You might wonder why I calculated the IPs so high-level. Well, I just did not want to care about the whole lowlevel-fuss and still have it portable - I mean, this code does not need to be fast, it just needs to be correct.
Anyway, there has got to be better software. Any suggestions?
If you notice that I locked somebody out, please let me know.
There is apparently no simple possibility to find out whether a given IP adress is blocked. So I cannot easily filter my logfiles. Above that, the default whois-answer gives an IP range, but iptables wants CIDR-notation.
I could not find any software calculating this (if somebody knows a good one, then please tell me). What I quickly wrote in a file range2cidr.c is:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <netdb.h>
#include <math.h>
int main (int argc, char ** argv) {
if (argc != 3) {
printf("Usage: %s lowerbound upperbound\n", argv[0]);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
} else {
uint32_t lowip, highip;
struct hostent *host;
host = gethostbyname(argv[1]);
lowip =
((((uint8_t) host->h_addr[0]) % 256) << 24) +
((((uint8_t) host->h_addr[1]) % 256) << 16) +
((((uint8_t) host->h_addr[2]) % 256) << 8) +
((((uint8_t) host->h_addr[3]) % 256));
host = gethostbyname(argv[2]);
highip =
((((uint8_t) host->h_addr[0]) % 256) << 24) +
((((uint8_t) host->h_addr[1]) % 256) << 16) +
((((uint8_t) host->h_addr[2]) % 256) << 8) +
((((uint8_t) host->h_addr[3]) % 256));
uint32_t msk = lowip ^ highip;
int i=0;
while (msk != 0) {
msk /= 2;
i++;
}
printf("%s/%d\n", argv[1], 32-i);
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}}
You might wonder why I calculated the IPs so high-level. Well, I just did not want to care about the whole lowlevel-fuss and still have it portable - I mean, this code does not need to be fast, it just needs to be correct.
Anyway, there has got to be better software. Any suggestions?
Will God heal amputees? Will God influence dice rolls? Does God have an influence on the world? Does God exist at all?
Source: krautchan Questions many people thought about. Questions that people answer differently, depending on their social state, scientific and religious education, ethnicity, and whatever else. Scientifically speaking, there is no evidence proving God's existance. Logically speaking, God is not even an entity to talk about, since there is no definition of what "God" is, and all the fuss about it shows that it is much too unintuitive to be an axiomatic concept. Historically, there is evidence that if the God existet, he must be evil in some sense, or at least not really caring.
I guess we all got that. Everyone who wants to know this knows this, and everyone not knowing is probably better off not knowing. If you tell them more, maybe a few more people will change their minds, but most people will stay as they are - if people change their mind, then mostly because of personal fate. Even if you push harder, this is going to change nothing. If you have a video tape that shows Jesus being called so by known representatives at that time, being crucified and then buried without reviving, this will not change their minds. Because belief is nothing rational, and therefore, nothing that behaves logically. Either you believe or not - that is your decision, but this decision is seldom based on evidence, it is based on fate.
Now, belief can be used to manipulate you, there is absolutely no doubt about that. But not only belief in a God, also belief in an idea (socialism, social darwinism, war on terrorism, patriotism, harmfulness of thc, ...). I expressed my opinion on that before, and I can summarize it: The world will not become a better place just because we abolish theism.
I do not see any evidence for that. The big theistic corporations and the little theistic groups may have done or still be doing things that make the world worse. But if you abolish theism, you will not only lose these, but also the many theistic corporations and groups that make the world a better place by caring about the poor and sick. However, you will still have the plenty of atheistic groups, making the world a worse place in the name of some idea, which also exist.
To make it possible that one idea that turns out to be bad will not rule us forever, we have freedom of belief, conscience and speech, so we can tell people what is wrong and has to be done better. This does not always work flawless, but you cannot exchange a moral system in twenty years - it sometimes takes centuries, like it or not.
So we can discuss, troll and insult each other for their beliefs - theistic or not - and this can be fun, and it might be important to some extent. At least there seems to be some use of a discourse for the society. And in the end, it seems to me that the winner is mostly the one who becomes evil in the right moment.
Ok, too much said about that already. Now, I have got a link on this video (via). A video trying to explain people that prayers are a delusion.
Firstly of course, this video does not explain anything - it is rather naive. Science on "supernatural" phenomena is hard, since some paranormal activity is really hard to explain. Especially, paranormal activity had its own "evolution", you simply cannot puzzle modern people by as much as you could one century ago, and thus, the modern paranormal activity often has effects that take a lot of research to explain, and often the phenomenon cannot even be easily reproduced, such that some explanations are rather vague - they often reach the current practical limits of science.
The major part of our brain is not really understood yet, but we already know that even minimal amounts of chemicals and even electromagnetic waves may influence our behaviour. The placebo effect is only partially understood, as far as I know. But in the end, recently, a bioinformatics studend said to me, when talking about psychosomatic allergical reactions, which can be as bad as "real" allergical reactions, that allergies are triggered by a chemical reaction. And a thought is also a chemical reaction. So why should a psychosomatic allergical reaction be something less severe than a "real" allergical reaction.
There is so much truth in this. It gives a clearer view on everything! In the end, the same holds for the placebo effect (psychosomatic allergical reactions are a sort of placebo effect, I think) - the belief in a medication is a chemical reaction in the brain, which influences other chemical reactions. And the belief in a prayer may do the same. Just to summarize this: Prayers may help people who believe in it.
And - honestly - who is not willing to believe in them, if he is desperate enough?
So we have seen the advantages. Now, what are the disadvantages of prayers? They may make people think that they can influence things they cannot. They may make people think to have done something good, even though they just prayed for somebody else, quietly. But an usual prayer takes a few minutes - at most, mostly it just takes seconds. I do not think that this is very likely to stop people from doing something to achieve the things they pray for. It makes them feel better and gives them the belief to have done something - but would they behave better if they did not have this feel? I do not think so - if I look at all the bashing against vegans and vegetarians by people who just cannot handle with their moral inferiority, I imagine people bashing against hungry children or their parents or whoever because they cannot handle with their inaction - I do not see more people really doing something about it. Praying keeps them quiet at least. To summarize this: Prayers do not do harm.
That is why I wonder: Why are these people so enthusiastic about telling other people that prayers are useless, and keep them from praying? I think I know the answer, and I am afraid I cannot tell it without at least slightly insulting them: It is because of arrogance. Where admittedly some modern atheists (like modern christians and jews) want to make the world better, and probably think that their belief is the best way to achieve this, they also know when to defer that discussion. Say, for example, when visiting a sickbed - an example given in the video.
I know I know, priests visit sick people. Priests pray with and for them. But priests do usually not visit deadly sick atheists to proselytize them. Usually. I am sure that some of them will do that, and I do not want to claim that this is any better. I mean there is a difference between telling somebody that if he starts praying now he will go to heaven (which is not quite correct, though, the actual belief was that you only slumber and will awake at the doomsday), and telling him that he is just a better machine and all of his personality will disappear with the rot of his brain, even though this is probably the sad truth. But a good minister must just have a feeling for what is the best for the person. And just because there may be theists which do these things does not give atheists any right to do the same - that wold be like saying that war crimes are a legit answer on war crimes.
So after all, this brainwashing video has no positive effekt. It takes hope away from people, especially sick people, hope that might help them, hope that cannot harm anyone. It does not give any alternatives to theism, nor does it imply any political consequences. It does not even criticize theism in any way, and not even science is really taken into full account. It is destructive, without giving any advantage. It makes the world worse.
The last sentences in the video are "It is time to point out that the superstition of prayer, like all superstitions, is silly. And it is time for us to end the fraud.".
Why? Would that make the world better? No! It is just to increase the penis sizes of the video's creators.
Just that nobody has a chance of misunderstanding me (though I am sure that some people will misunderstand me because they want - like people believe in prayers because they want). It is good to give arguments against theism, basing on what theistic leaders have done in history, even though I do not share the opinion (as pointed out above). It is good to criticize the influence of fundamentalist christians in, say, the USA, and the influence of christian corporations in Germany and Europe.
But producing a a brainwashing video, taking something away which has, even scientifically, a good influence on people who believe in it, without giving an alternative, is not good. In my opinion, it is evil.
Not evil in a theistic sense, there will probably not come any devil and burn you in hell for it. Evil in a purely atheistic sense.
Source: krautchan Questions many people thought about. Questions that people answer differently, depending on their social state, scientific and religious education, ethnicity, and whatever else. Scientifically speaking, there is no evidence proving God's existance. Logically speaking, God is not even an entity to talk about, since there is no definition of what "God" is, and all the fuss about it shows that it is much too unintuitive to be an axiomatic concept. Historically, there is evidence that if the God existet, he must be evil in some sense, or at least not really caring.
I guess we all got that. Everyone who wants to know this knows this, and everyone not knowing is probably better off not knowing. If you tell them more, maybe a few more people will change their minds, but most people will stay as they are - if people change their mind, then mostly because of personal fate. Even if you push harder, this is going to change nothing. If you have a video tape that shows Jesus being called so by known representatives at that time, being crucified and then buried without reviving, this will not change their minds. Because belief is nothing rational, and therefore, nothing that behaves logically. Either you believe or not - that is your decision, but this decision is seldom based on evidence, it is based on fate.
Now, belief can be used to manipulate you, there is absolutely no doubt about that. But not only belief in a God, also belief in an idea (socialism, social darwinism, war on terrorism, patriotism, harmfulness of thc, ...). I expressed my opinion on that before, and I can summarize it: The world will not become a better place just because we abolish theism.
I do not see any evidence for that. The big theistic corporations and the little theistic groups may have done or still be doing things that make the world worse. But if you abolish theism, you will not only lose these, but also the many theistic corporations and groups that make the world a better place by caring about the poor and sick. However, you will still have the plenty of atheistic groups, making the world a worse place in the name of some idea, which also exist.
To make it possible that one idea that turns out to be bad will not rule us forever, we have freedom of belief, conscience and speech, so we can tell people what is wrong and has to be done better. This does not always work flawless, but you cannot exchange a moral system in twenty years - it sometimes takes centuries, like it or not.
So we can discuss, troll and insult each other for their beliefs - theistic or not - and this can be fun, and it might be important to some extent. At least there seems to be some use of a discourse for the society. And in the end, it seems to me that the winner is mostly the one who becomes evil in the right moment.
Ok, too much said about that already. Now, I have got a link on this video (via). A video trying to explain people that prayers are a delusion.
Firstly of course, this video does not explain anything - it is rather naive. Science on "supernatural" phenomena is hard, since some paranormal activity is really hard to explain. Especially, paranormal activity had its own "evolution", you simply cannot puzzle modern people by as much as you could one century ago, and thus, the modern paranormal activity often has effects that take a lot of research to explain, and often the phenomenon cannot even be easily reproduced, such that some explanations are rather vague - they often reach the current practical limits of science.
The major part of our brain is not really understood yet, but we already know that even minimal amounts of chemicals and even electromagnetic waves may influence our behaviour. The placebo effect is only partially understood, as far as I know. But in the end, recently, a bioinformatics studend said to me, when talking about psychosomatic allergical reactions, which can be as bad as "real" allergical reactions, that allergies are triggered by a chemical reaction. And a thought is also a chemical reaction. So why should a psychosomatic allergical reaction be something less severe than a "real" allergical reaction.
There is so much truth in this. It gives a clearer view on everything! In the end, the same holds for the placebo effect (psychosomatic allergical reactions are a sort of placebo effect, I think) - the belief in a medication is a chemical reaction in the brain, which influences other chemical reactions. And the belief in a prayer may do the same. Just to summarize this: Prayers may help people who believe in it.
And - honestly - who is not willing to believe in them, if he is desperate enough?
So we have seen the advantages. Now, what are the disadvantages of prayers? They may make people think that they can influence things they cannot. They may make people think to have done something good, even though they just prayed for somebody else, quietly. But an usual prayer takes a few minutes - at most, mostly it just takes seconds. I do not think that this is very likely to stop people from doing something to achieve the things they pray for. It makes them feel better and gives them the belief to have done something - but would they behave better if they did not have this feel? I do not think so - if I look at all the bashing against vegans and vegetarians by people who just cannot handle with their moral inferiority, I imagine people bashing against hungry children or their parents or whoever because they cannot handle with their inaction - I do not see more people really doing something about it. Praying keeps them quiet at least. To summarize this: Prayers do not do harm.
That is why I wonder: Why are these people so enthusiastic about telling other people that prayers are useless, and keep them from praying? I think I know the answer, and I am afraid I cannot tell it without at least slightly insulting them: It is because of arrogance. Where admittedly some modern atheists (like modern christians and jews) want to make the world better, and probably think that their belief is the best way to achieve this, they also know when to defer that discussion. Say, for example, when visiting a sickbed - an example given in the video.
I know I know, priests visit sick people. Priests pray with and for them. But priests do usually not visit deadly sick atheists to proselytize them. Usually. I am sure that some of them will do that, and I do not want to claim that this is any better. I mean there is a difference between telling somebody that if he starts praying now he will go to heaven (which is not quite correct, though, the actual belief was that you only slumber and will awake at the doomsday), and telling him that he is just a better machine and all of his personality will disappear with the rot of his brain, even though this is probably the sad truth. But a good minister must just have a feeling for what is the best for the person. And just because there may be theists which do these things does not give atheists any right to do the same - that wold be like saying that war crimes are a legit answer on war crimes.
So after all, this brainwashing video has no positive effekt. It takes hope away from people, especially sick people, hope that might help them, hope that cannot harm anyone. It does not give any alternatives to theism, nor does it imply any political consequences. It does not even criticize theism in any way, and not even science is really taken into full account. It is destructive, without giving any advantage. It makes the world worse.
The last sentences in the video are "It is time to point out that the superstition of prayer, like all superstitions, is silly. And it is time for us to end the fraud.".
Why? Would that make the world better? No! It is just to increase the penis sizes of the video's creators.
Just that nobody has a chance of misunderstanding me (though I am sure that some people will misunderstand me because they want - like people believe in prayers because they want). It is good to give arguments against theism, basing on what theistic leaders have done in history, even though I do not share the opinion (as pointed out above). It is good to criticize the influence of fundamentalist christians in, say, the USA, and the influence of christian corporations in Germany and Europe.
But producing a a brainwashing video, taking something away which has, even scientifically, a good influence on people who believe in it, without giving an alternative, is not good. In my opinion, it is evil.
Not evil in a theistic sense, there will probably not come any devil and burn you in hell for it. Evil in a purely atheistic sense.
Momentan gibt es ja immer wieder Diskussionen darum, daß (ob, wieviel, ...) bei einem Atomenergieausstieg die Energiekosten bzw. Strompreise steigen werden. Natürlich werden sie steigen. Aber was mich daran nervt, ist daß niemand daran denkt (bzw. wenige daran denken/darüber schreiben), daß sie auch ohne Atomenergieausstieg steigen werden. Denn zum einen leben wir in einem inflationsbehafteten Wirtschaftssystem, zum anderen verbrauchen wir zur Stromerzeugung zumeist endliche Ressourcen, die allmählich knapp werden. Und je knapper ein Rohstoff wird, desto teurer wird er verkauft. Darum sind die Energiekosten die letzten Jahre gestiegen und sie werden weiter steigen, sei es jetzt mit oder ohne Atomenergieausstieg. Nur werden sie meiner Meinung nach bei einem Verzicht auf Atomkraft kurzfristig (Größenordnung Jahre) etwas stärker steigen, mittelfristig (Größenordnung Jahrzehnte) etwas schwächer steigen und damit langfristig etwas billiger sein wenn wir jetzt auf Atomkraft verzichten. Stecken wir nämlich jetzt so viel Geld in die sogenannten regenerativen Energiequellen (ich finde den Ausdruck regenerativ nicht gut, sie regenerieren sich nämlich nicht und sind auch endlich, aber sie gehen halt erst in Jahrmilliarden zur Neige und nicht in Jahrzehnten) wie wir es mal vor vielen Jahrzehnten in die Kernenergie gesteckt hatten, wird die regenerative Energie billiger sein, als die Kernenergie momentan dargestellt wird, die nämlich langfristige Folgekosten hat (Endlagerung, Unfälle, ...) die momentan einfach beim Strompreis kaum mitgezahlt werden. Das einzige was langfristig eine Rolle spielen wird, ist wieviele Gebiete wir durch die Atomenergie verstrahlt bekommen (Tschernobyl, Fukushima, ... (Das an deinem Wohnort nächste Kernkraftwerk könnte der dritte Eintrag in dieser Liste werden)) und wieviel Müll wir zu verwalten haben. Und das Geld für die Entwicklung regenerativer Energiequellen müssen wir so oder so investieren, spätestens wenn Uran, Kohle, Öl, Gas, ... alle zur Neige gehen.
Also bietet meiner Meinung nach die Atomkraft (in der aktuellen Situation) eine Möglichkeit unter großem Risiko kurzfristig Geld zu sparen, das wir aber mittelfristig deutlich wieder mehr zahlen müssen.
Source: krautchan
This time it is Skype.
Especially, after Microsoft bought Skype, this is - generally speaking - good news. Generally speaking. The dominance of Skype could have been easily prevented, in my opinion, if a few more people were interested in good - GOOD! - free VoIP solutions.
There is Ekiga. There is Twinkle. There is Jingle. They all use SIP-like protocols, which is the first fail, a fail that comes from the arrogance of software programmers. While the programmer does not have any problems with router reconfiguration, but has problems with a quarter of a second of additional latency which he would have to accept when allowing TCP connections, the usual user will accept a little higher latency, as long as he does not have to reconfigure everything.
Meanwhile, with the rise of Skype, most NATs support STUN and several other p2p-handshake-protocols well. This was not always the case.
Now put yourself in the users' perspective: You have your Windows-Box, which may still have NetMeeting, but in a very hidden place, and only working sometimes - with rather complicated configuration (direct IP adresses, etc.). And then you have Skype, which just works vitally everywhere - without further configuration.
This is not a coincidence. This is not just marketing. Skype was just better. Because Skype wanted to actually spread, while the awful pathetic hackeries of the free software community appeared to be mainly experiments to communicate with other hackers, after negotiating the actual connection parameters via phone.
And now, everyone uses Skype, except a few paranoid people who fear that it might spy their
This seems to be a common disease of the free software and open source community. There are at least three (!!!) reimplementations of what could have become a flash player, but not a single free implementation of a usable Java Applet Plugin or SVG player. Reverse engineering must be great fun.
Hopefully, there will be more success with Skype.
Ein Zwanzigjähriger lässt aus Versehen sein Gehirn zu Hause liegen, missachtet Warnungen die eigentlich jedem fünfzehn Jahre jüngeren Spielkind bekannt sein sollten, schießt in der Öffentlichkeit mit einer Weichluftpistole auf Straßenschilder. Es handelt sich um harte Plastikkügelchen. Ein Treffer tut weh, ein Treffer ins Auge kann vermutlich böse sein.
Und wenn man etwas zu viel Hautcreme verwendet kann es auch am Hals zu Wunden kommen, wie es anscheinend einer Neunzehnjährigen passiert ist - also das mit der Verletzung, das mit der Hautcreme ist eine mögliche Erklärung, vielleicht war sie auch anderweitig krank, ich habe keine Ahnung, die Weichluftpistolen die ich kenne verletzen einen gesunden Menschen jedenfalls nicht - sie tun ihm weh und verursachen blaue Flecken, was Grund genug ist damit nicht auf Lebewesen zu schießen und soetwas idealerweise garnicht zu besitzen (zumal es irgendwie ohnehin langweilig ist).
Zumindest Bürger können für so vielDummhÜbermut bestraft werden, und so wird dem Zwanzigjährigen erstmal seine Weichluftpistole weggenommen und die Frau zeigte ihn an. Wegen gefährlicher Körperverletzung - es ist immerhin eine Wunde am Hals!!!1! Nicht auszudenken was passiert wäre, hätte er einen Fingernagel getroffen!
Die Polizei indes meinte, laut obigem Bericht, sie wollen diese Waffe auf Spielzeug-Eigenschaft weiter untersuchen. Was soll das bitte heißen? Ich habe auch in Erinnerung, dass Weichluftgewehre zumindest früher ab vierzehn Jahren kaufbar waren, nicht dass ich mich jemals für die Dinger ernsthaft interessiert hätte, jedenfalls nicht ernsthafter als für Laser oder Hochvakuumdioden. Und soweit ich mich erinnere wurde ich durch mit Gummibändchen beschleunigte Bleistifte bereits schwerer verletzt als ich es jemals von Weichluftgewehren auch nur gehört habe. In den falschen Händen ist alles gefährlich.
Dass er sich wegen Körperverletzung und überhaupt dem Schießen solcher Dinger in der Öffentlichkeit verantworten muss ist klar und richtig, aber ich frage mich, inwieweit die Polizei hier die Entscheidungsgewalt hat, sofern das Gewehr legal erworben wurde können sie doch wohl den Typen alleine wegen des Besitzes nicht belangen?
"Eltern sollten darauf achten, ihren Kindern 'sinnvollere Geschenke' zukommen zu lassen.", so lautet am Ende jedenfalls der Schlusssatz des Artikels.
Dem kann man sich eigentlich nur anschließen, und zweifelsohne ist ein Zwanzigjähriger beim Erstehen einer Spielzeugpistole auf seine Eltern angewiesen, die es ihm natürlich verwehren sollten. Heute ist es eine Weichluftpistole, und morgen eine PlayStation mit gefährlichen Killerspielen.
Da gibt es nun wirklich sinnvollere Beschäftigungen! Zum Beispiel Informationsveranstaltungen der Bundeswehr. Und überhaupt, Kinder treiben doch bekanntlich zu wenig Sport, ein Sportverein wäre vielleicht das Richtige; wie wäre es zum Beispiel mit einer Jahresmitgliedschaft im lokalen Schützenverein?
Und wenn man etwas zu viel Hautcreme verwendet kann es auch am Hals zu Wunden kommen, wie es anscheinend einer Neunzehnjährigen passiert ist - also das mit der Verletzung, das mit der Hautcreme ist eine mögliche Erklärung, vielleicht war sie auch anderweitig krank, ich habe keine Ahnung, die Weichluftpistolen die ich kenne verletzen einen gesunden Menschen jedenfalls nicht - sie tun ihm weh und verursachen blaue Flecken, was Grund genug ist damit nicht auf Lebewesen zu schießen und soetwas idealerweise garnicht zu besitzen (zumal es irgendwie ohnehin langweilig ist).
Zumindest Bürger können für so viel
Die Polizei indes meinte, laut obigem Bericht, sie wollen diese Waffe auf Spielzeug-Eigenschaft weiter untersuchen. Was soll das bitte heißen? Ich habe auch in Erinnerung, dass Weichluftgewehre zumindest früher ab vierzehn Jahren kaufbar waren, nicht dass ich mich jemals für die Dinger ernsthaft interessiert hätte, jedenfalls nicht ernsthafter als für Laser oder Hochvakuumdioden. Und soweit ich mich erinnere wurde ich durch mit Gummibändchen beschleunigte Bleistifte bereits schwerer verletzt als ich es jemals von Weichluftgewehren auch nur gehört habe. In den falschen Händen ist alles gefährlich.
Dass er sich wegen Körperverletzung und überhaupt dem Schießen solcher Dinger in der Öffentlichkeit verantworten muss ist klar und richtig, aber ich frage mich, inwieweit die Polizei hier die Entscheidungsgewalt hat, sofern das Gewehr legal erworben wurde können sie doch wohl den Typen alleine wegen des Besitzes nicht belangen?
"Eltern sollten darauf achten, ihren Kindern 'sinnvollere Geschenke' zukommen zu lassen.", so lautet am Ende jedenfalls der Schlusssatz des Artikels.
Dem kann man sich eigentlich nur anschließen, und zweifelsohne ist ein Zwanzigjähriger beim Erstehen einer Spielzeugpistole auf seine Eltern angewiesen, die es ihm natürlich verwehren sollten. Heute ist es eine Weichluftpistole, und morgen eine PlayStation mit gefährlichen Killerspielen.
Da gibt es nun wirklich sinnvollere Beschäftigungen! Zum Beispiel Informationsveranstaltungen der Bundeswehr. Und überhaupt, Kinder treiben doch bekanntlich zu wenig Sport, ein Sportverein wäre vielleicht das Richtige; wie wäre es zum Beispiel mit einer Jahresmitgliedschaft im lokalen Schützenverein?
Jahrzehntelang hat das Insektizid Dichlordiphenyltrichlorethan Bauern gute Ernten bei wenig Verbiss beschert. Reaktionäre Politik führte zu einem Verbot der umstrittenen Substanz. Und ihr folgten weitere Substanzen, sodass heute nur noch sehr wenige Chemikalien in der Landwirtschaft genutzt werden können.
Die verheerenden Folgen dieses utopischen Ökologismus beschert uns nun die aktuelle Seuche. Enterohämorrhagische Escherichia Coli, im menschlichen Körper nicht durch Antibiotika zu besiegen, hätte durch geeignete Bakterizide bereits auf dem Feld eingedemmt werden können, doch naturgläubige Bewegungen verhindern einen breiteren Einsatz derartiger Substanzen in der Landwirtschaft.
Dementsprechend hielten es die Experten der Partei für den gemäßigten Fortschritt im Rahmen der Gesetze, PFGFIRDG, von Anfang an für Unsinn, dass spanische Gurken kontaminiert sein könnten, denn der landwirtschaftliche Einsatz von toxischen Chemikalien ist in Spanien bekanntlich erheblich populärer als in Deutschland. Doch auch dort leider immernoch zu unpopulär.
Es zeigt sich nun, dass die sich ergebenden Folgen einer ganz anderen Kategorie angehören als die erwarteten Konsequenzen von Dichlordiphenyltrichlorethan.
DDT wurde Jahrzehntelang erfolgreich eingesetzt, ohne größere darauf zurückzuführende Zwischenfälle. Für die PFGFIRDG als pragmatische Partei des Fortschritts gibt es daher nur eine Konsequenz aus den aktuellen Ereignissen: Die Wiedereinführung von Dichlordiphenyltrichlorethan und zusätzlicher Bakterizide.
Desweiteren fordert die PFGFIRDG, dass die Erlaubnis für Lebensmittelbestrahlung uneingeschränkt auf alle Lebensmittel ausgeweitet wird, ein Ausbau von Lebensmittelbestrahlungsanlagen in Richtung Kunde ist ebenfalls ein Ziel: Erst wenn jeder Supermarkt eine Kammer besitzt, in der Kunden ihre Lebensmittel radioaktiv bestrahlen können, ist sowohl Sicherheit als auch echte Freiheit - die Entscheidungsfreiheit des Verbrauchers - gegeben. Durch den Atomausstieg, den die PFGFIRDG begrüßt, insbesondere da er in der jetzigen Form wohl am ehesteh ihrer Agenda entspricht, sollte bald genügend radioaktives Material vorhanden sein, um alle Supermärkte auszustatten.
Die PFGFIRDG ist eine pragmatische Partei der Mitte, die die bestehenden Gesetze respektiert und sich für den Einsatz bewährter Mittel einsetzt. Sie ist die einzige Alternative.
Die verheerenden Folgen dieses utopischen Ökologismus beschert uns nun die aktuelle Seuche. Enterohämorrhagische Escherichia Coli, im menschlichen Körper nicht durch Antibiotika zu besiegen, hätte durch geeignete Bakterizide bereits auf dem Feld eingedemmt werden können, doch naturgläubige Bewegungen verhindern einen breiteren Einsatz derartiger Substanzen in der Landwirtschaft.
Dementsprechend hielten es die Experten der Partei für den gemäßigten Fortschritt im Rahmen der Gesetze, PFGFIRDG, von Anfang an für Unsinn, dass spanische Gurken kontaminiert sein könnten, denn der landwirtschaftliche Einsatz von toxischen Chemikalien ist in Spanien bekanntlich erheblich populärer als in Deutschland. Doch auch dort leider immernoch zu unpopulär.
Es zeigt sich nun, dass die sich ergebenden Folgen einer ganz anderen Kategorie angehören als die erwarteten Konsequenzen von Dichlordiphenyltrichlorethan.
DDT wurde Jahrzehntelang erfolgreich eingesetzt, ohne größere darauf zurückzuführende Zwischenfälle. Für die PFGFIRDG als pragmatische Partei des Fortschritts gibt es daher nur eine Konsequenz aus den aktuellen Ereignissen: Die Wiedereinführung von Dichlordiphenyltrichlorethan und zusätzlicher Bakterizide.
Desweiteren fordert die PFGFIRDG, dass die Erlaubnis für Lebensmittelbestrahlung uneingeschränkt auf alle Lebensmittel ausgeweitet wird, ein Ausbau von Lebensmittelbestrahlungsanlagen in Richtung Kunde ist ebenfalls ein Ziel: Erst wenn jeder Supermarkt eine Kammer besitzt, in der Kunden ihre Lebensmittel radioaktiv bestrahlen können, ist sowohl Sicherheit als auch echte Freiheit - die Entscheidungsfreiheit des Verbrauchers - gegeben. Durch den Atomausstieg, den die PFGFIRDG begrüßt, insbesondere da er in der jetzigen Form wohl am ehesteh ihrer Agenda entspricht, sollte bald genügend radioaktives Material vorhanden sein, um alle Supermärkte auszustatten.
Die PFGFIRDG ist eine pragmatische Partei der Mitte, die die bestehenden Gesetze respektiert und sich für den Einsatz bewährter Mittel einsetzt. Sie ist die einzige Alternative.
