Slashdot Mirror

... as a pebble disturbs the stillness of the pond? [Ti Kwan Leep]

A programmer who is too proud to think about how other people solved the problem they're looking at is much more likely to invent a wheel with some number of road-contact surfaces "n" where n > 1.

UNIX has survived (indeed thrives) as a result of a number of major refactoring efforts, directed not only at improving the internal architecture, but even the underlying abstractions. Consider Mach and the microkernel revolution, which resulted in nearly every major operating system kernel being refactored to accomodate the design abstractions described in Programming Under Mach. And now class, let us rejoin the mind to the body and gaze into the heart of the candle in meditation.

You can also get the Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2B for System Builders version from Amazon and save yourself $115 over the standard version ($154 vs $269). The existence of the system builder edition is one of Microsoft's better kept secrets. I think there's a Vista SB version as well.

Hrm... you seem unaware that the very desktop (and mobile) friendly Macintosh and the coming generation of iPhones, iPods, and probably other digital appliances from Apple are based on a real UNIX underneath? The UNIX foundation of the system design is partly responsible for the rapid pace of evolution of Mac OS X.

Although extreme hubris might combine with extreme resources (both dollars and talent) at Google to lead to the creation of an entirely new OS from the ground up, there may not be any need for that. The UNIX wheel is relatively round these days, particularly considering the Mac OS X / OSX example. Better yet, UNIX is nicely modular. If anyone devises a clever way to "avoid buffer overflow situations" it seems likely, on the basis of past evidence concerning technology development and adoption within UNIX systems in general, that it would be easier to integrate that language and compiler, or whatever technology it happens to be, into a UNIX operating system than it would be to create a fully capable system on top of it from whole cloth.

Since you seem genuinely interested in the topic, here are some reasonable books on operating system design which you might enjoy.

The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System
Design of the UNIX Operating System
Operating System Design: The Xinu Approach
UNIX Internals: The New Frontiers
Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach
Solaris Internals


The other issues you raise are largely issues of interface design, which the open source community seems to do rather poorly, or at least not as well as it does other things. Google certainly does not need to re-invent the entire operating system wheel to improve URL integration, or provide a "minimalist" desktop interface, for example. They don't even need to strip features, really. Mac OS X, for example, provides enough of a minimalist default interface that novice computer users are comfortable with it. A Linux based OS from Google could take a similar approach, perhaps being even more spartan in the basic features, if that's really a desirable goal (which is another question entirely).

Hrm... you seem unaware that the very desktop (and mobile) friendly Macintosh and the coming generation of iPhones, iPods, and probably other digital appliances from Apple are based on a real UNIX underneath? The UNIX foundation of the system design is partly responsible for the rapid pace of evolution of Mac OS X.

Although extreme hubris might combine with extreme resources (both dollars and talent) at Google to lead to the creation of an entirely new OS from the ground up, there may not be any need for that. The UNIX wheel is relatively round these days, particularly considering the Mac OS X / OSX example. Better yet, UNIX is nicely modular. If anyone devises a clever way to "avoid buffer overflow situations" it seems likely, on the basis of past evidence concerning technology development and adoption within UNIX systems in general, that it would be easier to integrate that language and compiler, or whatever technology it happens to be, into a UNIX operating system than it would be to create a fully capable system on top of it from whole cloth.

Since you seem genuinely interested in the topic, here are some reasonable books on operating system design which you might enjoy.

The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System
Design of the UNIX Operating System
Operating System Design: The Xinu Approach
UNIX Internals: The New Frontiers
Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach
Solaris Internals


The other issues you raise are largely issues of interface design, which the open source community seems to do rather poorly, or at least not as well as it does other things. Google certainly does not need to re-invent the entire operating system wheel to improve URL integration, or provide a "minimalist" desktop interface, for example. They don't even need to strip features, really. Mac OS X, for example, provides enough of a minimalist default interface that novice computer users are comfortable with it. A Linux based OS from Google could take a similar approach, perhaps being even more spartan in the basic features, if that's really a desirable goal (which is another question entirely).

Hrm... you seem unaware that the very desktop (and mobile) friendly Macintosh and the coming generation of iPhones, iPods, and probably other digital appliances from Apple are based on a real UNIX underneath? The UNIX foundation of the system design is partly responsible for the rapid pace of evolution of Mac OS X.

Although extreme hubris might combine with extreme resources (both dollars and talent) at Google to lead to the creation of an entirely new OS from the ground up, there may not be any need for that. The UNIX wheel is relatively round these days, particularly considering the Mac OS X / OSX example. Better yet, UNIX is nicely modular. If anyone devises a clever way to "avoid buffer overflow situations" it seems likely, on the basis of past evidence concerning technology development and adoption within UNIX systems in general, that it would be easier to integrate that language and compiler, or whatever technology it happens to be, into a UNIX operating system than it would be to create a fully capable system on top of it from whole cloth.

Since you seem genuinely interested in the topic, here are some reasonable books on operating system design which you might enjoy.

The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System
Design of the UNIX Operating System
Operating System Design: The Xinu Approach
UNIX Internals: The New Frontiers
Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach
Solaris Internals


The other issues you raise are largely issues of interface design, which the open source community seems to do rather poorly, or at least not as well as it does other things. Google certainly does not need to re-invent the entire operating system wheel to improve URL integration, or provide a "minimalist" desktop interface, for example. They don't even need to strip features, really. Mac OS X, for example, provides enough of a minimalist default interface that novice computer users are comfortable with it. A Linux based OS from Google could take a similar approach, perhaps being even more spartan in the basic features, if that's really a desirable goal (which is another question entirely).

Hrm... you seem unaware that the very desktop (and mobile) friendly Macintosh and the coming generation of iPhones, iPods, and probably other digital appliances from Apple are based on a real UNIX underneath? The UNIX foundation of the system design is partly responsible for the rapid pace of evolution of Mac OS X.

Although extreme hubris might combine with extreme resources (both dollars and talent) at Google to lead to the creation of an entirely new OS from the ground up, there may not be any need for that. The UNIX wheel is relatively round these days, particularly considering the Mac OS X / OSX example. Better yet, UNIX is nicely modular. If anyone devises a clever way to "avoid buffer overflow situations" it seems likely, on the basis of past evidence concerning technology development and adoption within UNIX systems in general, that it would be easier to integrate that language and compiler, or whatever technology it happens to be, into a UNIX operating system than it would be to create a fully capable system on top of it from whole cloth.

Since you seem genuinely interested in the topic, here are some reasonable books on operating system design which you might enjoy.

The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System
Design of the UNIX Operating System
Operating System Design: The Xinu Approach
UNIX Internals: The New Frontiers
Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach
Solaris Internals


The other issues you raise are largely issues of interface design, which the open source community seems to do rather poorly, or at least not as well as it does other things. Google certainly does not need to re-invent the entire operating system wheel to improve URL integration, or provide a "minimalist" desktop interface, for example. They don't even need to strip features, really. Mac OS X, for example, provides enough of a minimalist default interface that novice computer users are comfortable with it. A Linux based OS from Google could take a similar approach, perhaps being even more spartan in the basic features, if that's really a desirable goal (which is another question entirely).

Hrm... you seem unaware that the very desktop (and mobile) friendly Macintosh and the coming generation of iPhones, iPods, and probably other digital appliances from Apple are based on a real UNIX underneath? The UNIX foundation of the system design is partly responsible for the rapid pace of evolution of Mac OS X.

Although extreme hubris might combine with extreme resources (both dollars and talent) at Google to lead to the creation of an entirely new OS from the ground up, there may not be any need for that. The UNIX wheel is relatively round these days, particularly considering the Mac OS X / OSX example. Better yet, UNIX is nicely modular. If anyone devises a clever way to "avoid buffer overflow situations" it seems likely, on the basis of past evidence concerning technology development and adoption within UNIX systems in general, that it would be easier to integrate that language and compiler, or whatever technology it happens to be, into a UNIX operating system than it would be to create a fully capable system on top of it from whole cloth.

Since you seem genuinely interested in the topic, here are some reasonable books on operating system design which you might enjoy.

The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System
Design of the UNIX Operating System
Operating System Design: The Xinu Approach
UNIX Internals: The New Frontiers
Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach
Solaris Internals


The other issues you raise are largely issues of interface design, which the open source community seems to do rather poorly, or at least not as well as it does other things. Google certainly does not need to re-invent the entire operating system wheel to improve URL integration, or provide a "minimalist" desktop interface, for example. They don't even need to strip features, really. Mac OS X, for example, provides enough of a minimalist default interface that novice computer users are comfortable with it. A Linux based OS from Google could take a similar approach, perhaps being even more spartan in the basic features, if that's really a desirable goal (which is another question entirely).

Hrm... you seem unaware that the very desktop (and mobile) friendly Macintosh and the coming generation of iPhones, iPods, and probably other digital appliances from Apple are based on a real UNIX underneath? The UNIX foundation of the system design is partly responsible for the rapid pace of evolution of Mac OS X.

Although extreme hubris might combine with extreme resources (both dollars and talent) at Google to lead to the creation of an entirely new OS from the ground up, there may not be any need for that. The UNIX wheel is relatively round these days, particularly considering the Mac OS X / OSX example. Better yet, UNIX is nicely modular. If anyone devises a clever way to "avoid buffer overflow situations" it seems likely, on the basis of past evidence concerning technology development and adoption within UNIX systems in general, that it would be easier to integrate that language and compiler, or whatever technology it happens to be, into a UNIX operating system than it would be to create a fully capable system on top of it from whole cloth.

Since you seem genuinely interested in the topic, here are some reasonable books on operating system design which you might enjoy.

The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System
Design of the UNIX Operating System
Operating System Design: The Xinu Approach
UNIX Internals: The New Frontiers
Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach
Solaris Internals


The other issues you raise are largely issues of interface design, which the open source community seems to do rather poorly, or at least not as well as it does other things. Google certainly does not need to re-invent the entire operating system wheel to improve URL integration, or provide a "minimalist" desktop interface, for example. They don't even need to strip features, really. Mac OS X, for example, provides enough of a minimalist default interface that novice computer users are comfortable with it. A Linux based OS from Google could take a similar approach, perhaps being even more spartan in the basic features, if that's really a desirable goal (which is another question entirely).

Really, this is not even a competition. Let's put up two sets that cost the same and are exclusive to each format. Still then, Blu-Ray is going to win because it's the more popular format.

Are you sure? Check out the top-sellers on Amazon today: http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/dvd

#1 Planet Earth - DVD ($53.99)
#6 Planet Earth - HD-DVD ($66.95)
#25 Planet Earth - Blu-Ray ($66.95)

I don't own any HD movies or players, and couldn't care less who wins this "war", but what is everyone arguing about? Unless you want to attribute the above data to the demographics of the people that tend to buy movies for each type of player, it appears that HD-DVD is the vastly preferred HD format. Even if you do make the demographic argument, I'm skeptical that is enough to account for such a large difference.

They don't give out details because it makes sense not to early in development. From what I've read from the book "Masters of Doom", John Romero used to do a lot of boasting about new games before they were really ready to showcase. This became a problem because he would say stuff like, "well our game is going to do blah and blah", which is likely what they wanted at that stage in development. But maybe a few months down the road they decide that's not really want they wanted, now they have to deal with this hype that was generated for something they no longer intend to do. So thats why they don't give out much detail about their projects until it is much closer to being ready to ship.

I think long building hype sets you up for failure... Daikatana and Duke Nukem Forever?

I think we're a long way off from seeing computer controlled characters that aren't merely following scripts


http://www.amazon.com/Scripts-People-Live-Transact ional-Analysis/dp/0802132103/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-4 262617-6059111

But suppose the mayor of your town comes and burns down your house one night.

You're falling prey to a linguistic trap in English. I refer you to Larry Niven's short story "Grammar Lesson" (collected most recently in The Draco Tavern) to help you understand the important difference between the intrinsic, extrinsic, and relation possessives in the Chirpsithra's native Lottl. Grasping that can really alter your worldview.

Now, how does one alter the climate for an internet site...?

No imagination required, its pretty much spelled right out for you in Dale Brown's "Storming Heaven" and that was published in 1994

That altruism is hardwired into the brain (selected for by evolution) was already published nearly 30 years ago by Edward O. Wilson in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book On Human Nature (recently had to write a thesis paper on the subject). I'm surprised this article doesn't even mention that.

Are you ready to claim sovereign rights to your land?

Why not?

For a good discussion of that subject, see http://www.amazon.com/Good-Be-King-Foundation-Cons titutional/dp/1594110964/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-56272 96-5318468?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180583247&sr=1-1


A private land owner getting a decision like that is the kind of thing that would get the constitution amended in the U.S., and would make the Queen angry in Canada.

It doesn't matter what the Constitution says, or what the Queen thinks. Sovereign individuals are just that: sovereign. We are not subjects of the United States government. "We The (Sovereign) People" created the government, and it serves at our pleasure, and we can replace it, destroy it, or ignore it.

The only reason people obey laws and rulings they fundamentally disagree with is threat of force. And right now the US government (and it's accomplices at the State and Local levels) employ more men with guns than any individual can hope to overcome. But that doesn't change the underlying principles. We are all free, sovereign individuals, with absolutely inalienable rights, not subjects.

None of this is - btw - an argument against voluntarily forming associations (call the governments, or whatever) for various purposes where it makes sense for sovereign individuals to work in a communal fashion for the greater good of all. But the point is, any sort of construct of that nature is artificial, created, and cannot preempt the inalienable rights of Freemen.

In the meantime, I'll be avoiding clicking on Rugbyjock's entries.

Add a cheap PCI IDE card and forget FC. It is highly unlikely you need the throughput.

Like administrator skills - the very fact that your asking slashdot about this stuff means that you're inquisitive about this and that puts you far ahead of most of the dum dums I see in the skill shortage world which is IT in Australia at the moment. The number one cause of data loss is a badly skilled administrator. If you understand the system you've deployed and looked through the different scenarios of data loss and have recovery strategies in place, then you've probably covered most of your bases already. And that's the kicker isn't it; it's not so much about what you purchase as it is about having a well thought out process in place when you make one of these decisions. When I was a system admin, the best book I ever read was "the practice of system and network administration" http://www.amazon.com/Practice-System-Network-Admi nistration/dp/0201702711/. It's probably a few years out of date now, but should still have a heap on the process of making purchases like this. That used to be one of my favourite reads... but then someone borrowed it at work (thanks whoever took it yeh bastard... hehe).

Why do you assume that a person teaching altruism has selfish motives?

Because it is a psychological fact. There is no action that any human being will take which does not contain a selfish aspect. In other words, if the human considers taking an action and asks himself, "What's in it for me?" and comes up with nothing, then the human will not perform that action.

I'm going to make a grand assumption here that you're a pretty liberal person. That said, would you consider donating money to the Ku Klux Klan? It would be a completely selfless action. Nothing in it for you. Totally altruistic. Donating money to poor and oppressed minorities would be more selfish of you, since it would help people that you like and that would make you feel good.

how can altruism arising from selfish motives be a bad thing if the alternative is selfishness anyway?

I never argued that altruism could arise from selfish motives as I believe such an idea is bogus. Furthermore, you assume that selfishness is immoral. It is not. Selfishness is amoral. Morality comes from our choices in how to act upon the selfshness from which we shouldn't try to escape. This is a tough concept to grasp if you've been taught that "selfishness is wrong" for your whole life. The lesson "selfishness is wrong" may be somewhat appropriate for kindergarteners (and also for those grown-ups who see great wisdom in certain books), but as people gain in understanding and wisdom than more nuanced lessons in morality are required.

Do you believe that it is always wrong to tell a lie?

"Generosity is inborn. Altruism is a learned perversion." - Robert Heinlein, quite a few years before this study came out.

To say that altruism is "learned" is too passive. It is not only learned (as one can learn things from cause-and-effect observations in the natural world). It is also taught, as in, instigated by other human beings who have their own selfish (and often sinister) motives.

Evil person: You should think about other people's needs instead of your own.
Potential dupe: (recognizing the existence of 6+ billion "other people") Which other people?
Evil person: (dons politician hat) That's my job to tell you whom you should think about. Pay attention!
Potential dupe: But what about my own needs?
Evil person: How selfish of you to ask that question! (dons social engineer hat) Now, on to the schools!

Functional programming discourages the use of states use whenever possible, and attempts to separate it out in the cases when it is required.

If you're at all familiar with Design Patterns (the book or the concept), I'd like to point you towards Domain-Driven Design. In particular, "Side-Effect-Free Function" and "Value Object" are two patterns for imperative programming languages that discourage unnecessary state-dependence. One of the requirements for effective unit-testing in imperative languages is the ability to reduce state-dependence (it's much safer to test return values of objects than to try to test internal state).

Maybe it's just a little bit of the functional-programming mentality getting absorbed into the mainstream (OO/imperative), but the goal of reducing side-effects is increasingly common with modern software engineering methodologies

Wow, I can't believe your post was not modded up! Geesh, people really don't read anymore! No self-respecting nerd/geek should miss this reference to the classic http://www.amazon.com/Fahrenheit-451-Ray-Bradbury/ dp/0345342968/

Ah yes, Richard Clark, the Digital Pearl Harbor guy.

Digital Pearl Harbor? Sounds like someone has been stealing ideas from Winn Schwartau:
http://www.amazon.com/Pearl-Harbor-Dot-Winn-Schwar tau/dp/0962870064/ref=sr_1_3/002-3396959-2679227?i e=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180403531&sr=8-3

-FL

Ah yes, aspartame, the health bugaboo du jour among internet users.

sodium benzoate is an additive that's been used since the early 1900's

If it were dangerous, there are plenty of scientists out there who'd have figured it out long before now.

Even if you don't believe that, you have to at least agree that over 100 years of use of this additive, we'd have seen at least some these alleged effects by now in the general populace, yes?

Yet people continue to live longer, healthier lives even as we use more products containing these additives.

Obesity directly kills hundreds of thousands of people every single year, yet we are constantly looking for ways to mentally justify continuing on that path.

Jarjarthejedi,

I aplaud your willingness to take a skeptical view of claims made by science. I would, in fact, extend this idea to say that all claims made by humanity should be viewed skeptically, be they religious, scientific, philosophical or historical. What you are criticizing is the uncertainty (or doubt) inherent in all of the endeavors of mankind. Pardon me for my boldness, but I would like to offer a book recommendation that might help you to understand where mankind is in terms of the epistemological underpinnings of science. This book talks about the uncertainty inherent in all scientific facts and how that then informs the conclusions drawn while analyzing those facts. I don't want to tell you what to think and I don't want to push you into intellectul pursuits in which you have no interest. But if you are serious about criticizing science, this book presents as succinct and well-written an account of how scientists have defended the value of their pursuits as I have encountered. I always find that the best way to criticize something or someone is to, as fully as is possible, understand the arguments that they are making.

The book I'm talking about is called "What Is This Thing Called Science?". It was written by A.F. Chalmers. I commend this work to you and anyone else reading this post that has an interest in understanding how scientits can claim the knowledge that they claim.

JFGI

SiK iPod charger w/ line out audio

Talk to me in 3.5 years and lets see if Jericho is still in the top 100 of amazon sales.

Big deal. Check out George W. Bush's desktop computer.

> Disclaimer: I own neither an iPod nor a Zune. I have an off brand music player.

I think it's perfectly fair to go ahead and lump the Zune in with "off-brand". IIRC from the amazon xmas sales charts, the Zune was behind Sansa even.

And now there are a couple of sansa's and more ipods that you can count in the top 100. not a zune to be found.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/r ef=pd_ts_h

Even though Anderson's The Little Mermaid is in the public domain, if I made an animated movie, they would certainly fight me in court.

This report inspired the book Planet of Slums by Mike Davis, who also wrote an great article in NLR that has disappeared behind a pay-curtain. But you can read a google cache of it here.

No governments represent Muslims or Islam at all. None. As in not a single one. The law in those countries is reflective of the desires of those governments to retain power, not improve life.

If you want to see what an Islamic state would look like, look into proper sources of history on the Ottoman Empire, which was destroyed by WWI. Since the allied powers took over colonial rule in the middle east, no country in that region has been representative of Islam. They have all, one way or another, been placed in power by outside states. For a comprehensive history, I recommend this book.

I bought the Matsunichi Photoblitz 7'' photoframe with 1GB sd card for 80 bucks in total (from amazon). Works very well. It does not have any networking protocol, but I consider it a plus - keeps the price down. Since memory cards are so cheap, might as well pop for a couple more and get it done with.

Personally, it's not even something I'd bother with. What a lot of people forget is that a hell of a lot of films aren't really worth watching in HD. Whilst big things like Lord of the Rings, The Matrix or Star Wars would look great on a big screen in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, there's a hell of a lot of movies worth watching (Clerks, American Werewolf, Animal House etc) which would give nothing in a hi-def format, and may well look worse than regular DVD. In most cases, regular DVDs would provide pretty much the same experience at a much better price.

Personally, one reason I would look seriously at next gen formats would be if they provided entire TV shows on one or two discs. Same quality, possibly even same price, but hell of a space saver. But I doubt that will happen soon :)

Personally, it's not even something I'd bother with. What a lot of people forget is that a hell of a lot of films aren't really worth watching in HD. Whilst big things like Lord of the Rings, The Matrix or Star Wars would look great on a big screen in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, there's a hell of a lot of movies worth watching (Clerks, American Werewolf, Animal House etc) which would give nothing in a hi-def format, and may well look worse than regular DVD. In most cases, regular DVDs would provide pretty much the same experience at a much better price.

Personally, one reason I would look seriously at next gen formats would be if they provided entire TV shows on one or two discs. Same quality, possibly even same price, but hell of a space saver. But I doubt that will happen soon :)

Personally, it's not even something I'd bother with. What a lot of people forget is that a hell of a lot of films aren't really worth watching in HD. Whilst big things like Lord of the Rings, The Matrix or Star Wars would look great on a big screen in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, there's a hell of a lot of movies worth watching (Clerks, American Werewolf, Animal House etc) which would give nothing in a hi-def format, and may well look worse than regular DVD. In most cases, regular DVDs would provide pretty much the same experience at a much better price.

Personally, one reason I would look seriously at next gen formats would be if they provided entire TV shows on one or two discs. Same quality, possibly even same price, but hell of a space saver. But I doubt that will happen soon :)

Personally, it's not even something I'd bother with. What a lot of people forget is that a hell of a lot of films aren't really worth watching in HD. Whilst big things like Lord of the Rings, The Matrix or Star Wars would look great on a big screen in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, there's a hell of a lot of movies worth watching (Clerks, American Werewolf, Animal House etc) which would give nothing in a hi-def format, and may well look worse than regular DVD. In most cases, regular DVDs would provide pretty much the same experience at a much better price.

Personally, one reason I would look seriously at next gen formats would be if they provided entire TV shows on one or two discs. Same quality, possibly even same price, but hell of a space saver. But I doubt that will happen soon :)

Hitler was raised a Catholic, but expressed nothing but contempt for Christianity later in life.

Formally, Hitler never left the Roman Catholic church. Hitler never stopped to pay his due fees to the church (called "Kirchensteuer", "church tax" in Germany and Austria). He is said to have been a regular attendant at church services.

On the other hand, Hitler never has been excommunicated by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, either.

An interesting read: "Der Glaube des Adolf Hitler - Anatomie einer politischen Religiosität" (The Faith of Adolf Hitler. Anatomy of a political religiosity), by historian Friedrich Heer.

One of theses of this book is that Hitler's anti-semitic views have been continuously derived from those held by major Roman Catholic leaders and institutions during Hitler's youth in Austria.

From N. Ravitch's review of the book
"It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush", by Joe Conason:

"Those who find fascistic tendencies abundantly present in religious bodies are often thrown the example of Hitler's alleged opposition to religion in general and Christianity in particular. This ignores much scholarship (by such historians as Richard Steigmann-Gall in THE HOLY REICH, AND Friedrich Heer in DAS GLAUBEN DES ADOLF HITLERS (The Faith of Adolf Hitler) which demonstrates how fully prepared German Protestants and later German Catholics were to accept Nazi policies and doctrines. It was because both religious Christians and Nazis shared a hatred of modernity, progress, rationalism, social change, and Jews."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A10EW5 N83RTO27/102-9716125-4187365?ie=UTF8&display=publi c&sort_by=MostRecentReview&page=1

Faith, obedience to God (or whatever the leader says that God meant, truth be told) and adherence to the group's internal norms are the only virtues. They hate a free, tolerant society for the very values and qualities that we love it for. But we can't very well shoot them all, because, well, that isn't very nice. But what do we do with them? They will continually try to co-opt, undermine, and degrade the freedom we care about.

And it isn't just freedom that suffers--intellectual integrity goes out the window as we try to accomodate them. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology, but how many teachers have to tiptoe around it, along with the age of the Earth and who knows how many other subjects, because they might "offend" a subset of the religious among them? And now we're editing one of the most central facts of the 20th century out of existence because of yet more religious fundamentalists. Fantastic.

I read this back in 86, a year after it was published in 85. Recently it was republished with a new afterword by the author. So now it's "retro history" but still great if you want to learn about the people behind a bunch of the technology :

http://www.amazon.com/Tools-Thought-History-Mind-E xpanding-Technology/dp/0262681153/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/ 002-1089548-0663244?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179948333 &sr=8-2

Exley was a pioneer. He literally wrote the book on cave diving and was the first person in the world to log over 1,000 cave dives. Slashdotters may also be interested to know that he was a North Florida math teacher who wrote his own software ("Dr. X") to help calculate gas mixes etc. during deep dives into the many caves which are part of the Florida Aquifer system. I submitted a story a few years ago on the tenth anniversary of his death but it was rejected -- glad to see he's finally being mentioned here.

"The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as 'What shall I do tomorrow?' and 'What job shall I take?'"

I absolutely hate linking to stores, but I can't find a good review of a book that covers this issue well anywhere else. There are probably much better books out there, but this is the best one I know of.

Government Doesn't Work!

As opposed to racial profiling.

Hell, while we are at it, why not stop the nasal profiling too? No more eyebrow profiling, eye color profiling, none of that.

In case the sarcasm went right over your head, all suspect descriptions are useless if you can't use them to search for the criminal. Profiling is statistically driven; if a greater proportion of crimes are committed by members of a particular minority, other members of that minority will see more hassle. If you don't like that, address the problem of why certain minorities are overrepresented in the criminal set, instead of tying the hands of law enforcement.

As opposed to beating suspects mercilessly when they present no danger to the officer.

I suggest you get off your armchair and try doing a ride-along for a day or two with officers in tough neighborhoods, and you'll see why they are so much more pre-emptive with subduing suspects than looks necessary from here. Along those lines, once you are done with the ride-along, try going into that neighborhood on your own and pick a fight with a few meth heads. Once the word "berserker" has popped into your head (assuming some bullets haven't) enough times, then you can go home.

As opposed to taking their sweet time to respond to inner-city disturbances while rushing to rich neighborhoods.

After doing the above, you won't spout this nonsense so readily. The Left has sufficiently steeped poor neighborhoods with racism and hostility for law enforcement, that they have become battle zones for cops. Why should they rush into places where there is not only little appreciation for their efforts, but open distrust, hatred and danger?

As opposed to villifying teenagers that are just bored and want to hang out in a public place and not causing any trouble.

Where in hell are there teenagers like that? Teenagers are the stupidest life form in the galaxy. So long as we continue infantilizing them the way we do, they will remain untrustworthy as a group. Intelligent teens get the short end of the stick with that, of course, but it isn't that hard for them to avoid trouble -- just stop listening to the voices in your head ("peer pressure") and show some intellectual independence, and that goes a long way. (Swallowing any sort of Leftist or religious conservative Kool-Aid does not qualify.)

As opposed to the "we are above the law" attitude that many many officers seem to have.

How "many many" officers have you actually dealt with? How "many many" have you dealt with, WITHOUT radiating your nasty attitude? In the environment fostered by others who think like you, paranoia is a necessary aspect of staying alive, and the effects will necessarily spill over. I already know from reading your post that I wouldn't trust you very far either, and I'm not even a cop.

That isn't to say that there aren't power-tripping cops, and that they aren't a problem. But you are ignoring the likelihood that a lot of the problems we see with cops nowadays are second-order effects of cultural issues, which I find usually originate in Leftthink. (And for you idiots trapped in the box of conventional politics, that's not to say that conservatism is innocent of contributing to the problem, let alone offering any sort of solution.)

He parked his unmarked vehicle with illegally dark tints across two handicapped spaces at my local bank branch and some old lady had to park considerably farther.

1. How long was he there? Was it a quick stop for something? Who hasn't done that in a pinch?

2. What jurisdiction was this? In every one I've lived in (5 states, 2 countries), there are many of these spots routinely sitting empty. For the most part, the law mandating these spots are poorly implemented and just waste space.

3. Is law enforcement exempted from tinting restrictions? It's likely, if not necessarily f

Freakonomics actually addresses the drop in crime in a fairly rigorous fashion. It's a very interesting read and ends with some very interesting conclusions, such as a correlation between the legalization of abortion and the decrease in crime.