Way to reply to a comment with hate and ridicule. There are all kinds of people who enjoyed the joke, and all kinds of people who assumes negative intentions by default and get butt-hurt over a statement. Don't confuse jokes with intentional flame-baits.
The only source that suggests this is McAfee, and even they called it "speculations...maybe".
Symantec even proposed that
"There has been some discussion of this being a government-sponsored attack. However, the finger can’t be pointed at any particular government. Not only are the victims located in various places around the globe, so too are the servers involved in these attacks"
There's too strong an unsupported accusation here.
I think there could be a slight different definition for the word "faith" as how you (as well as the author) apply it to science as opposed to religion.
When you say that people are taking science on "faith", it's an observation of how we put our trust in people who have delivered results, how we accept a process that has worked for very simple cases that we all understand, and how we allow experts of a particular field to peer review a scientific idea or result - so that not everybody has to be the expert of every field and affirm the correctness of every scientific publication. In a way, we do have "faith" in the people doing these peer reviews that they'll only embrace the new idea/discovery if they have overwhelming evidence from the discoverer that the results are observable, reproducible, and makes useful predictions.
On the other hand, faith in religion, in the supernatural, requires absolute belief despite all evidence to the contrary; despite all evidence people of other religions claim to have that they may even claim to be stronger. No matter how much evidence is provided to a believer, he/she is obligated to defend the a set religious views in order to be a "good" Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Scientologist; you cannot be religious without faith because as soon as you accept the evidence to the contrary, you are no longer an absolute believer, and is best described as an agnostic. Even then, having faith in religion is easy to do because the very definition of supernatural is, well, not of nature/out of the ordinary, so therefore are not subjected to reason, evidence and logic, if one chooses for his/her faith not to be.
On the other hand, creationists everywhere would have discovered their golden key for their invasion on science.
Well...maybe not a golden key, but the point is what they'll do with it.
companies will spend 90% of their revenue filing or defending dozens of lawsuits, get nothing done anymore...
Or maybe we're all doomed.
There are always very large budgets for the legal department of any company. I don't believe the over all operation would be effected by the spending on these lawsuits. If a technology gets blocked from use due to an certain ruling, that might really slow down development due to the extra procedures it will require to acquire the rights to use, or replacements of the said technology.
But belittling the efforts of some people and their research is just one style of peer review...
and insults are but another test to the validity of a theory...
In fact, study has shown that around 90% of blue screens and crushes occur because of poorly written third party drivers, not because of actual bugs in the kernel or anything MS provides (which are pretty solid). It can't be helped much except to educate developers how Windows actually works.
It not only has, it did. (It is a retromyth that Windows is/was easy to use) If a car crashed constantly you wouldn't say it is easy to use would you?
- Windows is/was easy to use in the sense that it hid much of what a computer really is underneath the desktop GUI and organized structure. It's true though one can use Windows forever and know nothing about computers.
- Admonishing Windows for crashing however, is being a bit extreme. What OS doesn't crash? I don't use MACs often but are they that much better? I'm no MS maniac but I have to say that there's been much more computer users (especially unskilled ones) since they were around.
Advancement in computer hardware engineering has/will really slow down. Successful development in quantum computing and storage will hopefully kick of a actual information revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to reply to a comment with hate and ridicule. There are all kinds of people who enjoyed the joke, and all kinds of people who assumes negative intentions by default and get butt-hurt over a statement. Don't confuse jokes with intentional flame-baits.
The only source that suggests this is McAfee, and even they called it "speculations...maybe". Symantec even proposed that "There has been some discussion of this being a government-sponsored attack. However, the finger can’t be pointed at any particular government. Not only are the victims located in various places around the globe, so too are the servers involved in these attacks" There's too strong an unsupported accusation here.
I think there could be a slight different definition for the word "faith" as how you (as well as the author) apply it to science as opposed to religion.
When you say that people are taking science on "faith", it's an observation of how we put our trust in people who have delivered results, how we accept a process that has worked for very simple cases that we all understand, and how we allow experts of a particular field to peer review a scientific idea or result - so that not everybody has to be the expert of every field and affirm the correctness of every scientific publication. In a way, we do have "faith" in the people doing these peer reviews that they'll only embrace the new idea/discovery if they have overwhelming evidence from the discoverer that the results are observable, reproducible, and makes useful predictions.
On the other hand, faith in religion, in the supernatural, requires absolute belief despite all evidence to the contrary; despite all evidence people of other religions claim to have that they may even claim to be stronger. No matter how much evidence is provided to a believer, he/she is obligated to defend the a set religious views in order to be a "good" Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Scientologist; you cannot be religious without faith because as soon as you accept the evidence to the contrary, you are no longer an absolute believer, and is best described as an agnostic. Even then, having faith in religion is easy to do because the very definition of supernatural is, well, not of nature/out of the ordinary, so therefore are not subjected to reason, evidence and logic, if one chooses for his/her faith not to be.
On the other hand, creationists everywhere would have discovered their golden key for their invasion on science. Well...maybe not a golden key, but the point is what they'll do with it.
And here I was trying to shift the language used on slashdot by attempting to post something in Chinese...
He has exactly the kinda talent + mentality that the tea party desperately needs :)
companies will spend 90% of their revenue filing or defending dozens of lawsuits, get nothing done anymore...
Or maybe we're all doomed.
There are always very large budgets for the legal department of any company. I don't believe the over all operation would be effected by the spending on these lawsuits. If a technology gets blocked from use due to an certain ruling, that might really slow down development due to the extra procedures it will require to acquire the rights to use, or replacements of the said technology.
But belittling the efforts of some people and their research is just one style of peer review... and insults are but another test to the validity of a theory...
In fact, study has shown that around 90% of blue screens and crushes occur because of poorly written third party drivers, not because of actual bugs in the kernel or anything MS provides (which are pretty solid). It can't be helped much except to educate developers how Windows actually works.
It not only has, it did. (It is a retromyth that Windows is/was easy to use) If a car crashed constantly you wouldn't say it is easy to use would you?
- Windows is/was easy to use in the sense that it hid much of what a computer really is underneath the desktop GUI and organized structure. It's true though one can use Windows forever and know nothing about computers. - Admonishing Windows for crashing however, is being a bit extreme. What OS doesn't crash? I don't use MACs often but are they that much better? I'm no MS maniac but I have to say that there's been much more computer users (especially unskilled ones) since they were around.
Advancement in computer hardware engineering has/will really slow down. Successful development in quantum computing and storage will hopefully kick of a actual information revolution.