Really? Did you just call a guy who ACTUALLY donated a cheapskate?
Compare how often you use your mobile data plan and/or ISP to how often you use archive.org's services. I use my ISP every single day, for hours, and couldn't get a lot of my work done without them. I still gripe about how much I'm forced to pay them, too! By comparison, I've maybe looked for one site (which wasn't there) on archive.org in the last year or two.
They need $150,000 in donations. At BenJeremy's $5 level, they'd only need 30,000 donors. Just gonna guess his donation will come in well above the median for users of the site.
they probably should have hired Randall of XKCD to actually do the graphics... Nobody does these sorts of visualizations as well as that. And I just didn't find the alt-text funny at all.:)
Your comment clearly shows: you have no clue what you are talking about. Please do us a favour and stay out of this discusion.
And your comment clearly shows that you are unable to engage rationally with viewpoints which differ from your own. Unfortunately, you've missed the point of my post, and simply repeated the same logical fallacies as the GP which I was attempting to point out.
Simple. There's people who ascribe the term "evil" to each of those concepts (yes, even potty-training). They have, in some cases, equally emotionally-charged opinions about secular humanism or potty training as Nadaka seems to have about religion. They would claim that those things cause "severe mental, emotional and ethical harm". They could even back it up with some anecdotal evidence ("I grew up in a secular-humanist household", or "I grew up in a household that potty-trained"), or some statistics (there's an awful lot of criminally-minded individuals out there who commit a lot of evil who have been potty-trained).
Hopefully, most of us would see right through their arguments. But, for some reason, when people start talking about the "evils of religion", we don't see the same holes in those arguments that we would see in a similarly-constructed argument about the "evils of potty-training", the "evils of vaccination", the "evils of wi-fi radiation", etc. Nadaka's argument is high on the same sort of hyperbole ("it imposes a severe mental, emotional, and ethical harm", "inflicting the communicable memetic disease", "the child never recovers") that often comes from the "anti-everything" crowd, but pretty short on data to support some pretty over-the-top claims.
Now, none of this is to say that Nadaka's "fundamentalist christian" upbringing DIDN'T have any hallmarks of mental, emotional, or ethical harm, or even child abuse. Perhaps it did. It does happen. But to paint all of "religion", or even all of "fundamentalist christian" with the same brush is rather poor reasoning.
I grew up in a fundamentalist christian household. And inflicting the communicable memetic disease of faith on children and brainwashing them to believe in the evil of religion is absolutely child abuse. It imposes a severe mental, emotional and ethical harm to children's minds before they are capable of fighting off the infection. In most cases this harm is permanent, and the child never recovers and becomes healthy again.
One could just as easily substitute "secular humanism", "agnosticism", or for that matter "potty training" for the word "religion", and be on equally shaky philosophical footing with your comment.
I disagree.
You may teach your children as you like, but to never teach them about evolution is abuse.
I'm a biology teacher at a Christian school. I do teach evolution - with far more rigour than I ever taught it in public school - because I think that it's important for anyone who wants to hold a dissenting view on something considered to be this foundational to be really, really well informed about what they're disagreeing with.
That said, I also work with students who have actually been abused by their parents - real abuse... emotional, physical, sexual, etc. Dogmatically stating "never teaching a child about evolution is abuse" just seems silly and insulting to anyone who has actually encountered abuse. Let's not throw the term "abuse" around so lightly.
Uh oh. The entire Christmas shopping thing is predicated on the assumption that you WILL feel left out on EXACTLY that basis. Better get my retirement savings out of retail stocks.
That's funny... On my work laptop, I use Linux specifically for Xournal, because I prefer it (in it's Linux binary form) so heavily to OneNote... Then, for all the other stuff I have to run at work, I boot back into Windows.
But, Xournal doesn't have handwriting recognition, search, notebook organization, etc... just really, really awesome for producing miniscule pdfs of my handwritten notes.
That's a great graph. Took me a minute to realize that it was very strange to me to have time on the y axis, since it so rarely appears there - but once I got used to tilting my head at 90 degrees, it worked..:)
Yeah, pretty uneasy about this one. They got the home address wrong... The guy would definitely seem to be a creep ("I was just friends with her.." Really? 30-something guy and 15 year old girl?), but if he's innocent there's gonna be some serious trouble in store for him getting clear of this.
Well, he does have a point - if someone enjoys something, but it shortens their life span, is it "bad for them"? I suppose one does need to consider the "benefits" side of the cost-benefit analysis.
That being said, it would be much easier to argue that someone smoking is certainly bad for ME - I get no particular benefit, and yet there are potential health hazards for me, there's the nuisance of the bad smells wafting into my home from the neighbours, and my health insurance premiums (or, in my case, my taxes) go up to cover the costs of their habit. But that can be a pretty slippery slope... I suppose my love of poutine (fries with cheese curds and gravy, for you non-Canadians) would also be considered "bad for you" due to the health problems it may well cause me one day...
Well, that's a rather poor example. The people who "don't believe in abortion", by which I assume you mean "don't believe that abortion should ever occur", predominately believe that because they equate it to murdering a helpless child.
Whether that's right or wrong, surely you wouldn't say the same thing about murder - "don't try to keep me from murdering if I want to, just because you've got a hang-up about it".
Again, not arguing the case one way or the other here, but when you think about it from from their point of view (abortion == murder), at least their strong stance is understandable.
This is true, but unfortunately, as a heuristic, "textbook + torrent == infringement" is probably going to be a pretty good one. I'd guess the vast majority of textbook torrents are "piratical". At this point, Mr. Jackson represents an edge-case - a very welcome one, but an edge case nonetheless.
Still, it would sure be nice if there was a quicker way to get past the algorithm to an actual human who could take a look at particular cases like this one. Then perhaps we'd start overcoming that BitTorrent stigma.
How about this:
The author of VIM, Bram Moolenar, spent a year in Kibaale between 1994-1995, and still actively solicits donations to the Kibaale Children's Centre which provides needy children in the district with education, food, and medical care. Check it out with a::help kibaale
from within VIM.
Does that cover it?:)
Having bad eyesight != Analytical thinking. Appreciating art != Analytical thinking.
And yet, if you took the time to read the research, the authors are pretty much claiming that:
a) giving a questionnaire in a hard-to-read font (which I would say is a good proxy for bad eyesight) promotes analytical thinking b) showing a picture of a great sculpture (The Thinker) promotes analytical thinking.
In fact, their whole experimental design is premised on those two points.
Well, the irony here is that the GP is actually the first person I've read a comment from who actually seems to be trying to figure out what the authors of the paper were actually claiming, based on their methodology. They had people answer questionnaires written in hard-to-read fonts, and claimed that that was a good promoter of "analytic thinking". They showed people a picture of the "The Thinker", and presumed that that promotes analytic thinking. Then they had people (a few anyways - quite a small sample size) answer a questionnaire, and found that those who had to squint or look at the "The Thinker" answered differently. That's it.
Oh sorry, there was one other experiment. As best I can tell, they tried to write similar questions in two different ways - one set of questions using "analytical language" and the other set using "emotive language". Then they found that people answered the two sets of questions differently. Wow.
What "Corporate Drone" is pointing out is that the actual experiments conducted would lead a rational person to a rather-less-sensational-headlinish conclusion.
Lied about import duty? One of the most interesting things about this whole process has been how upfront and transparent they've been. When they discover some new roadblock or detail that they weren't aware of (such as the status of the Pi wrt import duties, or the requirement for CE testing), they've been quick to post to their blog and tell the world about it.
As for "and market them badly"... really? How much do you suppose they've spent on marketing, exactly? Are you aware of how much publicity they're getting, worldwide, for free? Even my local newspaper, which is absolutely dreadful for tech news, has carried very positive (and nearly accurate!) stories on the Raspberry Pi. Seems to me that, if there's one thing they've done extremely well, it's creating a huge buzz around their concept, WITHOUT blowing a huge pile on marketing.
Of course, if you're looking to spend $25 each (to get 8 for $200), you're going to get the version with no Ethernet... the Model B with Ethernet is $35...
For this model (the Model B, with Ethernet), the target price is $35. The actual price, including shipping & handling, depends a bit on where you are in the world, but it's pretty much bang on $35 plus whatever shipping charge Premier Farnell or RS has come up with for your country. They've done an amazing job at keeping this thing on track, despite delays and major changes in manufacturing plans...
Good point. My standard setup is to move SSHD to a non-standard port, and to turn off PasswordAuthentication completely in favour of RSA key-pairs.
Just checking my SSHD logs, it looks like I've had exactly one rejected attempt on a busy public-facing web server (which may in fact have been me, connecting from a machine that I hadn't set up a key for) in the past month... so in my experience, no, they're not trying too hard off of port 22.
Someone who wants to learn programming doesn't search for javascript. That's like searching for "42" when you want to know the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
So wait - javascript is the ultimate answer to programming?
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Did you just call a guy who ACTUALLY donated a cheapskate?
Compare how often you use your mobile data plan and/or ISP to how often you use archive.org's services. I use my ISP every single day, for hours, and couldn't get a lot of my work done without them. I still gripe about how much I'm forced to pay them, too! By comparison, I've maybe looked for one site (which wasn't there) on archive.org in the last year or two.
They need $150,000 in donations. At BenJeremy's $5 level, they'd only need 30,000 donors. Just gonna guess his donation will come in well above the median for users of the site.
they probably should have hired Randall of XKCD to actually do the graphics... Nobody does these sorts of visualizations as well as that. And I just didn't find the alt-text funny at all. :)
Your comment clearly shows: you have no clue what you are talking about. Please do us a favour and stay out of this discusion.
And your comment clearly shows that you are unable to engage rationally with viewpoints which differ from your own. Unfortunately, you've missed the point of my post, and simply repeated the same logical fallacies as the GP which I was attempting to point out.
Simple. There's people who ascribe the term "evil" to each of those concepts (yes, even potty-training). They have, in some cases, equally emotionally-charged opinions about secular humanism or potty training as Nadaka seems to have about religion. They would claim that those things cause "severe mental, emotional and ethical harm". They could even back it up with some anecdotal evidence ("I grew up in a secular-humanist household", or "I grew up in a household that potty-trained"), or some statistics (there's an awful lot of criminally-minded individuals out there who commit a lot of evil who have been potty-trained).
Hopefully, most of us would see right through their arguments. But, for some reason, when people start talking about the "evils of religion", we don't see the same holes in those arguments that we would see in a similarly-constructed argument about the "evils of potty-training", the "evils of vaccination", the "evils of wi-fi radiation", etc. Nadaka's argument is high on the same sort of hyperbole ("it imposes a severe mental, emotional, and ethical harm", "inflicting the communicable memetic disease", "the child never recovers") that often comes from the "anti-everything" crowd, but pretty short on data to support some pretty over-the-top claims.
Now, none of this is to say that Nadaka's "fundamentalist christian" upbringing DIDN'T have any hallmarks of mental, emotional, or ethical harm, or even child abuse. Perhaps it did. It does happen. But to paint all of "religion", or even all of "fundamentalist christian" with the same brush is rather poor reasoning.
I grew up in a fundamentalist christian household. And inflicting the communicable memetic disease of faith on children and brainwashing them to believe in the evil of religion is absolutely child abuse. It imposes a severe mental, emotional and ethical harm to children's minds before they are capable of fighting off the infection. In most cases this harm is permanent, and the child never recovers and becomes healthy again.
One could just as easily substitute "secular humanism", "agnosticism", or for that matter "potty training" for the word "religion", and be on equally shaky philosophical footing with your comment.
I disagree. You may teach your children as you like, but to never teach them about evolution is abuse.
I'm a biology teacher at a Christian school. I do teach evolution - with far more rigour than I ever taught it in public school - because I think that it's important for anyone who wants to hold a dissenting view on something considered to be this foundational to be really, really well informed about what they're disagreeing with. That said, I also work with students who have actually been abused by their parents - real abuse... emotional, physical, sexual, etc. Dogmatically stating "never teaching a child about evolution is abuse" just seems silly and insulting to anyone who has actually encountered abuse. Let's not throw the term "abuse" around so lightly.
Uh oh. The entire Christmas shopping thing is predicated on the assumption that you WILL feel left out on EXACTLY that basis. Better get my retirement savings out of retail stocks.
That's funny... On my work laptop, I use Linux specifically for Xournal, because I prefer it (in it's Linux binary form) so heavily to OneNote... Then, for all the other stuff I have to run at work, I boot back into Windows. But, Xournal doesn't have handwriting recognition, search, notebook organization, etc... just really, really awesome for producing miniscule pdfs of my handwritten notes.
It all boils down to this.
That's a great graph. Took me a minute to realize that it was very strange to me to have time on the y axis, since it so rarely appears there - but once I got used to tilting my head at 90 degrees, it worked.. :)
Am I reading correctly that even the engine (a turbofan) was built entirely from 3d-printed parts? Now THAT's cool.
Yeah, pretty uneasy about this one. They got the home address wrong... The guy would definitely seem to be a creep ("I was just friends with her.." Really? 30-something guy and 15 year old girl?), but if he's innocent there's gonna be some serious trouble in store for him getting clear of this.
Well, he does have a point - if someone enjoys something, but it shortens their life span, is it "bad for them"? I suppose one does need to consider the "benefits" side of the cost-benefit analysis. That being said, it would be much easier to argue that someone smoking is certainly bad for ME - I get no particular benefit, and yet there are potential health hazards for me, there's the nuisance of the bad smells wafting into my home from the neighbours, and my health insurance premiums (or, in my case, my taxes) go up to cover the costs of their habit. But that can be a pretty slippery slope... I suppose my love of poutine (fries with cheese curds and gravy, for you non-Canadians) would also be considered "bad for you" due to the health problems it may well cause me one day...
Well, that's a rather poor example. The people who "don't believe in abortion", by which I assume you mean "don't believe that abortion should ever occur", predominately believe that because they equate it to murdering a helpless child. Whether that's right or wrong, surely you wouldn't say the same thing about murder - "don't try to keep me from murdering if I want to, just because you've got a hang-up about it". Again, not arguing the case one way or the other here, but when you think about it from from their point of view (abortion == murder), at least their strong stance is understandable.
This is true, but unfortunately, as a heuristic, "textbook + torrent == infringement" is probably going to be a pretty good one. I'd guess the vast majority of textbook torrents are "piratical". At this point, Mr. Jackson represents an edge-case - a very welcome one, but an edge case nonetheless. Still, it would sure be nice if there was a quicker way to get past the algorithm to an actual human who could take a look at particular cases like this one. Then perhaps we'd start overcoming that BitTorrent stigma.
How about this: The author of VIM, Bram Moolenar, spent a year in Kibaale between 1994-1995, and still actively solicits donations to the Kibaale Children's Centre which provides needy children in the district with education, food, and medical care. Check it out with a: :help kibaale
from within VIM.
Does that cover it? :)
Just so long as his corpse gets to hang out at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, I'd say you're on to something.
Worst argument ever!
Having bad eyesight != Analytical thinking.
Appreciating art != Analytical thinking.
And yet, if you took the time to read the research, the authors are pretty much claiming that:
a) giving a questionnaire in a hard-to-read font (which I would say is a good proxy for bad eyesight) promotes analytical thinking
b) showing a picture of a great sculpture (The Thinker) promotes analytical thinking.
In fact, their whole experimental design is premised on those two points.
Well, the irony here is that the GP is actually the first person I've read a comment from who actually seems to be trying to figure out what the authors of the paper were actually claiming, based on their methodology. They had people answer questionnaires written in hard-to-read fonts, and claimed that that was a good promoter of "analytic thinking". They showed people a picture of the "The Thinker", and presumed that that promotes analytic thinking. Then they had people (a few anyways - quite a small sample size) answer a questionnaire, and found that those who had to squint or look at the "The Thinker" answered differently. That's it.
Oh sorry, there was one other experiment. As best I can tell, they tried to write similar questions in two different ways - one set of questions using "analytical language" and the other set using "emotive language". Then they found that people answered the two sets of questions differently. Wow.
What "Corporate Drone" is pointing out is that the actual experiments conducted would lead a rational person to a rather-less-sensational-headlinish conclusion.
Lied about import duty? One of the most interesting things about this whole process has been how upfront and transparent they've been. When they discover some new roadblock or detail that they weren't aware of (such as the status of the Pi wrt import duties, or the requirement for CE testing), they've been quick to post to their blog and tell the world about it.
As for "and market them badly"... really? How much do you suppose they've spent on marketing, exactly? Are you aware of how much publicity they're getting, worldwide, for free? Even my local newspaper, which is absolutely dreadful for tech news, has carried very positive (and nearly accurate!) stories on the Raspberry Pi. Seems to me that, if there's one thing they've done extremely well, it's creating a huge buzz around their concept, WITHOUT blowing a huge pile on marketing.
Of course, if you're looking to spend $25 each (to get 8 for $200), you're going to get the version with no Ethernet... the Model B with Ethernet is $35...
For this model (the Model B, with Ethernet), the target price is $35. The actual price, including shipping & handling, depends a bit on where you are in the world, but it's pretty much bang on $35 plus whatever shipping charge Premier Farnell or RS has come up with for your country. They've done an amazing job at keeping this thing on track, despite delays and major changes in manufacturing plans...
Good point. My standard setup is to move SSHD to a non-standard port, and to turn off PasswordAuthentication completely in favour of RSA key-pairs.
Just checking my SSHD logs, it looks like I've had exactly one rejected attempt on a busy public-facing web server (which may in fact have been me, connecting from a machine that I hadn't set up a key for) in the past month... so in my experience, no, they're not trying too hard off of port 22.
Okay, now I just need someone to be my "player 2"... :)
Someone who wants to learn programming doesn't search for javascript. That's like searching for "42" when you want to know the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
So wait - javascript is the ultimate answer to programming?
Crap. I quit.
Oh, that would be iWeb.com... guess I didn't clarify that! :)