Labeling is an attempt to stigmatize, that's all it is
Not if only factual information is labeled, and not insults. GMO is a fact. Gay is an insult for homosexual people. GMO can be determined by experiments (DNA analysis, if all else fails). Touched by gays cannot be determined by any experiments.
If factual information, possibly to experimentally verify, stigmatizes", the product cannot be any good, can it?
it's the legislature's job to pass laws that meet current standards for morality
At this point, morality is irrelevant
If legislature is elected by people (directly or indirectly), and legislature converts public morality into law, how can morality ever be irrelevant in a public discussion?
Human abortion? Animals, while being a superset of "humans" technically, does not include humans typically when the word is used colloquially. So given that PETA stands for what it does, it makes no sense for them to take any stance on abortion.
If I encrypt everything, then I am safe from theft and non-govt. level spying pretty much but the greater danger is losing that encryption key or having it not work for some reason, which is a danger I should have included and bolded since I've had it happen using TrueCrypt. I am actually afraid to encrypt everything because I am afraid it will either not work or reasons unknown- as happened- or I'll lose the key. If that happens, it's like a nuclear bomb went off and took out your whole life everywhere.
Yes, it has bothered me too. I started a system where my main data sits on encrypted hard drives. The backup happens when data is decrypted, re-encrypted using another key, and another mechanism which is per file encryption (ecryptfs) on a non-encrypted hard drive.
The other mechanism is less secure than full disk encryption (the small encrypted files give more attack options), but I like that in a way because bit rot would lose me only some files not all. I also try to keep it physically safe.
I don't collect stamps. Is everything I do militant not collecting stamps?
Are you a militant too? Anyway, I guess you haven't got a hang of this grammar thing, so you could say "this post was made by a militant non-stamp-collector". See, simple. Specifically, "militant" is not an adverb.
Citizens and n-th class of citizens are irrelevant as a reply to my post so I'll ignore that. Same for obsessing.
No, you don't say "See kids? This person had freckles and red hair, but created teleportation". You say "this person created teleportation". Separately , as an answer to the question "who was the first scientist in the field of teleportation with freckles? ", this Guy's name is the answer. If a kid asks if this Guy had freckles, you say yes. Of course freckles don't matter, so you say so when a kid asks. Just like race. What is so hard about it? Why must every trivia be an adversity?
I never said race be advertised as if it were an adversity. I compared it to -handedness, remember? Why would you choose to ignore that and harp on as if I called race an adversity, I have no clue. So 90% of your this post is irrelevant.
Though, you have not addressed the point about how kids can see great people can come from all walks of life without talking about the walk of life of specific great people.
Appears to be a Mac OS only problem. My Linux machine has NEVER had a "random dropout" of USB storage device. Don't use windows much, but never had it on windows either.
Agreed, or at least I see your point in other parts of your post, but this is insane, and apparently even contradicts your own other points:
Thirdly, be proactive in NOT making racial distinctions as much as possible. When you do reference it, be sure to reference it as something from the past. Anytime you speak about a contemporary person, don't mention race.
Race is a fact. Since there should not be any discrimination on the basis of left-handedness or right-handedness, should it not be interesting if some president is the first left-handed president? Or first right-handed?
The silence of society about the race of a President would speak volumes to children about the unspeakability of race. Race is a fact, just like -handedness. According to yourself, in another point, which I agree with - "stop thinking about it and it will stop". How can making such a huge statement about a President, by not talking about his race at all, cause children to stop thinking about race? That is why I believe your statement that I quoted is very incorrect, confused, confusing and contradicts your other valid points.
Similarly,
We need to show them that great people come from all walks of life equally
Absurdly, by refusing to talk about the "walk of life" some great person has come from?
Yes, we need to show them that great people come from all walks of life equally. By telling them that this great person was left-handed and this one was right-handed. This one was black and this one was white. And this one is nearly perfectly ambidextrous. And this one (racially) is not natively found in the US at all, (s)he's from Korea.
If you don't talk to children about race, they will notice some things themselves. Lots of blacks in the US come from ghettos, blacks are more likely to be imprisoned than whites, blacks are likely to have better cardiovascular ability than whites, and of course, blacks have much darker skin than whites. Do you think children are too stupid to notice some patterns?
I read Silas Marner more than a decade ago, but I still remember smoking tobacco was considered good for health in it, especially in old age. No contradicting opinion was offered.
I got the message from it that it was a belief common in England in that era, but someone else, much younger, might take home a different message. No reason for banning, of course.
Ok, so you are an atheist. If you happen to be militant as well, it is completely correct to say your post was made by a militant atheist. Irrespective of which -ism the post was made in the name of.
A new car will not use old parts, but it WILL reuse the same design of the engine and the transmission, and possibly the same door locking mechanism. If you find a bug in the way the doors are locked that lets you bypass the lock and enter the car, chances are the same bug also exists in older models.
Components of goods : When I buy a car, I pay for the thought gone behind implementing the lock (and engine, transmission, putting it all together etc.) AND the steel / plastic / ICs that the car physically consists of. Cost (not price) of building a car is about 90% (+-20%) for the material / labour used in building the car directly or indirectly, and 10% the thought behind it and expression into physical machines. If older lock has a vulnerability and newer car shares the vulnerability, I fully expect a huge discount in the 10% thought portion of the car, and "Refurbished" sticker on the thought sold separately (if).
It is this 10% (+-100%) that is identical in Microsoft's software and cars which is why I made the analogy.
When I buy a software (download), the cost of the item I buy is ALL in the thought and expression into machine code. So I expect the same huge discount and Refurbished sticker on 100% of the item.
Expectation from security : In physical locks, there is also the impossiblity of having a perfect lock - that comes from a near impossibility of remote exploit as well as the impossibility of a lock being secure in spite of physical access to the device (car). So the lock is little more than keeping honest people honest. It is NOT so with Software, where remote exploit is very feasible. If vulnerability exists because of physical access to a computer, Microsoft for its OS is off the hook because it doesn't sell most conputers itself. So expectations from security in Software "goods" is very high.
A car with remote exploit across models over multiple years would expect to lose more for the manufacturer than they ever spent on the "thought" behind ALL of the car.
I also mentioned that Microsoft
skimped on effort (code reuse), resulting in a poor product (shared security bugs with ancient software). Why does that not result in much cheaper software, or at least a sticker "Refurbished"?
Which is the point that stands regardless of the suitability of the analogy, and which you didn't address.
On several occasions I have tried to get data from researchers. Most of them guard their data jealously and will give any number of excuses for not distributing it
Did you have any right to the data? Moral / legal / procedural ? If publicly funded, most people should have right to the data, but there might be a procedure to access it, I wouldn't blame anyone for establishing a light procedure to bug their scientists.
Exactly. You're the one that does NOT invest in space travel. Could it have been simpler?
There is always someone who does not invest in some crashing or upcoming industry. You're the one for this space industry. You could even have a hobby - not investing in space travel. A great conversation point, I am sure.
A NEW car salesman cannot afford to say that reusing cars is a perfectly valid option. And that of course if you reuse old cars, they don't start easily in winters, and rattle a bit when you drive, and leak in rains. That it is all perfectly normal for the car industry.
If Microsoft reused code, why am I being sold a NEW software ? I expect used software prices. Microsoft skimped on effort (code reuse), resulting in a poor product (shared security bugs with ancient software). Why does that not result in much cheaper software, or at least a sticker "Refurbished"? Why is this perfectly normal for the software industry? Why are you defending it?
If they had built better, newer software, it wouldn't share bugs with a 13 year old software, would it? And if they haven't been able to build better, newer software, why are you so sure they will after discontinuing XP support ?
What's the answer? Lower cost of currency exchange, limited unofficial acceptance of a few different currencies by businessmen, cooperation between countries to catch counterfeiting in other countries too.
Cost of currency exchange is not fundamentally high, but common currency is fundamentally infeasible.
Problems being there doesn't mean non-solutions(long term) should be adopted, especially ones difficult to undo.
This is fundamentally infeasible. The reason it is ok for a country to have common currency all over is that they largely represent an "economy", economically. Economic culture is likely similar, economic decisions by the "government" are identical etc. So a country with "better" economy, in the sense that other countries want to do a lot of business with it, leads to its currency appreciating over time. Now imports are easier, and exports are harder. This gives the countries with worse economies a better chance (incentive) to be able to export more, and import less. A stable equilibrium, if you will.
With a common currency, but different economic decisions and greatly different economic culture, this equilibrium is not stable any more. No one wants to do business with Portugal (say), but that doesn't give it the benefit of a depreciating currency to encourage exports because people would kill to do business with Germany which uses the same currency. So the Portuguese economy does not "improve", and STILL no one wants to do business with Portugal.
Given a perfect understanding of the universe (all reasons including quantum mechanical and other for the thermal noise in the said amplifier, for example), there is nothing "pure" random. It is really random of the gaps that we call "pure" random.
Do you have a definition of "pure" random other than one based on random of the gaps ?
1. For preserving randomness from independent sources, multiplication and division are rarely useful. These operations at times reduce randomness - take for example, the well known, multiplication by zero. Otherwise what was very good randomness, is destroyed. Even multiplication by a very small number takes away much of the randomness derived from other sources. If a Slashdot topic is not conducive to AC posting (or any posting at all), there goes all other randomness in the bin.
Similarly division - division by large numbers have similar effects as multiplication by small numbers.
XOR is typically better. But then one has to be careful that the "independent" sources have very low correlation - otherwise probability of zero bits increases drastically.
2. You need random, and you need it quick. The hunger of modern computer systems is difficult to satiate simply by the sources you suggest - at least initially. E.g., if you want to download all these figures from the internet, would you want to download such sensitive stuff in plaintext ? Of course not, you need SSL. For SSL, you need random. So you are stuck with good quality hardware RNG for best results, bad quality randomness without that, or depend on system entropy.
Once you get SSL, you could store lots of random numbers, but then you get into the problem of people / attack vectors trying to read that store. Performance vs. non-storage is a tough problem to solve.
If you are capable of committing the crime, and have the antisocial tendency, how about this :
1. Give warning of crime. 2. Actually commit the crime according to the warning.
Now you not only have succeeded in committing the crime , which you wanted to do anyway, you have granted a tool in the hands of your antisocial friends who are themselves not capable of committing the crime. They will now be able to send society into a tizzy just by giving a false warning of the crime about to be committed.
Ok, so at least you retract your statement that it IS the best name today.
As for the past, do you assert that the females gazing at women didn't exist in the past? Note that you have provided no evidence that it WAS the best name either.
One apple will give you less than 10% of RDA of most vitamins and minerals. If the top 30 vitamins and minerals are being considered, apple 75c is a big wastage. Some other fruits would score at least 70% of a few top-30 vitamins and minerals, leaving 30% for rest of the food, which is reasonable. Not apple, though.
Apple is not even value for money if fibre is what you are after.
Slashdot Mirror
Labeling is an attempt to stigmatize, that's all it is
Not if only factual information is labeled, and not insults. GMO is a fact. Gay is an insult for homosexual people. GMO can be determined by experiments (DNA analysis, if all else fails). Touched by gays cannot be determined by any experiments.
If factual information, possibly to experimentally verify, stigmatizes", the product cannot be any good, can it?
it's the legislature's job to pass laws that meet current standards for morality
At this point, morality is irrelevant
If legislature is elected by people (directly or indirectly), and legislature converts public morality into law, how can morality ever be irrelevant in a public discussion?
Both sides are equally ....
"Both" is the key word. If it were "two", problems would be much easier to solve. It is in your hands to convet "both" into "two".
Human abortion? Animals, while being a superset of "humans" technically, does not include humans typically when the word is used colloquially. So given that PETA stands for what it does, it makes no sense for them to take any stance on abortion.
Or on merits of perl as a programming language.
If I encrypt everything, then I am safe from theft and non-govt. level spying pretty much but the greater danger is losing that encryption key or having it not work for some reason, which is a danger I should have included and bolded since I've had it happen using TrueCrypt. I am actually afraid to encrypt everything because I am afraid it will either not work or reasons unknown- as happened- or I'll lose the key. If that happens, it's like a nuclear bomb went off and took out your whole life everywhere.
Yes, it has bothered me too. I started a system where my main data sits on encrypted hard drives. The backup happens when data is decrypted, re-encrypted using another key, and another mechanism which is per file encryption (ecryptfs) on a non-encrypted hard drive.
The other mechanism is less secure than full disk encryption (the small encrypted files give more attack options), but I like that in a way because bit rot would lose me only some files not all. I also try to keep it physically safe.
I don't collect stamps. Is everything I do militant not collecting stamps?
Are you a militant too? Anyway, I guess you haven't got a hang of this grammar thing, so you could say "this post was made by a militant non-stamp-collector". See, simple. Specifically, "militant" is not an adverb.
Citizens and n-th class of citizens are irrelevant as a reply to my post so I'll ignore that. Same for obsessing.
No, you don't say "See kids? This person had freckles and red hair, but created teleportation". You say "this person created teleportation". Separately , as an answer to the question "who was the first scientist in the field of teleportation with freckles? ", this Guy's name is the answer. If a kid asks if this Guy had freckles, you say yes. Of course freckles don't matter, so you say so when a kid asks. Just like race. What is so hard about it? Why must every trivia be an adversity?
I never said race be advertised as if it were an adversity. I compared it to -handedness, remember? Why would you choose to ignore that and harp on as if I called race an adversity, I have no clue. So 90% of your this post is irrelevant.
Though, you have not addressed the point about how kids can see great people can come from all walks of life without talking about the walk of life of specific great people.
The bottleneck is SATA not TB
And he is talking about cost overhead not performance overhead.
Appears to be a Mac OS only problem. My Linux machine has NEVER had a "random dropout" of USB storage device. Don't use windows much, but never had it on windows either.
Agreed, or at least I see your point in other parts of your post, but this is insane, and apparently even contradicts your own other points :
Thirdly, be proactive in NOT making racial distinctions as much as possible. When you do reference it, be sure to reference it as something from the past. Anytime you speak about a contemporary person, don't mention race.
Race is a fact. Since there should not be any discrimination on the basis of left-handedness or right-handedness, should it not be interesting if some president is the first left-handed president? Or first right-handed?
The silence of society about the race of a President would speak volumes to children about the unspeakability of race. Race is a fact, just like -handedness. According to yourself, in another point, which I agree with - "stop thinking about it and it will stop". How can making such a huge statement about a President, by not talking about his race at all, cause children to stop thinking about race? That is why I believe your statement that I quoted is very incorrect, confused, confusing and contradicts your other valid points.
Similarly,
We need to show them that great people come from all walks of life equally
Absurdly, by refusing to talk about the "walk of life" some great person has come from?
Yes, we need to show them that great people come from all walks of life equally. By telling them that this great person was left-handed and this one was right-handed. This one was black and this one was white. And this one is nearly perfectly ambidextrous. And this one (racially) is not natively found in the US at all, (s)he's from Korea.
If you don't talk to children about race, they will notice some things themselves. Lots of blacks in the US come from ghettos, blacks are more likely to be imprisoned than whites, blacks are likely to have better cardiovascular ability than whites, and of course, blacks have much darker skin than whites. Do you think children are too stupid to notice some patterns?
I read Silas Marner more than a decade ago, but I still remember smoking tobacco was considered good for health in it, especially in old age. No contradicting opinion was offered.
I got the message from it that it was a belief common in England in that era, but someone else, much younger, might take home a different message. No reason for banning, of course.
Ok, so you are an atheist. If you happen to be militant as well, it is completely correct to say your post was made by a militant atheist. Irrespective of which -ism the post was made in the name of.
A new car will not use old parts, but it WILL reuse the same design of the engine and the transmission, and possibly the same door locking mechanism. If you find a bug in the way the doors are locked that lets you bypass the lock and enter the car, chances are the same bug also exists in older models.
Components of goods : When I buy a car, I pay for the thought gone behind implementing the lock (and engine, transmission, putting it all together etc.) AND the steel / plastic / ICs that the car physically consists of. Cost (not price) of building a car is about 90% (+-20%) for the material / labour used in building the car directly or indirectly, and 10% the thought behind it and expression into physical machines. If older lock has a vulnerability and newer car shares the vulnerability, I fully expect a huge discount in the 10% thought portion of the car, and "Refurbished" sticker on the thought sold separately (if).
It is this 10% (+-100%) that is identical in Microsoft's software and cars which is why I made the analogy.
When I buy a software (download), the cost of the item I buy is ALL in the thought and expression into machine code. So I expect the same huge discount and Refurbished sticker on 100% of the item.
Expectation from security : In physical locks, there is also the impossiblity of having a perfect lock - that comes from a near impossibility of remote exploit as well as the impossibility of a lock being secure in spite of physical access to the device (car). So the lock is little more than keeping honest people honest. It is NOT so with Software, where remote exploit is very feasible. If vulnerability exists because of physical access to a computer, Microsoft for its OS is off the hook because it doesn't sell most conputers itself. So expectations from security in Software "goods" is very high.
A car with remote exploit across models over multiple years would expect to lose more for the manufacturer than they ever spent on the "thought" behind ALL of the car.
I also mentioned that Microsoft
skimped on effort (code reuse), resulting in a poor product (shared security bugs with ancient software). Why does that not result in much cheaper software, or at least a sticker "Refurbished"?
Which is the point that stands regardless of the suitability of the analogy, and which you didn't address.
On several occasions I have tried to get data from researchers. Most of them guard their data jealously and will give any number of excuses for not distributing it
Did you have any right to the data? Moral / legal / procedural ? If publicly funded, most people should have right to the data, but there might be a procedure to access it, I wouldn't blame anyone for establishing a light procedure to bug their scientists.
space travel mean nothing to investors
Exactly. You're the one that does NOT invest in space travel. Could it have been simpler?
There is always someone who does not invest in some crashing or upcoming industry. You're the one for this space industry. You could even have a hobby - not investing in space travel. A great conversation point, I am sure.
Isn't your "true" randomness, a Random Of The Gaps? With perfect understanding of the universe, is there anything truly random?
A NEW car salesman cannot afford to say that reusing cars is a perfectly valid option. And that of course if you reuse old cars, they don't start easily in winters, and rattle a bit when you drive, and leak in rains. That it is all perfectly normal for the car industry.
If Microsoft reused code, why am I being sold a NEW software ? I expect used software prices. Microsoft skimped on effort (code reuse), resulting in a poor product (shared security bugs with ancient software). Why does that not result in much cheaper software, or at least a sticker "Refurbished"? Why is this perfectly normal for the software industry? Why are you defending it?
If they had built better, newer software, it wouldn't share bugs with a 13 year old software, would it? And if they haven't been able to build better, newer software, why are you so sure they will after discontinuing XP support ?
What's the answer? Lower cost of currency exchange, limited unofficial acceptance of a few different currencies by businessmen, cooperation between countries to catch counterfeiting in other countries too.
Cost of currency exchange is not fundamentally high, but common currency is fundamentally infeasible.
Problems being there doesn't mean non-solutions(long term) should be adopted, especially ones difficult to undo.
If the Euros could make the EU work
This is fundamentally infeasible. The reason it is ok for a country to have common currency all over is that they largely represent an "economy", economically. Economic culture is likely similar, economic decisions by the "government" are identical etc. So a country with "better" economy, in the sense that other countries want to do a lot of business with it, leads to its currency appreciating over time. Now imports are easier, and exports are harder. This gives the countries with worse economies a better chance (incentive) to be able to export more, and import less. A stable equilibrium, if you will.
With a common currency, but different economic decisions and greatly different economic culture, this equilibrium is not stable any more. No one wants to do business with Portugal (say), but that doesn't give it the benefit of a depreciating currency to encourage exports because people would kill to do business with Germany which uses the same currency. So the Portuguese economy does not "improve", and STILL no one wants to do business with Portugal.
Given a perfect understanding of the universe (all reasons including quantum mechanical and other for the thermal noise in the said amplifier, for example), there is nothing "pure" random. It is really random of the gaps that we call "pure" random.
Do you have a definition of "pure" random other than one based on random of the gaps ?
1. For preserving randomness from independent sources, multiplication and division are rarely useful. These operations at times reduce randomness - take for example, the well known, multiplication by zero. Otherwise what was very good randomness, is destroyed. Even multiplication by a very small number takes away much of the randomness derived from other sources. If a Slashdot topic is not conducive to AC posting (or any posting at all), there goes all other randomness in the bin.
Similarly division - division by large numbers have similar effects as multiplication by small numbers.
XOR is typically better. But then one has to be careful that the "independent" sources have very low correlation - otherwise probability of zero bits increases drastically.
2. You need random, and you need it quick. The hunger of modern computer systems is difficult to satiate simply by the sources you suggest - at least initially. E.g., if you want to download all these figures from the internet, would you want to download such sensitive stuff in plaintext ? Of course not, you need SSL. For SSL, you need random. So you are stuck with good quality hardware RNG for best results, bad quality randomness without that, or depend on system entropy.
Once you get SSL, you could store lots of random numbers, but then you get into the problem of people / attack vectors trying to read that store. Performance vs. non-storage is a tough problem to solve.
If you are capable of committing the crime, and have the antisocial tendency, how about this :
1. Give warning of crime.
2. Actually commit the crime according to the warning.
Now you not only have succeeded in committing the crime , which you wanted to do anyway, you have granted a tool in the hands of your antisocial friends who are themselves not capable of committing the crime. They will now be able to send society into a tizzy just by giving a false warning of the crime about to be committed.
Ok, so at least you retract your statement that it IS the best name today.
As for the past, do you assert that the females gazing at women didn't exist in the past? Note that you have provided no evidence that it WAS the best name either.
One apple will give you less than 10% of RDA of most vitamins and minerals. If the top 30 vitamins and minerals are being considered, apple 75c is a big wastage. Some other fruits would score at least 70% of a few top-30 vitamins and minerals, leaving 30% for rest of the food, which is reasonable. Not apple, though.
Apple is not even value for money if fibre is what you are after.