Given that a shutdown means that work deemed non-essential will not go on, I'm struggling to see how a story about how web sites delivering non-essential services won't be updated is a headline of note.
On the other side of the coin, saying that the only compromise is if you agree to all my demands isn't necessarily being very cooperative in the House.
This is true only if Congress agrees to make it so after the fact. It would be political suicide to not pay active duty. Civilian employees might be a toss up depending upon whether they get lumped into the same bill as the active duty.
What a load that is. I think you'll find that not only "many self-proclaimed scientists" disagree with you, but so would many self-proclaimed historians, and I'd wager philosophers too. The scientific method was advanced by the people doing the science, most of whom were philosophers as well. It is really only in the last century that science and philosophy split. You may be shocked to learn that very little of it was "invented" by the navel-staring kind of philosophers. You're not confusing the scientific method (Bacon-Galileo-Descartes-etc.) with the search for truth and reality (Kant, Hume, etc.) are you?
How did you manage to study all your Descartes and Leibniz and not know what they hell they did for a living?
The increase in background radiation will absolutely cause a raise in cancers, and there's the matter of radioactive material put into the environment that is different than simply a temporary increase in background radiation, and will also certainly cause additional deaths.
No it won't. This argument is based on the Linear no-threshold model which has been shown to be wildly inaccurate at low-levels of radiation dosing. The basis of the model is that they looked at the cancer rate of Hiroshima survivors who received very high levels of radiation exposure and assigned a value of N cancer cases per X amount of radiation exposure. Then because they had nothing to go on for low doses, the assumption was made that the cancer rate was linear, so you'd get N/4 cases for an exposure of X/4. Without assigning a threshold exposure value for when you start developing cancer, this is ridiculous and does not at all agree with observation; however, since nobody knew what happens at longer exposure times at lower exposure rates, and thus nobody knows where to put a threshold value, this was the model accepted.
and you end up with a disaster that affects the entire world
I don't think you can defend this statement, unless you are talking about induced fear and panic. The people who do follow-up studies on Chernobyl and Hiroshima find no increased cancer-related deaths. Depending upon the disaster type, you may or may not have long-term localized effects on the environment, but non-local effects do not seem to exist.
I'm not sure I'd want even relatively low-level radioactive materials being spread about a city in such vast numbers and being accessible to so many people.
XP was the last version of Windows I used regularly, so I'm commenting on this looking in from the outside, but it does not appear to me that the shift from XP to Vista, then Vista to 7 had anything that you could call a familiar and usable UI from version to version. Those were major UI changes for the desktop user. I often hear the argument that you can't switch a company or your grandma to linux because they would have to relearn the whole UI (even if that were true, I have never seen that as a major disruption), but it is just a given that they would move to the next Windows version seamlessly. I regularly hear complaints about the Office suite still, and it revamped its UI a couple of years ago or so.
I've heard it said that because of this, he doesn't have to pay for his defense. If that is true, just what is this defense fund raising money for, and what is going to happen to the money that is raised? Anyone know if this organization has addressed this?
The problem I have with these types of arguments that are based on morality, particularly when it has to do with legal issues, is that the the foundation for morality is pretty cloudy and is basically defined by the person making the argument. For this reason I don't necessarily agree that morality is larger than the rule of law because the law is (more or less) clearly spelled out, whereas, in general, morality isn't. Even within religions it isn't clearly spelled out, and certainly not across religions. If your moral standing on an issue is not the same as my moral standing, than I would want you punished for breaking laws you might feel you are permitted to break. People who kill doctors who perform abortions make that kind of argument, and I can't say that I sympathize with them when they are arrested. I recall from years ago a newspaper article (I think this was even pre-9/11) about radical Islamic clerics who openly advocated and encouraged killing Israelis. Apparently, in the Koran it is spelled out pretty clearly who you can and can't kill (my foggy memory recollects it being something like it is forgivable to kill enemy soldiers in war, but you must never kill innocent civilians). The argument these particular clerics were making was that military service in Israel is mandatory for everybody, so indiscriminate killing of men, women and children was OK because if they aren't currently in the military, they would be eventually. Like those who kill abortion doctors, these clerics have defined the moral ground and their standing in it, and clearly feel justified in what they advocate. You can even find posts in this topic (35306854, which isn't the one I'm thinking of in particular, but they're not hard to find), and basically for any story that gets posted about Wikileaks, where people counter the argument about releasing this info will put people in harm's way by saying that those people who might be killed because of that were just going to kill other people, so it is OK.
It seems to me that the strongest supporters of Assange and Manning, at least around here, draw a very sharp line defined by the notion of transparency, which they take to be absolute. To me, that line isn't nearly as sharply defined as they make it to be. However, some at least, stake a high moral claim by stepping to one side of that line and seem to express forgiveness for any alleged wrongdoing. It is the sort of passion and one-sided arguments that you usually don't see expressed outside of "hot button" issues that crop up with religion or perhaps post-9/11 US patriotism (remember, you are not a true American if you don't wear a flag on your coat lapel at all times). I would wager that a good deal of those around this site who argue so passionately for Manning and Assange would look with disdain upon those who argue passionately, for example, the Pro-Life movement, even though (in my mind, at least), they are making the same argument that only differs on which tower on the moral landscape they decided to climb.
I don't understand your post. If what you say is true, are you suggesting that this should be the basis of his legal defense? I'm not sure "I lost faith in my commanders" will get him off for passing on classified material.
What a coincidence! Where I work we have nifty little software utilities called Antivirus Programs too. (Disclaimer: I haven't personally run one of these nifty utilities on my own computer in a number of years, but I've had to help many people who do run them regularly). It is hard to tell how well they work, because we don't seem to regularly work with infected discs or drives like you do (I do wonder how you manage to get all these infected media, but I digress), but I have noticed that these utilities are very good at promoting contemplation. Some of our computers get so slow that it gives the users time to contemplate what they are working on, or what they are writing.
One of our users found that their nifty utility would no longer update itself, and he was advised to reinstall. The installer would hang, so some friendly people overseas advised him to remove the software and reinstall. It seems that the software did not want to completely uninstall, so the friendly people overseas sent him a super-secret nifty program to completely remove the software. Well, that software couldn't uninstall it either, so the friendly people from lands afar used some magic software to take control of this computer so that they could run the same un-installer. After that, the computer would not reboot into Windows. When these friendly people were contacted, their response was "If your computer cannot boot after our software was removed, then it obviously is a problem with the operating system and you need to contact your operating system vendor."
I have another very amusing story about another person who apparently did not fully appreciate all the contemplative time he was being given by his nifty utility, so he decided to switch to a different vendor who provided their own nifty utility software. Well, maybe it's more like one of those "some day we'll look back on this and laugh" kind of story.
If these were Ph.D. graduate students, they don't have a whole lot of disposable cash in their pockets. Feasibility comes down to how much do they want to spend of their own money on something that might be destroyed or lost, or how much feature creep do they want when they just want to launch it. If their motivation was to move the bar on amateur balloon launch innovation, then perhaps they could/should/etc. have done what you suggested or much more. However, if it was something more like the desire to do something they find interesting for its own sake, then kudos to them.
I think the complaints about how many of these stories make it to the Slashdot front page are valid. However, if these guys aren't making any particular uniqueness claims, then I think the people grousing here about how so-and-so did it first, or did it for less money, or whatever, should shut up and get their own hobby.
I got two checks from him (back when they were real checks) just from Digital Typography (a book I highly recommend).
Did you ever cash them? I always hear that the people who got them never cashed them. I always thought that it must be a pain in the ass for Knuth to balance his checkbook with all those uncleared checks.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Given that a shutdown means that work deemed non-essential will not go on, I'm struggling to see how a story about how web sites delivering non-essential services won't be updated is a headline of note.
On the other side of the coin, saying that the only compromise is if you agree to all my demands isn't necessarily being very cooperative in the House.
This is true only if Congress agrees to make it so after the fact. It would be political suicide to not pay active duty. Civilian employees might be a toss up depending upon whether they get lumped into the same bill as the active duty.
What a load that is. I think you'll find that not only "many self-proclaimed scientists" disagree with you, but so would many self-proclaimed historians, and I'd wager philosophers too. The scientific method was advanced by the people doing the science, most of whom were philosophers as well. It is really only in the last century that science and philosophy split. You may be shocked to learn that very little of it was "invented" by the navel-staring kind of philosophers. You're not confusing the scientific method (Bacon-Galileo-Descartes-etc.) with the search for truth and reality (Kant, Hume, etc.) are you?
How did you manage to study all your Descartes and Leibniz and not know what they hell they did for a living?
For your example 2, it depends. I see many clicks that tell me how I can save 15% on my car insurance, but I ignore them.
The increase in background radiation will absolutely cause a raise in cancers, and there's the matter of radioactive material put into the environment that is different than simply a temporary increase in background radiation, and will also certainly cause additional deaths.
No it won't. This argument is based on the Linear no-threshold model which has been shown to be wildly inaccurate at low-levels of radiation dosing. The basis of the model is that they looked at the cancer rate of Hiroshima survivors who received very high levels of radiation exposure and assigned a value of N cancer cases per X amount of radiation exposure. Then because they had nothing to go on for low doses, the assumption was made that the cancer rate was linear, so you'd get N/4 cases for an exposure of X/4. Without assigning a threshold exposure value for when you start developing cancer, this is ridiculous and does not at all agree with observation; however, since nobody knew what happens at longer exposure times at lower exposure rates, and thus nobody knows where to put a threshold value, this was the model accepted.
and you end up with a disaster that affects the entire world
I don't think you can defend this statement, unless you are talking about induced fear and panic. The people who do follow-up studies on Chernobyl and Hiroshima find no increased cancer-related deaths. Depending upon the disaster type, you may or may not have long-term localized effects on the environment, but non-local effects do not seem to exist.
I'm not sure I'd want even relatively low-level radioactive materials being spread about a city in such vast numbers and being accessible to so many people.
Then close up the coal plants because they put out a lot more radiation than anything else.
Or maybe I should move to China, where whatever the government's failings, the polity still has its head located well outside its intestinal tract.
Probably related to the fact that a large percentage of the people running China have technical backgrounds (engineering, science, etc.)
I wouldn't call it afraid of success, I think it is just plain old NIMBY.
XP was the last version of Windows I used regularly, so I'm commenting on this looking in from the outside, but it does not appear to me that the shift from XP to Vista, then Vista to 7 had anything that you could call a familiar and usable UI from version to version. Those were major UI changes for the desktop user. I often hear the argument that you can't switch a company or your grandma to linux because they would have to relearn the whole UI (even if that were true, I have never seen that as a major disruption), but it is just a given that they would move to the next Windows version seamlessly. I regularly hear complaints about the Office suite still, and it revamped its UI a couple of years ago or so.
I've heard it said that because of this, he doesn't have to pay for his defense. If that is true, just what is this defense fund raising money for, and what is going to happen to the money that is raised? Anyone know if this organization has addressed this?
The problem I have with these types of arguments that are based on morality, particularly when it has to do with legal issues, is that the the foundation for morality is pretty cloudy and is basically defined by the person making the argument. For this reason I don't necessarily agree that morality is larger than the rule of law because the law is (more or less) clearly spelled out, whereas, in general, morality isn't. Even within religions it isn't clearly spelled out, and certainly not across religions. If your moral standing on an issue is not the same as my moral standing, than I would want you punished for breaking laws you might feel you are permitted to break. People who kill doctors who perform abortions make that kind of argument, and I can't say that I sympathize with them when they are arrested. I recall from years ago a newspaper article (I think this was even pre-9/11) about radical Islamic clerics who openly advocated and encouraged killing Israelis. Apparently, in the Koran it is spelled out pretty clearly who you can and can't kill (my foggy memory recollects it being something like it is forgivable to kill enemy soldiers in war, but you must never kill innocent civilians). The argument these particular clerics were making was that military service in Israel is mandatory for everybody, so indiscriminate killing of men, women and children was OK because if they aren't currently in the military, they would be eventually. Like those who kill abortion doctors, these clerics have defined the moral ground and their standing in it, and clearly feel justified in what they advocate. You can even find posts in this topic (35306854, which isn't the one I'm thinking of in particular, but they're not hard to find), and basically for any story that gets posted about Wikileaks, where people counter the argument about releasing this info will put people in harm's way by saying that those people who might be killed because of that were just going to kill other people, so it is OK.
It seems to me that the strongest supporters of Assange and Manning, at least around here, draw a very sharp line defined by the notion of transparency, which they take to be absolute. To me, that line isn't nearly as sharply defined as they make it to be. However, some at least, stake a high moral claim by stepping to one side of that line and seem to express forgiveness for any alleged wrongdoing. It is the sort of passion and one-sided arguments that you usually don't see expressed outside of "hot button" issues that crop up with religion or perhaps post-9/11 US patriotism (remember, you are not a true American if you don't wear a flag on your coat lapel at all times). I would wager that a good deal of those around this site who argue so passionately for Manning and Assange would look with disdain upon those who argue passionately, for example, the Pro-Life movement, even though (in my mind, at least), they are making the same argument that only differs on which tower on the moral landscape they decided to climb.
Ronald Reagan bombed the hell out of Libya,
No doubt my memory is fuzzy, and I'm not interested enough to Google it, but I only remember two or three missiles being used.
Correct me if I am wrong, but he does not have to pay for his defense, nor is there a manner in which he could if he wanted.
I don't understand your post. If what you say is true, are you suggesting that this should be the basis of his legal defense? I'm not sure "I lost faith in my commanders" will get him off for passing on classified material.
What a coincidence! Where I work we have nifty little software utilities called Antivirus Programs too. (Disclaimer: I haven't personally run one of these nifty utilities on my own computer in a number of years, but I've had to help many people who do run them regularly). It is hard to tell how well they work, because we don't seem to regularly work with infected discs or drives like you do (I do wonder how you manage to get all these infected media, but I digress), but I have noticed that these utilities are very good at promoting contemplation. Some of our computers get so slow that it gives the users time to contemplate what they are working on, or what they are writing.
One of our users found that their nifty utility would no longer update itself, and he was advised to reinstall. The installer would hang, so some friendly people overseas advised him to remove the software and reinstall. It seems that the software did not want to completely uninstall, so the friendly people overseas sent him a super-secret nifty program to completely remove the software. Well, that software couldn't uninstall it either, so the friendly people from lands afar used some magic software to take control of this computer so that they could run the same un-installer. After that, the computer would not reboot into Windows. When these friendly people were contacted, their response was "If your computer cannot boot after our software was removed, then it obviously is a problem with the operating system and you need to contact your operating system vendor."
I have another very amusing story about another person who apparently did not fully appreciate all the contemplative time he was being given by his nifty utility, so he decided to switch to a different vendor who provided their own nifty utility software. Well, maybe it's more like one of those "some day we'll look back on this and laugh" kind of story.
Tada! Problem solved.
Well, maybe that problem was solved ...
If these were Ph.D. graduate students, they don't have a whole lot of disposable cash in their pockets. Feasibility comes down to how much do they want to spend of their own money on something that might be destroyed or lost, or how much feature creep do they want when they just want to launch it. If their motivation was to move the bar on amateur balloon launch innovation, then perhaps they could/should/etc. have done what you suggested or much more. However, if it was something more like the desire to do something they find interesting for its own sake, then kudos to them.
I think the complaints about how many of these stories make it to the Slashdot front page are valid. However, if these guys aren't making any particular uniqueness claims, then I think the people grousing here about how so-and-so did it first, or did it for less money, or whatever, should shut up and get their own hobby.
Plus, once you start swinging there isn't a whole lot that will dampen your oscillations.
we still need to fit shoes but we went back to doing it the old fassioned way.
Your way is so five minutes ago.
Yeah, but dreamhost doesn't run commercials suggesting that Danica Patrick will take her top off for you.
... keep in mind that very recently we had a senator shot at a political rally
Actually she's on the House side, and it wasn't a political rally, but rather a meet-the-constituents on the street kind of event.
A real nerd wouldn't have stored it in Excel. :P
And don't forget that METAFONT is at version 2.718281
I got two checks from him (back when they were real checks) just from Digital Typography (a book I highly recommend).
Did you ever cash them? I always hear that the people who got them never cashed them. I always thought that it must be a pain in the ass for Knuth to balance his checkbook with all those uncleared checks. :)
Get off my lawn!