Why would finding an inhabited class M planet bother Christians? Do you know enough about orthodox Christian doctrine (not the rantings of someone on the fringe of the Church, mind you) to explain why this should be a problem? Or are you thinking of some narrow stereotype of Christians you picked up from TV?
I'm a Christian, I've read the Bible, I have a solid understanding of Christian orthodoxy, and I _expect_ that God has created more than one planet with life as we know it. (Actually, I believe they might be experiencing life better than we know it; the effects of the Fall may be limited to our little planet.)
This is all find and dandy, but it's just incremental improvements in existing stuff. What I get the hots for are the quantum leaps: fundamental changes in technology that give you huge leaps in performance, reliability, portability, usability, scalability... You get the picture.
We need both. We need the Intels and AMDs shaving off a few nanoseconds here and there by upping the clock speeds and improving the caching, etc. But we also need someone in the skunk works somewhere trying for the "Now for something completely different" stuff.
You need to contact Jeff Bates (aka Hemos) or Rob Malda (CmdrTaco). Right now, Malda is on vacation, so Jeff Bates would be your best bet, hemos@slashdot.org.
The post you objected to contains hearsay evidence. "So-and-so told me about a document..." What's proprietary about hearsay?
Regarding the alleged document: If you're the "so-and-so" who spilled the beans about the alleged document--a document that's so bloody proprietary and confidential--then YOU should have gotten the spillee to sign an NDA before spilling.
Like anything from Humongous Entertainment (Pajama Sam, Spy Fox, Freddi Fish). The "edutainment" titles in the Blaster series (Math and Reading Blaster).
If I could get these on Linux (plus a decent small business accounting package), I'd wipe my Win partition in a heartbeat.
Kubrick had the scenes of spaceships (and on the moon) silent, and nobody complained. (OK, he had all those "atmospheric" classical music pieces playing...) I don't think anybody has ever said "2001" wasn't a "decent" film.
Free speech does NOT mean you are free to say ANYTHING you want, ANYTIME you want, and ANYWHERE you want. There are limits to "free speech."
Slander and libel (forms of speech) are illegal. Perjury is illegal. Each of these term has a clear legal definition. Obscenity (a form of speech) is illegal (the trick here is getting a solid legal definition of what obscenity is). Inciting a riot (a form of speech) is illegal. I could go on.
What Ray said applies to anything you say anywhere, not just to this particular thread on slashdot. If you say something slanderous or print a libelous statement, you could be sued, and all your cries of "free speech" wouldn't mean squat.
Thank you John, for another screed filled with factual errors and logical fallacies.
Religion and freedom have never really gotten along, from the persecution of Galileo to the demands by Orthodox Jews that Jerusalem shut down its cinemas on Friday night to Islamic attacks on writers and reporters in some Middle Eastern countries.
Ever read your history, John? The Pilgrims were a deeply religious lot, and they were seeking freedom when they set sail for North America. Most, if not all, of the founding fathers were deeply religious. Those who weren't, were at least deists. Most of those who fought for the emancipation of the slaves in the US and in the UK were religious people.
Sure, there are those who use religion to thwart freedom, but to conclude from that that religion and freedom are fundamentally opposed is foolish. There is no conflict, per se, between religious faith and freedom.
Technology, a disseminator of so much information, a force for freedom, has always come under fire as Satan's ally.
Hooey. Ever hear of Martin Luther? His ideas, and the religious reform and freedom that came with it owed a great deal to technology, namely Gutenberg's printing press.
Some people, like the Amish and the Old-order Mennonites are careful to analyze the long-term effects of a technology before adopting it, but they are not anti-technology, per se. Again, your conclusion is faulty.
There's never been any substantive evidence to support the idea that TV shows, movies or computers have been a factor in the recent series of shootings -- statistically rare but horrific nonetheless -- in American schools.
Wrong again. The U.S. Surgeon General was recently asked to study the effects of media violence in children. He said they already did. The results are virtually unanimous: of 1000 studies, only 18 found no link between media violence and violence in youth. Of those 18, 12 were sponsored by the media. Gee, why do you suppose the media isn't the media reporting this?
...is The Tom Peters Seminar: Crazy Times call for Crazy Organizations. He advocates not just "re-engineering" businesses (an overused term if there ever was one), but wholesale the dismantling of businesses, processes, etc., and putting things back together into small, nimble units. I'm only part way through it, but he seems to be heading in the same general direction as Christiansen's book.
Let me clarify: When the discussion is about what Singer thinks, what you think Singer thinks isn't relevant. What Singer actually says (which, coupled with his actions, is the only way we can draw conclusions about what he things) is relevant.
What hubris it is for humans to even dare suggest that they are indeed exempt from natural selection. Do you think that out in the wild parents (read: animals) allow their offspring to go on living if it is clear that they can not fend for themselves? Clearly not. Only the strong survive. This is the natural way of things. The only thing that separates humans from the natural world is their disgusting way of thinking.
I think that it is perfectly in tune with our "nature" for human parents, or for humans in general, to care for those who cannot care for themselves. It's called "compassion."
"Natural selection" does not go anywhere near explaining why we do what we do, so I wouldn't hold it up as an idol we must submit to.
Singer does not say he's just trying to get people to think about difficult things. He says parents should be allowed to kill their children. It looks to me like he does want it institutionalized.
What you think his goals are is irrelevant, unless you can substantiate it with quotes from Singer himself.
Something that hasn't made headlines is the fact that Singer's mother has Alzheimer's disease. If Singer was consistent with his beliefs, he would allow her to starve to death. According to what he says, in the long run, doing so would reduce the sum of human suffering. He isn't doing that; he's paying huge sums of money for her care, AND he admits that this is hypocrytical.
In other words, he doesn't want to live in the kind of society he's advocating.
The logical outcome of Singer's worldview is that whoever has power decides who lives and who dies, period. I don't want to live in that kind of society.
Besides, Singer's ideas fail the Golden Rule: "Do unto others," or if you prefer "What you yourself hate, don't do to your neighbor. This is the law; the rest is commentary." (Rabbi Hillel the Elder, ca. 40 B.C. - 10 A.D.)
...was from a SF short story I read years ago (and I can't remember squat about the story, but this one bit really stuck in my mind). They took the sperm from one of the frozen mammoths (or are they mastodons?) in Siberia and impregnated a couple of elephants. (This assumes they're close enough to cross-breed, of course.) Then they were cross-breeding the offspring with the most mammoth-like characteristics in order to "purify" the genetic material. Sure, not as "cool" as cloning, but I thought it was an interesting thought.
I'd think they'd use a very structured command language, a sort of controlled english, for this, to avoid the ambiguities of casual spoken english.
Seems like something like that was used in one of Niven and Pornelle's "Integral Trees" novels, but I can't remember which one off-hand. Anyways, to access the computer, the grad used a Russian (I think) word to get the computer's attention, followed by the necessary command.
But who can blame you for forgetting that woofer? I can't even remember what it's name was, but it was that yellow doojobbie that hovered around Robin William's head offering snide remarks and hiding appointments from him.
OK, I just checked at the IMDB, and it was called Weebo. What a dumb name. Cool idea, though.
Moody left out poorly designed and executed applications (I fight with MSWord on an almost daily basis), and the glut of information--which requires time to sort and process, hence cutting productivity.
This is not to mention crummy management, crummy employees, and office politics. The OS may be a factor, but it isn't the only one.
I use WinNT 4 every work day, and it is admittedly more stable and robust that Win95. But I still battle flaky behavior: apps that lock up for no apparent reason, memory leaks, system slowdowns. I have to reboot a couple of times a week.
I work in a business that uses NT for networking, and we have servers crashing, general service weirdness, yada-yada.
Ummmm, correct me if I'm wrong...
on
Is X The Future?
·
· Score: 1
...but is X a GUI? From my (admittedly limited) understanding, X is the stuff underlying the GUI. Can somebody who KNOWS clarify?
(I can see the people with genital piercings complaining already)
So, how do they (and those with body piercing in general) get through airport metal detectors now? It can be bad enough for people with surgical screws, plates, etc. I had to submit to being frisked by a burly Russian with a submachine gun in the Moscow airport because the eyelets on my boots set off the metal detector. I can imagine the problem people with lots of hardware have.
Slashdot Mirror
And your point is...what?
Why would finding an inhabited class M planet bother Christians? Do you know enough about orthodox Christian doctrine (not the rantings of someone on the fringe of the Church, mind you) to explain why this should be a problem? Or are you thinking of some narrow stereotype of Christians you picked up from TV?
I'm a Christian, I've read the Bible, I have a solid understanding of Christian orthodoxy, and I _expect_ that God has created more than one planet with life as we know it. (Actually, I believe they might be experiencing life better than we know it; the effects of the Fall may be limited to our little planet.)
Gah! "...find and dandy..." Strike that! Make it "...fine and dandy..."
This is all find and dandy, but it's just incremental improvements in existing stuff. What I get the hots for are the quantum leaps: fundamental changes in technology that give you huge leaps in performance, reliability, portability, usability, scalability... You get the picture.
We need both. We need the Intels and AMDs shaving off a few nanoseconds here and there by upping the clock speeds and improving the caching, etc. But we also need someone in the skunk works somewhere trying for the "Now for something completely different" stuff.
You need to contact Jeff Bates (aka Hemos) or Rob Malda (CmdrTaco). Right now, Malda is on vacation, so Jeff Bates would be your best bet, hemos@slashdot.org.
Mr. "Potty-mouth" Montoya,
The post you objected to contains hearsay evidence. "So-and-so told me about a document..." What's proprietary about hearsay?
Regarding the alleged document: If you're the "so-and-so" who spilled the beans about the alleged document--a document that's so bloody proprietary and confidential--then YOU should have gotten the spillee to sign an NDA before spilling.
Seems to me it's YOUR problem, not SlashDot's.
Like anything from Humongous Entertainment (Pajama Sam, Spy Fox, Freddi Fish). The "edutainment" titles in the Blaster series (Math and Reading Blaster).
If I could get these on Linux (plus a decent small business accounting package), I'd wipe my Win partition in a heartbeat.
After all, there isn't a practical manmade nanotech device yet in existence.
Take a look at http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_mm.htm for some examples of "molecular machines."
Oh, you said "manmade." Sorry.
(Sorry about the alliteration...)
Kubrick had the scenes of spaceships (and on the moon) silent, and nobody complained. (OK, he had all those "atmospheric" classical music pieces playing...) I don't think anybody has ever said "2001" wasn't a "decent" film.
Free speech does NOT mean you are free to say ANYTHING you want, ANYTIME you want, and ANYWHERE you want. There are limits to "free speech."
Slander and libel (forms of speech) are illegal. Perjury is illegal. Each of these term has a clear legal definition. Obscenity (a form of speech) is illegal (the trick here is getting a solid legal definition of what obscenity is). Inciting a riot (a form of speech) is illegal. I could go on.
What Ray said applies to anything you say anywhere, not just to this particular thread on slashdot. If you say something slanderous or print a libelous statement, you could be sued, and all your cries of "free speech" wouldn't mean squat.
...get a login and start accumulating some moderator karma. Then you can be a moderator retard, instead of an AC retard.
Thank you John, for another screed filled with factual errors and logical fallacies.
Religion and freedom have never really gotten along, from the persecution of Galileo to the demands by Orthodox Jews that Jerusalem shut down its cinemas on Friday night to Islamic attacks on writers and reporters in some Middle Eastern countries.
Ever read your history, John? The Pilgrims were a deeply religious lot, and they were seeking freedom when they set sail for North America. Most, if not all, of the founding fathers were deeply religious. Those who weren't, were at least deists. Most of those who fought for the emancipation of the slaves in the US and in the UK were religious people.
Sure, there are those who use religion to thwart freedom, but to conclude from that that religion and freedom are fundamentally opposed is foolish. There is no conflict, per se, between religious faith and freedom.
Technology, a disseminator of so much information, a force for freedom, has always come under fire as Satan's ally.
Hooey. Ever hear of Martin Luther? His ideas, and the religious reform and freedom that came with it owed a great deal to technology, namely Gutenberg's printing press.
Some people, like the Amish and the Old-order Mennonites are careful to analyze the long-term effects of a technology before adopting it, but they are not anti-technology, per se. Again, your conclusion is faulty.
There's never been any substantive evidence to support the idea that TV shows, movies or computers have been a factor in the recent series of shootings -- statistically rare but horrific nonetheless -- in American schools.
Wrong again. The U.S. Surgeon General was recently asked to study the effects of media violence in children. He said they already did. The results are virtually unanimous: of 1000 studies, only 18 found no link between media violence and violence in youth. Of those 18, 12 were sponsored by the media. Gee, why do you suppose the media isn't the media reporting this?
...is The Tom Peters Seminar: Crazy Times call for Crazy Organizations. He advocates not just "re-engineering" businesses (an overused term if there ever was one), but wholesale the dismantling of businesses, processes, etc., and putting things back together into small, nimble units. I'm only part way through it, but he seems to be heading in the same general direction as Christiansen's book.
Let me clarify: When the discussion is about what Singer thinks, what you think Singer thinks isn't relevant. What Singer actually says (which, coupled with his actions, is the only way we can draw conclusions about what he things) is relevant.
What hubris it is for humans to even dare suggest that they are indeed exempt from natural selection. Do you think that out in the wild parents (read: animals) allow their offspring to go on living if it is clear that they can not fend for themselves? Clearly not. Only the strong survive. This is the natural way of things. The only thing that separates humans from the natural world is their disgusting way of thinking.
I think that it is perfectly in tune with our "nature" for human parents, or for humans in general, to care for those who cannot care for themselves. It's called "compassion."
"Natural selection" does not go anywhere near explaining why we do what we do, so I wouldn't hold it up as an idol we must submit to.
Singer does not say he's just trying to get people to think about difficult things. He says parents should be allowed to kill their children. It looks to me like he does want it institutionalized.
What you think his goals are is irrelevant, unless you can substantiate it with quotes from Singer himself.
Something that hasn't made headlines is the fact that Singer's mother has Alzheimer's disease. If Singer was consistent with his beliefs, he would allow her to starve to death. According to what he says, in the long run, doing so would reduce the sum of human suffering.
He isn't doing that; he's paying huge sums of money for her care, AND he admits that this is hypocrytical.
In other words, he doesn't want to live in the kind of society he's advocating.
The logical outcome of Singer's worldview is that whoever has power decides who lives and who dies, period. I don't want to live in that kind of society.
Besides, Singer's ideas fail the Golden Rule: "Do unto others," or if you prefer "What you yourself hate, don't do to your neighbor. This is the law; the rest is commentary." (Rabbi Hillel the Elder, ca. 40 B.C. - 10 A.D.)
...was from a SF short story I read years ago (and I can't remember squat about the story, but this one bit really stuck in my mind). They took the sperm from one of the frozen mammoths (or are they mastodons?) in Siberia and impregnated a couple of elephants. (This assumes they're close enough to cross-breed, of course.) Then they were cross-breeding the offspring with the most mammoth-like characteristics in order to "purify" the genetic material. Sure, not as "cool" as cloning, but I thought it was an interesting thought.
That one had the Bit. It didn't do much other than float around and answer yes or no questions. Kind of a binary magic 8-ball.
I'd think they'd use a very structured command language, a sort of controlled english, for this, to avoid the ambiguities of casual spoken english.
Seems like something like that was used in one of Niven and Pornelle's "Integral Trees" novels, but I can't remember which one off-hand. Anyways, to access the computer, the grad used a Russian (I think) word to get the computer's attention, followed by the necessary command.
But who can blame you for forgetting that woofer? I can't even remember what it's name was, but it was that yellow doojobbie that hovered around Robin William's head offering snide remarks and hiding appointments from him.
OK, I just checked at the IMDB, and it was called Weebo. What a dumb name. Cool idea, though.
Dedicated to all the ms-trolls who've been here lately, who wouldn't recognize ENIAC if it fell on their heads.
(Go ahead, moderate this down. It deserves it.)
Moody left out poorly designed and executed applications (I fight with MSWord on an almost daily basis), and the glut of information--which requires time to sort and process, hence cutting productivity.
This is not to mention crummy management, crummy employees, and office politics. The OS may be a factor, but it isn't the only one.
I use WinNT 4 every work day, and it is admittedly more stable and robust that Win95. But I still battle flaky behavior: apps that lock up for no apparent reason, memory leaks, system slowdowns. I have to reboot a couple of times a week.
I work in a business that uses NT for networking, and we have servers crashing, general service weirdness, yada-yada.
...but is X a GUI? From my (admittedly limited) understanding, X is the stuff underlying the GUI. Can somebody who KNOWS clarify?
Tusind tak.
(I can see the people with genital piercings complaining already)
So, how do they (and those with body piercing in general) get through airport metal detectors now? It can be bad enough for people with surgical screws, plates, etc. I had to submit to being frisked by a burly Russian with a submachine gun in the Moscow airport because the eyelets on my boots set off the metal detector. I can imagine the problem people with lots of hardware have.