I think you've missed my point. An example...think of the 300-pound kid in New York that tried to sue a fast food chain for "making" him fat. Think of how often we do things because they're easier, but not necessarily better for us.
We had to type (with a typewriter) our papers to fit within the bounds of the margins, and spelling and grammar counted (and this was a Psychology class, not an English class.)
For written assignments, Spelling and English should ALWAYS count, as they are completely reliant upon, um, spelling and English.
But the system only knows what the investigating agencies put into it, and there's no indication of any kind of massive effort to connect it to other databases, or to put information about everyone in it. Such efforts would likely be counterproductive, since the volume of information would overwhelm the system's ability to cross-check everything.
The problem with information(data), is that it can be very easily re-purposed, disseminated, aggregated, and combined with other sources. It happens all the time...this is why the ChoicePoint fiasco was such a mess. An an even bigger problem faces the people who are supposedly represented by this information - if the data are in error, or if incorrect inferences are made, dealing with the fallout can easily become a major life event, where it requires proving that you DIDN'T do something, or that you WEREN'T intending to do something. It gets even worse- You have no idea where it will end up, who will be looking at it, and for what purpose.
I'm not a fan of criminal activity, but I do like the notion of freedom - including the freedom to be left alone. They might catch a few offenders with this technology, but people aren't stupid- they'll find ways around it. This, of course, will render the technology obsolete for this intended purpose, but it could easily remain in place for other purposes.
I think there's quite a difference between a decent society, and one where many of its members are completely inter-dependent. In fact, I'd call that a form of systemic dysfunction.
The original colonists survived because they were hearty, self-reliant people. Now we're fat, lazy, and expect everyone else to shoulder the burden associated with the choices that we make. All of the freedom, very little responsibility.
In the long run, which is going to leave us in a better position? Should we be fighting to maintain privacy in the face of increasingly efficient snooping, or fighting for freedom of thought and action?
They're both the same thing! Privacy, when mentioned in the context of freedom, is the right to be left alone.
After the findings of the commission on the 9/11 attacks were revealed, it became more than a little obvious that their biggest problem wasn't a lack of information, it was the lack of COMPETENCE.
To me it makes somse sense to abstract the data access away from the business application. This metholdogy embraces the whole notion of object-oriented design, since switching out the data means you won't have to touch the business app - just the interfaces.
I'm not sure I understand how this qualifies as a disadvantage for a developing country. Company A also has 20 years of cruft. Company A's motivation to rid itself of this cruft is based purely on economic considerations, which, roughly translated, means that it probably won't happen unless there's a damn good reason. Open source, however, since it is very dynamic, is less susceptible to this problem. This makes open source clearly superior in some ways.
Its funny, the combative tone some of these replies take.
I realize you have a profession, and that thsi profession happens to deal with advertising...but seriously...some people simply don't buy into the notion that they have any obligation whatsoever to take part in this little game. If I need something, I'll look for it. I'm not a money dispenser. I don't need a bunch of marketers hovering over me like vultures, waiting for any chance they get to convince me that I should buy whatever it is they're selling. I can manage the process myself, from start to finish. The hostility suggests that I'm not the only one that feels this way.
An example...if I as a Christian, believe that God created all, it means that he also created you, or at least the means that led to your existence. In my eyes, then, God's laws apply to you, even though you may have elected an entirely different path of spiritual enlightenment. This is the associated dogma I referenced.
I have seen, on occasion, scientists discussing the possibility of creation, scientific creation lacks context. Religion provides such a context, whether or not it is accurate. So, technically you are correct, but I'd argue that for all practical purposes, you can't have much of a discussion about creation without the including religious dogma.
If Evolutionists are correct, and there is no creator, then Creationists have nothing to lose by seeking to find and serve who they believe their creator is.
In reality, it doesn't quite work that way. It would be phenomenally great if people exercised their own religious pursuits in this manner, but it's not possible. The presence of a creator is an all-encompassing proposition. If I believe there is a creator, it logically assumes that this was the origin for all of humanity. The implication here is obvious...since you were borne from my creator, you are now subject to the associated dogma. Fortunately, laws protect us against this kind of theological tyranny.
Yes, this is correct. However, I'd argue that evolution, though one cannot prove that it actually occurred, *is* based on scientifically observable evidence. In other words, the theory of evolution is conjecture, but it is extrapolated from that which can been be observed. One might argue the same for religious faith, but I'd say that there's quite a leap between establishing a theory based on observable evidence, and establishing the existence of a "god" - an entity that represents the alpha and omega of existence, and everything in between. Unlike religion, the theory of evolution is not an ideology. There is no "church of evolution science.", nor is there an accompanying philosophy that details/dictates how one should live.
Logically speaking, I don't think something that is "faith-based" can be considered "true," since for most logical contructs, something that is "true" is true because it can be proven to be true. The absence of proof - the unconditional acceptance of an idea's validity without objective proof - is the very essence of faith.
The age old adage, "Familarity breeds contempt" seems to work its way into the picture, whether its intentional or not. It's just part of human nature. Most of the time, I become friends with those that end up hiring me. I don't mind this, but it tends to lessen the emphasis on formality, and as a result, the interaction can get a little casual. This alone, I think, might have at least some impact on the issue of respect. Another thing I've noticed...when you extend this to include free time here and there (at your option), it doesn't seem to help matters. Businesses like to save money, but they also need to keep abreast of the real cost associated with the support that's being provided.
I wonder if the community service IS the job offer...he'll get to be M$' bitch for 7 months. If his job were to locate security holes in M$ software, that would certainly qualify as a community service.
If an accurate comparison is drawn to other areas of engineering, look at how much it costs to research, test, and build new technology in general. How many BILLIONS of dollars were poured into designing and building and testing the varous components for the space shuttle? Even then, we had the O-ring disaster. There were also problems with tiles that would fall off (loosen?) during re-entry, and probably countless others that we've never heard of.
Houses and software are very similar. There are local housing codes which require builders to adhere to certain standards, but these serve as a bare minimum- they don't guarantee that you have a quality product. Ask anyone who a) watches the development process as their home is built, and b) knows enough to know what isn't being done correctly. A completed house can also be riddled with bugs and deficiencies.
Since GTA does give you points for sleeping with hookers, killing them, and taking there money no one in there right mind will stand up and say that it is not an immoral game except a few "gamers" guess what gamers do not count.
Ever read the Bible?
Since GTA does give you points for sleeping with hookers, killing them, and taking there money
To suggest that this IS the game, is rediculous. It's a small part of the game, and a very unimportant one, at that. It's so unimportant that if you change the camera view so that you're looking at the front of the car during an "encounter", oh my gosh! They're still there...sitting in their seats! To say that "beating up hookers" is part of the game is completely overlooking the fact that beating up ANYONE is part of the game, Why single out hookers? I guess it makes better political fodder.
I think real people, like Mr. Clinton himself, have far more impact on kids than a game like GTA3.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you've missed my point. An example...think of the 300-pound kid in New York that tried to sue a fast food chain for "making" him fat. Think of how often we do things because they're easier, but not necessarily better for us.
We had to type (with a typewriter) our papers to fit within the bounds of the margins, and spelling and grammar counted (and this was a Psychology class, not an English class.)
For written assignments, Spelling and English should ALWAYS count, as they are completely reliant upon, um, spelling and English.
But the system only knows what the investigating agencies put into it, and there's no indication of any kind of massive effort to connect it to other databases, or to put information about everyone in it. Such efforts would likely be counterproductive, since the volume of information would overwhelm the system's ability to cross-check everything.
The problem with information(data), is that it can be very easily re-purposed, disseminated, aggregated, and combined with other sources. It happens all the time...this is why the ChoicePoint fiasco was such a mess. An an even bigger problem faces the people who are supposedly represented by this information - if the data are in error, or if incorrect inferences are made, dealing with the fallout can easily become a major life event, where it requires proving that you DIDN'T do something, or that you WEREN'T intending to do something. It gets even worse- You have no idea where it will end up, who will be looking at it, and for what purpose.
I'm not a fan of criminal activity, but I do like the notion of freedom - including the freedom to be left alone. They might catch a few offenders with this technology, but people aren't stupid- they'll find ways around it. This, of course, will render the technology obsolete for this intended purpose, but it could easily remain in place for other purposes.
I think there's quite a difference between a decent society, and one where many of its members are completely inter-dependent. In fact, I'd call that a form of systemic dysfunction.
The original colonists survived because they were hearty, self-reliant people. Now we're fat, lazy, and expect everyone else to shoulder the burden associated with the choices that we make. All of the freedom, very little responsibility.
congress ... well-thought out legislation
huh?
In the long run, which is going to leave us in a better position? Should we be fighting to maintain privacy in the face of increasingly efficient snooping, or fighting for freedom of thought and action?
They're both the same thing! Privacy, when mentioned in the context of freedom, is the right to be left alone.
To an extent I agree, but there is still the issue of converting tables back and forth from the object models used in the business app.
After the findings of the commission on the 9/11 attacks were revealed, it became more than a little obvious that their biggest problem wasn't a lack of information, it was the lack of COMPETENCE.
To me it makes somse sense to abstract the data access away from the business application. This metholdogy embraces the whole notion of object-oriented design, since switching out the data means you won't have to touch the business app - just the interfaces.
I wouldn't choose them, but they are extremely well priced in the UK broadband market
Probably because they don't have to deal bridge trolls like Qwest.
Ah, nothing like an intelligent, well-reasoned response.
Consider the *implementation* of IP (if you can).
I'm not sure I understand how this qualifies as a disadvantage for a developing country. Company A also has 20 years of cruft. Company A's motivation to rid itself of this cruft is based purely on economic considerations, which, roughly translated, means that it probably won't happen unless there's a damn good reason. Open source, however, since it is very dynamic, is less susceptible to this problem. This makes open source clearly superior in some ways.
Its funny, the combative tone some of these replies take.
I realize you have a profession, and that thsi profession happens to deal with advertising...but seriously...some people simply don't buy into the notion that they have any obligation whatsoever to take part in this little game. If I need something, I'll look for it. I'm not a money dispenser. I don't need a bunch of marketers hovering over me like vultures, waiting for any chance they get to convince me that I should buy whatever it is they're selling. I can manage the process myself, from start to finish. The hostility suggests that I'm not the only one that feels this way.
An example...if I as a Christian, believe that God created all, it means that he also created you, or at least the means that led to your existence. In my eyes, then, God's laws apply to you, even though you may have elected an entirely different path of spiritual enlightenment. This is the associated dogma I referenced.
Neither Evolution nor Creation are ideologies.
I have seen, on occasion, scientists discussing the possibility of creation, scientific creation lacks context. Religion provides such a context, whether or not it is accurate. So, technically you are correct, but I'd argue that for all practical purposes, you can't have much of a discussion about creation without the including religious dogma.
If Evolutionists are correct, and there is no creator, then Creationists have nothing to lose by seeking to find and serve who they believe their creator is.
In reality, it doesn't quite work that way. It would be phenomenally great if people exercised their own religious pursuits in this manner, but it's not possible. The presence of a creator is an all-encompassing proposition. If I believe there is a creator, it logically assumes that this was the origin for all of humanity. The implication here is obvious...since you were borne from my creator, you are now subject to the associated dogma. Fortunately, laws protect us against this kind of theological tyranny.
Yes, this is correct. However, I'd argue that evolution, though one cannot prove that it actually occurred, *is* based on scientifically observable evidence. In other words, the theory of evolution is conjecture, but it is extrapolated from that which can been be observed. One might argue the same for religious faith, but I'd say that there's quite a leap between establishing a theory based on observable evidence, and establishing the existence of a "god" - an entity that represents the alpha and omega of existence, and everything in between. Unlike religion, the theory of evolution is not an ideology. There is no "church of evolution science.", nor is there an accompanying philosophy that details/dictates how one should live.
this faith-based truth
Logically speaking, I don't think something that is "faith-based" can be considered "true," since for most logical contructs, something that is "true" is true because it can be proven to be true. The absence of proof - the unconditional acceptance of an idea's validity without objective proof - is the very essence of faith.
What does ANY of this have to do with disclosure of corporate finances and executive compensation?
The age old adage, "Familarity breeds contempt" seems to work its way into the picture, whether its intentional or not. It's just part of human nature. Most of the time, I become friends with those that end up hiring me. I don't mind this, but it tends to lessen the emphasis on formality, and as a result, the interaction can get a little casual. This alone, I think, might have at least some impact on the issue of respect. Another thing I've noticed...when you extend this to include free time here and there (at your option), it doesn't seem to help matters. Businesses like to save money, but they also need to keep abreast of the real cost associated with the support that's being provided.
I wonder if the community service IS the job offer...he'll get to be M$' bitch for 7 months. If his job were to locate security holes in M$ software, that would certainly qualify as a community service.
If an accurate comparison is drawn to other areas of engineering, look at how much it costs to research, test, and build new technology in general. How many BILLIONS of dollars were poured into designing and building and testing the varous components for the space shuttle? Even then, we had the O-ring disaster. There were also problems with tiles that would fall off (loosen?) during re-entry, and probably countless others that we've never heard of.
Houses and software are very similar. There are local housing codes which require builders to adhere to certain standards, but these serve as a bare minimum- they don't guarantee that you have a quality product. Ask anyone who a) watches the development process as their home is built, and b) knows enough to know what isn't being done correctly. A completed house can also be riddled with bugs and deficiencies.
If I remember correctly, it requires specific bit patterns (depending on the controller), to render the strongest signal from an HD's write heads.
What's your point exactly? Is it that Bush's actions somehow make what Clinton did OK?
Since GTA does give you points for sleeping with hookers, killing them, and taking there money no one in there right mind will stand up and say that it is not an immoral game except a few "gamers" guess what gamers do not count.
Ever read the Bible?
Since GTA does give you points for sleeping with hookers, killing them, and taking there money
To suggest that this IS the game, is rediculous. It's a small part of the game, and a very unimportant one, at that. It's so unimportant that if you change the camera view so that you're looking at the front of the car during an "encounter", oh my gosh! They're still there...sitting in their seats! To say that "beating up hookers" is part of the game is completely overlooking the fact that beating up ANYONE is part of the game, Why single out hookers? I guess it makes better political fodder.
I think real people, like Mr. Clinton himself, have far more impact on kids than a game like GTA3.