You're focusing on the insult, which happens to be valid, and asserting that your ideas are not being believed, without bothering to support them. You do not get to simply lie and say that you know best, despite being admittedly incapable of providing empirical evidence. You cannot prove a word of what you say, including the link to school shootings. Your motivations are expressly bigoted, and you are not honest.
Your remark about religiously dogmatic views was quite funny, however. Did you forget that you were arguing on the basis of religiously-influenced tradition, and saying that you have no evidence for your beliefs? How convenient.
You are fundamentally assuming that your chosen societal model is better, and offering nothing but fairly bald and circular lies in support. Fortunately, the existence of birth control is not up for debate, so your unhappiness is your own concern.
If you want to avoid being called a bigot, don't be one. Until then, may I suggest attempting to redress the population problem in your own person?
Showing strong correlation here is sufficient. Societal stability is a factor of too many variables to have a clear cut causal link to any single factor. This is easily seen in societies that stood the test of time, versus those that did not.
Hand-waving proves nothing. If you admit that you can't possibly isolate an effect, then clearly it's not consequential, waffling about "the test of time" notwithstanding.
What you are saying is that societies where young females control their own sexuality have lower birth rates. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. We have this thing called "birth control", so we don't need to try to use social pressure to do that, especially not when it reduces women to the role of breeding stock.
Note that disguising your bigotry by talking about "those from outside" does not change its essential character.
Oh, good, you admit that this is all about controlling young female sexuality. Now why don't you prove a causal link between forms of marriage and "stability", however defined, and also find some empirical evidence which suggests that this will always be true. Good luck.
Alternately, you could abandon the idea of trying to control other people's sex lives based on Bronze Age mythology.
Overwriting it once is good enough. There's no evidence that anyone has ever pulled off an real-world attack such as Gutmann described, and the people who have tried this under ideal situations (very old drive, never previously written, target data was the only thing on the drive, overwritten once) only managed to recover a few characters. In this century, recovering overwritten data is impossible, and the odds are that it was never practical to begin with.
Here's a hint: we've NEVER had completely open, unregulated borders. There has always been an immigration station, a check of who's coming in and out.
Funny, that's not how the INS tells it. First sentence: "Americans encouraged relatively free and open immigration during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and rarely questioned that policy until the late 1800s." If I were to apologize for you, I would say that you're projecting modern ideas of citizenship, nationality, and law enforcement onto a society with very different beliefs and practices.
As far as your virtue signaling, I've lived on four continents (meaning more than a few years) and married outside my culture and race. How about you?
Dear, whether or not your values match the ones that this country was founded upon is the matter under argument. Virtue signaling on the other hand would include making random statements about what a good person you are. Let's stop before tu quoque, okay?
What a lovely story. Fantastic strawman there at the end, it definitely shows exactly what you resent: any infringement upon your native superiority. Also, you're a morally bankrupt lmbecile if what you get from "give me your refuse" is "admission contingent upon enhanced screening".
ACLs aren't a better abstraction (and Windows permissions even less so), they are more powerful, but in every other aspect they are utter crap and a usability nightmare.
Security and usability are always opposed. I have a Mark I brick which is extremely secure, although the user interface leaves something to be desired. Generally, end users shouldn't need to mess with permissions, so it's sufficient to be usable from the developer's point of view.
If someone had a better abstraction, there'd be no need to keep the old user/group/other permission system really.
Right. We'll just go update POSIX. That should be completely trivial.
Granted, but that's not necessarily a good argument. Standard Unix permissions provide a fairly limited set of abstractions. You have groups, users, and anyone; read, write, and execute; and a few other flags. It's concise, capable of expressing anything you like, and very efficient. One can say the same thing about assembly code. In both cases, having better abstractions is necessary, and the most important factor is the amount of time required by the various developers. And on that note, I must say that I have no idea whether either modern Linux or Windows has an advantage over the other, simply that the argument of "it doesn't come up often" isn't necessarily a good one.
Actually I think that people who use the word 'coding' have no clue about computers and software anyway...
You overvalue the utility of low-level abstractions, and your own knowledge. "Knowing about computers" as you have defined it, is not as important or as useful as higher level abstractions. If things were otherwise, we would not have bothered to invent higher level languages. Further, the computers you describe are merely computing toys, extremely limited in expression and ability. If you reduce what can be done to the level of PEEK and POKE, then you can indeed say that your system is simpler, in the same way that a tricycle is simpler than a car, but PEEK and POKE are not going to help you build web pages, or anything else of interest.
Yes, the fundamental tool of the programmer is not ones and zeros, but abstraction. Both binary math and functional abstractions can be used as the basis of computation, but if you are going to focus on one to the exclusion of the other, then learning functional abstractions will serve you better in the long run. How computers work is incidental to the mathematics of computation, and a university course should be teaching you far more about the Church-Turing thesis than bit-banging.
Starting from functional abstractions is not actually harder than starting with ones and zeros. I've known plenty of people to jump straight into higher level functions without ever writing a for loop. I vastly prefer the person who only knows the higher abstractions to the person who writes C in every language.
"Power users" can generally take a hike. The two categories of user are programmers, and normal users. Calling oneself a "power user" is just a symptom of unfounded self-importance.
We all need to listen to Frank Drake (founder of SETI) on this one. We are not ever going to detect any alien communications (unless they are specifically targeted at us with that intent). We have a hard enough time talking to Mars: that whole 'Sun' thing makes for a terrible SNR. Not only that, but broadcasting high-energy analog signals is extremely wasteful. Humanity had about a 50-year period where we did this. Now, as you say, we use waveguides. We also don't send anything in analog form any more. Digital data that you don't know how to decode tends to look an awful lot like noise, even without being encrypted or compressed.
What SETI is doing is completely pointless, even compared to cryptocurrency mining.
sh I might grant you, but Bash is only notable because the previous shells were intolerably bad. Bash does not have typed variables, or named parameters, or classes. Its array syntax is bizarre, its conditional operator is an external program with a required last argument of ']', and it's not even all that good about parsing command line parameters. The entire Unix toolchain is extremely effective; Bash qua Bash is exceedingly primitive, and if it were a new language introduced today, no one would ever use it, let alone develop tooling around it.
I feel like you've made this same argument before, with this same useless factoid. The rest of the items on that list are equally embarrassing, so I'm not sure what exactly your argument is -- presumably you consider the list's existence to be shameful.
If what you have to offer the younger generation is a bad temper and an "It's all been done before" attitude, you should get out of "IT". And if after 30 years you're doing "IT" and not "CS", you're an overpaid computer janitor. This would presumably also explain your talking about web frameworks and AI research as if they had anything to do with one another.
It's not a useless study, you're simply mistaking its purpose. The question is whether non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer at any level. The answer appears to be a qualified, "maybe".
Slashdot Mirror
You're focusing on the insult, which happens to be valid, and asserting that your ideas are not being believed, without bothering to support them. You do not get to simply lie and say that you know best, despite being admittedly incapable of providing empirical evidence. You cannot prove a word of what you say, including the link to school shootings. Your motivations are expressly bigoted, and you are not honest.
Your remark about religiously dogmatic views was quite funny, however. Did you forget that you were arguing on the basis of religiously-influenced tradition, and saying that you have no evidence for your beliefs? How convenient.
You are fundamentally assuming that your chosen societal model is better, and offering nothing but fairly bald and circular lies in support. Fortunately, the existence of birth control is not up for debate, so your unhappiness is your own concern.
If you want to avoid being called a bigot, don't be one. Until then, may I suggest attempting to redress the population problem in your own person?
Showing strong correlation here is sufficient. Societal stability is a factor of too many variables to have a clear cut causal link to any single factor. This is easily seen in societies that stood the test of time, versus those that did not.
Hand-waving proves nothing. If you admit that you can't possibly isolate an effect, then clearly it's not consequential, waffling about "the test of time" notwithstanding.
What you are saying is that societies where young females control their own sexuality have lower birth rates. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. We have this thing called "birth control", so we don't need to try to use social pressure to do that, especially not when it reduces women to the role of breeding stock.
Note that disguising your bigotry by talking about "those from outside" does not change its essential character.
Oh, good, you admit that this is all about controlling young female sexuality. Now why don't you prove a causal link between forms of marriage and "stability", however defined, and also find some empirical evidence which suggests that this will always be true. Good luck.
Alternately, you could abandon the idea of trying to control other people's sex lives based on Bronze Age mythology.
Polyandry and polygamy also predate the Bible. There isn't just one workable societal structure. If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.
Overwriting it once is good enough. There's no evidence that anyone has ever pulled off an real-world attack such as Gutmann described, and the people who have tried this under ideal situations (very old drive, never previously written, target data was the only thing on the drive, overwritten once) only managed to recover a few characters. In this century, recovering overwritten data is impossible, and the odds are that it was never practical to begin with.
Here's a hint: we've NEVER had completely open, unregulated borders. There has always been an immigration station, a check of who's coming in and out.
Funny, that's not how the INS tells it. First sentence: "Americans encouraged relatively free and open immigration during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and rarely questioned that policy until the late 1800s." If I were to apologize for you, I would say that you're projecting modern ideas of citizenship, nationality, and law enforcement onto a society with very different beliefs and practices.
As far as your virtue signaling, I've lived on four continents (meaning more than a few years) and married outside my culture and race. How about you?
Dear, whether or not your values match the ones that this country was founded upon is the matter under argument. Virtue signaling on the other hand would include making random statements about what a good person you are. Let's stop before tu quoque, okay?
What a lovely story. Fantastic strawman there at the end, it definitely shows exactly what you resent: any infringement upon your native superiority. Also, you're a morally bankrupt lmbecile if what you get from "give me your refuse" is "admission contingent upon enhanced screening".
Norway does not have a Statue of Liberty, upon which is graven
Perhaps you'd like to live in Norway, or Mexico.
I'm surprised at the concerted and overwhelming level of trolling. We've always had a cadre of moronic science deniers, but this seems exceptional.
ACLs aren't a better abstraction (and Windows permissions even less so), they are more powerful, but in every other aspect they are utter crap and a usability nightmare.
Security and usability are always opposed. I have a Mark I brick which is extremely secure, although the user interface leaves something to be desired. Generally, end users shouldn't need to mess with permissions, so it's sufficient to be usable from the developer's point of view.
If someone had a better abstraction, there'd be no need to keep the old user/group/other permission system really.
Right. We'll just go update POSIX. That should be completely trivial.
Granted, but that's not necessarily a good argument. Standard Unix permissions provide a fairly limited set of abstractions. You have groups, users, and anyone; read, write, and execute; and a few other flags. It's concise, capable of expressing anything you like, and very efficient. One can say the same thing about assembly code. In both cases, having better abstractions is necessary, and the most important factor is the amount of time required by the various developers. And on that note, I must say that I have no idea whether either modern Linux or Windows has an advantage over the other, simply that the argument of "it doesn't come up often" isn't necessarily a good one.
Actually I think that people who use the word 'coding' have no clue about computers and software anyway ...
You overvalue the utility of low-level abstractions, and your own knowledge. "Knowing about computers" as you have defined it, is not as important or as useful as higher level abstractions. If things were otherwise, we would not have bothered to invent higher level languages. Further, the computers you describe are merely computing toys, extremely limited in expression and ability. If you reduce what can be done to the level of PEEK and POKE, then you can indeed say that your system is simpler, in the same way that a tricycle is simpler than a car, but PEEK and POKE are not going to help you build web pages, or anything else of interest.
Yes, the fundamental tool of the programmer is not ones and zeros, but abstraction. Both binary math and functional abstractions can be used as the basis of computation, but if you are going to focus on one to the exclusion of the other, then learning functional abstractions will serve you better in the long run. How computers work is incidental to the mathematics of computation, and a university course should be teaching you far more about the Church-Turing thesis than bit-banging.
Starting from functional abstractions is not actually harder than starting with ones and zeros. I've known plenty of people to jump straight into higher level functions without ever writing a for loop. I vastly prefer the person who only knows the higher abstractions to the person who writes C in every language.
You know how they say there's no such thing as a stupid question?
Congratulations.
"Power users" can generally take a hike. The two categories of user are programmers, and normal users. Calling oneself a "power user" is just a symptom of unfounded self-importance.
We all need to listen to Frank Drake (founder of SETI) on this one. We are not ever going to detect any alien communications (unless they are specifically targeted at us with that intent). We have a hard enough time talking to Mars: that whole 'Sun' thing makes for a terrible SNR. Not only that, but broadcasting high-energy analog signals is extremely wasteful. Humanity had about a 50-year period where we did this. Now, as you say, we use waveguides. We also don't send anything in analog form any more. Digital data that you don't know how to decode tends to look an awful lot like noise, even without being encrypted or compressed.
What SETI is doing is completely pointless, even compared to cryptocurrency mining.
sh I might grant you, but Bash is only notable because the previous shells were intolerably bad. Bash does not have typed variables, or named parameters, or classes. Its array syntax is bizarre, its conditional operator is an external program with a required last argument of ']', and it's not even all that good about parsing command line parameters. The entire Unix toolchain is extremely effective; Bash qua Bash is exceedingly primitive, and if it were a new language introduced today, no one would ever use it, let alone develop tooling around it.
No? What do you miss?
It's true, Unix has never had a 'killer app': the 'killer app' was always Unix.
Ubuntu for the desktop and Slackware for the server? Well, that's all I need to dismiss those opinions. If anything it should be the other way around.
uMatrix is an improvement over uBlock Origin.
I feel like you've made this same argument before, with this same useless factoid. The rest of the items on that list are equally embarrassing, so I'm not sure what exactly your argument is -- presumably you consider the list's existence to be shameful.
If what you have to offer the younger generation is a bad temper and an "It's all been done before" attitude, you should get out of "IT". And if after 30 years you're doing "IT" and not "CS", you're an overpaid computer janitor. This would presumably also explain your talking about web frameworks and AI research as if they had anything to do with one another.
I'm so glad that New York exists, because otherwise we'd have to come up with someplace to put all the New Yorkers.
It's not a useless study, you're simply mistaking its purpose. The question is whether non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer at any level. The answer appears to be a qualified, "maybe".