Meetings are really dick-size wars. The manager that can call the most people to a meeting obviously has the biggest dick. And if you have to attend that meeting, your dick is smaller than his.
Once you get past the need for the ego boost, you notice that meetings drop off to almost nothing. No matter what the technology used, no matter what the industry.
So you're saying people who use Ubuntu don't need to practice safe computing? That's great news! Next time I get an email from a Nigerian prince, I'll make sure I send him my account information with pine instead of Outlook, so then I'll be safe.
Wouldn't that fall under a broader category of things you should not do even without a computer?
Wouldn't the end effect be the same if you told him your information over the phone or in a paper letter?
Here's where you said it.
on
Ubuntu on a Dime
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Where did I claim Ubuntu was having you reboot every day? I didn't.
That would be when you posted this:
Every time Ubuntu updates it asks me to reboot the machine, yet in Win7 I can update video card drivers and not have to restart.
Note your usage or "Every time" in that statement.
I pointed out that Lucid Lynx is receiving updates almost every day. Therefore, by your original statement, I should be rebooting it almost every day.
That is not my experience. And that is with BETA software.
I'm running Lucid Lynx.
on
Ubuntu on a Dime
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's BETA software and it gets updates almost every single day.
And yet even with running BETA software and pulling patches down almost every day I am NOT rebooting the system as you claim.
There are tons of bosses who think that it's a good idea to send out emails about their product/services to thousands of people who never asked for them (hey their product is wonderful after all, etc etc).
And there really are overzealous spamfilters. I've seen people here who think it's a great idea to block off entire IP ranges (not just for their personal systems, but at a corporate level).
Yep. The question still comes back to who hires him.
If Corporation X (not an ISP or email provider) is blocking email sent by Company A... why would Company A hire this guy to talk to Corporation X?
Wouldn't the person at Company A who is trying to email someone at Corporation X call that person and tell them about the blocked email?
Remember, it isn't always about the techs or the technology.
Marketing operates on their own logic/ideology.
Management operates on a logic/ideology completely different from marketing OR the techs.
Ideally, you'll have a manager who can handle all three modes of "logic" and explain what they want you to do and why in a way that you can understand and handle.
Bonar works with companies whose email isn't getting through to customers, thanks to overzealous spam filters. CEO and founder of EmailExpert, Bonar has to convince ISPs to let his clients' legitimate emails past their filters, while persuading his clients not to bend the rules.
Dude, if your clients are going to "bend the rules" then they are spammers.
Wow! Your argument is so powerful that it can be applied at the meta-level to arguing itself! Disagreeing with you means a lack of understanding of basic science?
Nope. Disagreeing with evolution shows "a lack of understanding of basic science".
Possibly the GP was talking about some hypothetical lesser theory that he might (theoretically) be in a position to disprove, and not evolution.
Possibly. But that indicates an inability to comprehend basic English. That, "hypothetical", "lesser theory" is not what is under discussion. Nor has the other poster identified it. If he wants to fight a straw man, that's up to him. I'm talking about evolution.
And, further delving into science, the problem with the other poster's statement is that not only would have have to disprove evolution, he'd also have to provide a TESTABLE AND FALSIFIABLE theory that accounts for all of the evidence supporting evolution that has been gathered over the years.
I can understand the ins-outs-and-inbetweens of a theory and still disagree with it. I may even prove it wrong some day.
Yes. One day you may prove that evolution (the basis of modern medicine and biology) is wrong. And all the years of research that support it.
Or at least you believe that you might be able to do that.
And that is because you do not understand basic science.
If you tell me that I disagree with it because I misunderstand it, based on the fact that it is SCIENCE, then I'll tell you that you regard science in an improper light, and worship it with the same, blind zealotry as a man who blows himself up for Allah.
Of course you would. Again, because you do not understand basic science.
All the supporting evidence for evolution... just doesn't matter to you. You might be able to prove it wrong. Despite all the evidence and all the research that contradicts you.
On the other hand, much about evolution is, I think, less certain than most people make it. We have only a few observations, compared to the number of observations relevant to the big bang.
Really? So the entire basis of modern medicine and biology is based on "a few observations"?
Despite the exact predictions those scientists had made about the genome before they were able to decode it?
It seems that not answering the question is an option for these people.
Really? From the way it seems to be phrased, he said that they would not answer "No".
Not that they would not answer.
What this guy is saying is that there are people who are ignorant about the topic and fall somewhere in the middle, and some who are very informed and thoughtful about it but have some reservations and thus fall somewhere in the middle. So, frankly, I think his argument is consistent unless you ignore the subtleties.
What are the specific "subtleties" here?
You seem to be trying to argue generalities in a very specific instance.
The board member who took the lead in removing the text was John Bruer, a philosopher who heads the St. Louis, Missouri-based James S. McDonnell Foundation. He told Science that his reservations about the two survey questions dated back to 2007, when he was the lead reviewer for the same chapter in the 2008 Indicators. He calls the survey questions "very blunt instruments not designed to capture public understanding" of the two topics.
That explains nothing.
And...
When Science asked Bruer if individuals who did not accept evolution or the big bang to be true could be described as scientifically literate, he said: "There are many biologists and philosophers of science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain aspects of the theory of evolution," adding that such questioning has led to improved understanding of evolutionary theory. When asked if he expected those academics to answer "false" to the statement about humans having evolved from earlier species, Bruer said: "On that particular point, no."
So the guy pushing for the removal cannot maintain a consistent argument for that removal.
Since most of the installations out there will be up-dated using Ubuntu's repositories... just count the kernel downloads for a minimum number of installations.
Before we even get to the Gattaca part, how does he know that this process will result in a unique sequence for every person? Including identical twins?
Slashdot Mirror
Meetings are really dick-size wars. The manager that can call the most people to a meeting obviously has the biggest dick. And if you have to attend that meeting, your dick is smaller than his.
Once you get past the need for the ego boost, you notice that meetings drop off to almost nothing. No matter what the technology used, no matter what the industry.
Not so much for the Congress comments but for the recognition that "blame" is POLITICAL.
It isn't about the facts or the obvious consequences of human nature + rule X.
It's about CYA and playing political games so that other people get stuck with the blame.
Wouldn't that fall under a broader category of things you should not do even without a computer?
Wouldn't the end effect be the same if you told him your information over the phone or in a paper letter?
That would be when you posted this:
Note your usage or "Every time" in that statement.
I pointed out that Lucid Lynx is receiving updates almost every day. Therefore, by your original statement, I should be rebooting it almost every day.
That is not my experience. And that is with BETA software.
It's BETA software and it gets updates almost every single day.
And yet even with running BETA software and pulling patches down almost every day I am NOT rebooting the system as you claim.
And how many of those bosses would think to call him for his services PRIOR to sending that email?
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/that-which-we-dont.html
Yep. The question still comes back to who hires him.
If Corporation X (not an ISP or email provider) is blocking email sent by Company A ... why would Company A hire this guy to talk to Corporation X?
Wouldn't the person at Company A who is trying to email someone at Corporation X call that person and tell them about the blocked email?
Remember, it isn't always about the techs or the technology.
Marketing operates on their own logic/ideology.
Management operates on a logic/ideology completely different from marketing OR the techs.
Ideally, you'll have a manager who can handle all three modes of "logic" and explain what they want you to do and why in a way that you can understand and handle.
With a name like that. But ...
Dude, if your clients are going to "bend the rules" then they are spammers.
Deal with it.
Nope. Disagreeing with evolution shows "a lack of understanding of basic science".
Possibly. But that indicates an inability to comprehend basic English. That, "hypothetical", "lesser theory" is not what is under discussion. Nor has the other poster identified it. If he wants to fight a straw man, that's up to him. I'm talking about evolution.
And, further delving into science, the problem with the other poster's statement is that not only would have have to disprove evolution, he'd also have to provide a TESTABLE AND FALSIFIABLE theory that accounts for all of the evidence supporting evolution that has been gathered over the years.
Yes. One day you may prove that evolution (the basis of modern medicine and biology) is wrong. And all the years of research that support it.
Or at least you believe that you might be able to do that.
And that is because you do not understand basic science.
Of course you would. Again, because you do not understand basic science.
All the supporting evidence for evolution ... just doesn't matter to you. You might be able to prove it wrong. Despite all the evidence and all the research that contradicts you.
The previous poster was going on about how UNDERSTANDING does not have to lead to AGREEMENT.
I pointed out how, in regards to SCIENCE, that was not possible.
Now you're claiming that NOT understanding, but agreeing anyway means that it is a religion.
Whatever. Since I never claimed that. You might want to look up "straw man".
Really? So the entire basis of modern medicine and biology is based on "a few observations"?
Despite the exact predictions those scientists had made about the genome before they were able to decode it?
Really? From the way it seems to be phrased, he said that they would not answer "No".
Not that they would not answer.
What are the specific "subtleties" here?
You seem to be trying to argue generalities in a very specific instance.
No. Not in regards to scientific issues.
You can refuse to accept that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, but that DOES mean that you do not understand the SCIENCE behind it.
From TFA:
That explains nothing.
And ...
So the guy pushing for the removal cannot maintain a consistent argument for that removal.
Since most of the installations out there will be up-dated using Ubuntu's repositories ... just count the kernel downloads for a minimum number of installations.
In addition to developing your skills for your current job, you need to focus on your NEXT job.
Where do you want to be and how do you plan to get there?
And why hasn't the "security industry" started to validate hashes and signatures and checksums on KNOWN GOOD FILES yet?
Seriously. Identifying the safe files is easier than identifying the infected ones.
Hovsepian is pulling in $5.7 MILLION a year for what?
Why isn't he porting Netware and their other products to GENERIC Linux? Why do they want to tie everything to SuSE?
Because they're idiots who are milking Novell for what they can get out of it while it slides into obscurity.
The advantage with FOSS is that Germany can hire German programmers to modify the software used by Munich's government (which is also German).
If they stuck with proprietary products, who would they be paying to improve it?
Once the cops have your DNA (and a dislike for you) what's to stop a bad cop from leaving your DNA at their next "unsolved" crime?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/15/85118/lacking-suspects-prosecutors-now.htmlFor a truly bizarre twist on this.
The birthday collision illustrated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
Even with 365 days a year, there is 50% probability that two people will have the same birthday in any random group of 23 people.
Now take 300 million people right now in the USofA.
Where is the evidence that these strings of "junk" DNA really are that unique?
For this purpose, it has to be unique. ... of what length each (range)?
26 sequences
Even 1 in a billion means there are 6 other people out there.
Before we even get to the Gattaca part, how does he know that this process will result in a unique sequence for every person? Including identical twins?
And what happens to FOSS developers who accidentally leave a bug in their code?