When I'm interested in something, I Google it. Sometimes I do buy books, but Googling is generally a better first step than going to the library.
The library would probably be better if you have no idea what you're interested in, and want to find something completely random and new..
That sounds backwards. You google when you don't have a clear idea of what you're interested in. It is the first step, but not where learning happens. Roughly 15 minutes into your googling and wikipedia one of the things you should have found on your research of the topic is a list of books which sound interesting if you want to have a deeper understanding into the topic. At that point, you head to the library with a very specific book in mind.
He most definitely has not committed treason. He did commit a crime by disclosing classified information, but I think we need to first investigate and determine whether the government was indeed breaking the law. It cannot be illegal to reveal classified information relating to illegal activity. Otherwise, our government would be able to act completely unchecked by simply choosing to classify information on what they are doing, with no justification.
What would be the situation if the information isn't actually true? Something that isn't true can't be classified, or at least I would think it can't?
I'm assuming it's possible to release actual classified information out of context to make it appear something unjustifiable is happening. I'm not saying that's what I think is happening, I think the response from the government has been pretty much confirming they've really been trampling on our rights while trying to justify why they're trampling on our rights. That said, there is a process for determining a government action or law is unconstitutional, and the courts need to be involved. So I'm hoping this scandal causes an actual in-depth investigation to occur, and that conclusions one way or another are drawn before we go after Snowden.
I'm struggling to find sympathy for him personally, as he has committed an extremely serious act of treason.
Article 3, section 3 of the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
He most definitely has not committed treason. He did commit a crime by disclosing classified information, but I think we need to first investigate and determine whether the government was indeed breaking the law. It cannot be illegal to reveal classified information relating to illegal activity. Otherwise, our government would be able to act completely unchecked by simply choosing to classify information on what they are doing, with no justification.
And, again, what can I install on it besides android?
Well, with the nexus devices, you can easily unlock the bootloader by design, by rading adb commands. So you can install anything you want, even if it's not android. It's just that somebody has to write it.
the NSA was deliberately lying to congress...IMO it should be considered treason
There are very specific conditions on what can be considered treason in the US constitution. It was specifically written to avoid things like that from being treason.
but the very least I think it is a clear-cut case of perjury
I like how you automatically stifled all critics but calling any argument not helpful to you a fail. How very religious of you.
Now go watch STtNG episode "The Drumhead". I'll expect you're Geek Membership card at the door. And for added flavor Mr. Mccarthy? Is that you?!
But that's not the fifth amendment, it's the seventh guarantee:)
But yes, I came here to specifically point The Drumhead out as a great episode dealing with the importance of the right against self-incrimination. I'm glad somebody else remembers it.
...and on occasion, die needlessly in what would have otherwise been a completely survivable crash. As is often the case, the good old days weren't that good.
That's not how you do a cost-benefit analysis. "On occasion" can be perfectly acceptable. Exactly what was the risk of a death for a child dying per mile back then, and what is it now? Notice I didn't say, "what is the risk for a child dying when involved in a collision" or anything like that. You have to take into account the chances of getting into a collision in the first place to determine whether adding the safety features are worth the hassle. Additionally, when comparing the numbers, you'll have to correct for other safety features added in cars, such as better crumple zones that are capable of absorbing more of the energy in an impact.
This large scale surveillance bullshit has been so useful against terrorism that nothing happened in Boston.
They've built something which is demonstrably (unable || unwilling) to do its job.
Whatever they say its job is.
I agree with your point, but I find making that argument a dangerous one. When you argue that their methods are ineffective, the implication is that if they were effective, it'd be justified. So they will come back with, "obviously what we're doing isn't enough, and we need to be able to do more."
Instead we should get to the heart of the matter and point out that even if they could eliminate 100% of terrorism, it wouldn't be worth it to ignore our constitution to eliminate or reduce the already extremely low risk of dying in a terrorist attack within the United States. By all means, please work to prevent terrorist attacks, but do so within the limits of your legal authority. If it requires the government to overstep that authority, it's not worth it.
If you saw a Ferrari parked somewhere with a bunch of cash in the front seat, would YOU feel okay stealing it or the car? I would hope not. Stealing is wrong regardless of how easy it is. Why do you give others a pass for something you wouldn't do?
I would not. That said, if you parked that Ferrari with the windows rolled down and the cash in the front seat, would you expect your insurance company to cover the theft?
The actions of the victim don't justify the crime, but the mere fact that they are victims don't absolve them of responsibility for their actions.
Windows 8 on the desktop is broken. This isn't a subjective tastes issue. It is objectively horrible.
Unless you can explain why someone in a desktop would actually *want* to be subject to tablet limitations like full screen apps, or having to dock apps at specific locations in your screen if you want to work with more than one at a time. I can see why it would be beneficial to be able to run the tablet apps, but if you have a mouse and keyboard, by default they should be placed inside a desktop window that you can do whatever with. Instead, we're being guided by default to use tablet apps instead of desktop ones, and going to a horrible screen that shows a limited set of what you have installed instead of getting a well-organized menu.
If you install classic shell, Windows 8 is perfectly usable, but it doesn't really add anything to what was already available with Windows 7.
Living together does not require marriage. Baby daddies are not fathers. Not that you specifically need a biological mother and father, but two live-in caregivers seems to be the key.
Fair point, but that doesn't say much about monogamy. By your criteria, both parents can sleep around with whoever they like, as long as they raise the children together.
It is not the Court's purpose to restrict the ability of the Executive (i.e., FBI, CIA, etc.) to do things that are potentially abusive. That's the Legislature's job. If you do not like how the current law reads, petition your representative to change it.
That's backwards.
The executive doesn't have the right to do anything they haven't been allowed to by the legislature. If there's no law that specifically says they can take the DNA, the courts should ask where they got that authority and block them. It's the judicial branch's job to interpret the law and determine if it does indeed allow for the action the executive is taking. In this case, the dissenting justices interpreted the 4th amendment of the constitution as specifically denying the executive the ability to collect the DNA from anyone they arrest. I honestly don't see how the other justices don't agree, but them's the breaks.
Keeping a difficult relationship together for the sake of raising the kids benefits society as a whole to an extreme degree.
Holy crap, no, it really doesn't. Being a child to divorce parents really sucks, but if there's one thing that is worse is being a child in a household where the parents don't love each other, but remain together because of a misguided concept of responsibility. You can be perfectly responsible and a part of your child's life without being married to the other parent.
Believe me, I know. I wish my parents had gotten divorced, but that's one of the things they cherry picked to follow in the catholic faith.
Is/Was Harrison Ford's character in the movie a replicant?
I can't keep the different versions of Blade Runner straight in my mind anymore, but at least some of them make it pretty unambiguous that he is (it contains the unicorn dream sequence). So the question is answered.
The idea of a university, though, is that it would be a place focused on higher education. On the liberal arts.
That excludes engineering too, which isn't part of the liberal arts. Seems a bit shortsighted. I think that's what colleges and departments are for. If the Engineering College was handling athletics, that'd be a focus problem.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a place for intellectuals to get together and study things amongst each other without having to deal with the proles and their brutish pursuits?
"Brutish pursuits"? Ah, so elitism is the issue here. That's why we don't agree. I believe what goes into preparing a human being to athletically perform at the peak of what the species is capable of is as beautiful as writing a symphony.
Wasn't that the whole raison d'etre of the university?
To be removed from "brutish pursuits?" No. To teach liberal arts? Yes. But you lost that battle when they became places to get job training.
Specifically, why is it better for society to continue this status quo than to eliminate collegiate sports entirely?
Well, I personally believe that sports, arts, and several other pursuits are valuable. I'm not particularly good at either, but many others are extremely talented, and I'd like to encourage them to reach their full potential.
I suppose I'm feeling the same way you are, equally confused, but on the other side. Specifically, what is there to be gained by eliminating collegiate sports?
If you're not interested in stuff other than engineering, you're going to be a terrible, terrible, terrible engineer.
What you call "distraction from your studies" is what makes you good at your job.
We're all entitled to our own opinions, but I have yet to see any actual evidence of this claim.
Were Einstein, Feynman, or Hawking in college on athletic scholarships?
Feynman had so many interests outside of physics that I'm surprised you know of him without also knowing that fact. One of the things he liked to do was play the bongos. The person you're responding to didn't say it had to be athletic.
I'm not an athletic guy at all, I'm an engineer, and I have no problem at all with someone going through engineering school on an athletic scholarship. I had a football player in my graduating class, and had a few classes with him. He had to do all the same work I did, and had less time to do it, because he needed to practice so damn much. He graduated with a 4.0 or close to it, I don't remember. Either way, it takes a great deal of work ethic to pull it off, which is why most jocks will go for an easy major, something I'm also ok with. If they don't make it to the pros, college won't have as much value to them with regards to helping their career, but that's their choice.
They're also not "taking the spot" of somebody who could get an academic scholarship. They're not funded from the same source. If the athletic scholarship exist, that money wouldn't be available to be given to another student.
How does joining one group preclude you from associating with others outside of that group? I serve on the board of a technology group and a chess group.
Second question: If you think joining a high IQ group precludes you from interacting with folks with other skills not measured on an IQ test, then doesn't joining a special interest group also exclude you from really cool people that might excel in areas other than that special group?
Really? You have such a high IQ and your reading comprehension is that poor?
Sorry, it's just a joke, I couldn't resist. I'm honestly not attacking you here. I feel the reason you're misinterpreting me is because you're going on the defensive and feel like I'm asking you to justify something. I'm not against high IQ societies, I just don't get the point, and am trying to be enlightened here. I'll try to explain myself better:
I didn't say or imply you can't interact with people outside your society. I asked what is the point of joining a group in a high-IQ society that, in addition to filtering by what you're actually interested in, also filters by IQ. It seems to me that you gain nothing and have the potential to lose something. I was asking you what it is that you gain by joining, say, Mensa's chess group versus a chess group open to everyone. You can say you're more likely to find better chess players among people with high IQ, but why not just join a group that limits membership to players rated 2200 or above? This way, you're directly measuring that which you're interested in.
Third question: Where did I say IQ isn't a measure of something valuable? I do think it isn't everything.
I also didn't imply that. Clearly you think it measures something valuable. So do I. I asked you to explain exactly what you felt that something valuable is.
Here's an example of an experience I had lately. I went to a local meeting of a skeptics society recently. It was my first time there, and there were several new people, actually. One of the other new guys joined in on a religious discussion to describe how ridiculous Christians are. I thought he was being unnecessarily combative about it, but I expect skeptics to be atheists or agnostics. However, then he started talking about what things people are "sheep" about, which includes believing Saddam Hussein is dead. Several people proceeded to agree with him (some, perhaps, to avoid a confrontation).
Conspiracy theorists are not something I expected to see at a skeptics meeting. You would figure skepticism toward religion and toward conspiracy theories would go hand in hand, and you wouldn't find this situation in a skeptics group. Similarly, most people would assume high IQ and an ability to carry on an intelligent book discussion would go hand in hand, but I suspect you'd encounter exceptions same as I've encountered in the skeptics group.
Higher signal to noise ratio in the conversation department.
That implies you believe IQ tests do measure something valuable (and I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just pointing out that when you asked, "what is it [IQ] good for?" you do seem to have some ideas about that.
The reason I'm asking, is that I've never seen the point of organizations like that. I understand high-IQ organizations have sub-groups, people within them get together along a common interest. Coders might form a software group, some people form sci-fi book clubs, yet others get together to talk politics. You've cited yourself as an example of someone who excels in abstract reasoning, but does poorly in other areas. So I feel like if I want to join a software group, if I go the high-IQ society route, I might be entering a group that eliminates really cool people who excel at certain areas of software writing, but do poorly in an IQ test. I'm not sure why I should care to exclude them.
I am a member of a high IQ "society" that discrimatinates [sic] against the lowest 99.9% of the general population. Yet, I would do very poorly on this test as my visual processing is poor. I excel in abstract reasoning but do poorly in other areas.
What is intelligence? What is IQ? What is it good for? All good questions.
Those are indeed good questions. Since you're saying you don't have a good answer for them, I'm curious about what you believed the benefit of a high-IQ society was when you decided to join one.
What part of "all you can eat buffet" didnt you understand? Why are you so upset that I brought my pet pygmy elephant in to gorge?
What part of you don't you understand. It says all you can eat, not all your pets can eat.
If a restaurant tells you to stop eating at an all you can eat buffet, and you're actually the one doing the eating, I'll side with you, not the restaurant. If they want to place limitations, that's absolutely fine, but they need to spell those out.
Similarly, I have no problem whatsoever with Verizon not wanting to supply 77 TB a month to people. They really do need to spell out exactly what you're buying, though.
I take it then that it didn't, and probably never would, occur to you that they might simply be conducting reconnaissance to see if an attack is feasible? You do know that Al Qaida agents have been caught more than once doing that?
I think everyone in this thread has gone out on a tangent from what this story was all about.
I don't know if these guys are potential terrorists on a recon mission, or if they're a bunch of guys who were hanging out one night and randomly decided they should check the facility out because of professional curiosity. I don't really care. They were trespassing, which is an already illegal activity, which gives the police all the authority they need to arrest them and question them on what they were doing there. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
What this article is about is having people call the police's "tip" hotline when they decide they see others do "suspicious" things that are perfectly legal. I have a problem with that.
When this is exactly what Microsoft has been doing to everyone else for the past 20 years? Yes, I do fail to see this as a problem.
Karma's a bitch.
Which is why competition is fantastic. I love that the two behemoths are fighting.
Yes, Google is doing what Microsoft has been doing to everyone else for the past 20 years. The difference is that Microsoft used to be the only game in town, so nobody could fight them. Microsoft is now trying to fight them, and as a result, we are the ones who win.
Why should, say, the marching cubes algorithm, which transforms bitmap data into polygonal surface data, not be worthy of a patent when the set of instructions for turning bauxite into aluminum is? Because one uses a silicon chip and electricity and the other uses a pressure vessel and electricity?
The computer is a general purpose machine that will run whatever program you write for it. That program is copyrightable, and thus already protected. It doens't need any more protection than that.
The machine you build for processing bauxite has one function. And instructions to build the processing plant are not copyrightable (in the same way recipes are not copyrightable). Therefore, the process is patentable.
Use PGP/GPG for god's sake. Since when do you delegate encryption and integrity to any gateways? You cannot trust ANYONE except yourself when signing private documents. Do you delegate signatures in sensitive and confidential cases to your co-workers?
I'd go with s/mime, because most e-mail clients will support it without having to install anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
When I'm interested in something, I Google it. Sometimes I do buy books, but Googling is generally a better first step than going to the library.
The library would probably be better if you have no idea what you're interested in, and want to find something completely random and new..
That sounds backwards. You google when you don't have a clear idea of what you're interested in. It is the first step, but not where learning happens. Roughly 15 minutes into your googling and wikipedia one of the things you should have found on your research of the topic is a list of books which sound interesting if you want to have a deeper understanding into the topic. At that point, you head to the library with a very specific book in mind.
He most definitely has not committed treason. He did commit a crime by disclosing classified information, but I think we need to first investigate and determine whether the government was indeed breaking the law. It cannot be illegal to reveal classified information relating to illegal activity. Otherwise, our government would be able to act completely unchecked by simply choosing to classify information on what they are doing, with no justification.
What would be the situation if the information isn't actually true? Something that isn't true can't be classified, or at least I would think it can't?
I'm assuming it's possible to release actual classified information out of context to make it appear something unjustifiable is happening. I'm not saying that's what I think is happening, I think the response from the government has been pretty much confirming they've really been trampling on our rights while trying to justify why they're trampling on our rights. That said, there is a process for determining a government action or law is unconstitutional, and the courts need to be involved. So I'm hoping this scandal causes an actual in-depth investigation to occur, and that conclusions one way or another are drawn before we go after Snowden.
I'm struggling to find sympathy for him personally, as he has committed an extremely serious act of treason.
Article 3, section 3 of the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
He most definitely has not committed treason. He did commit a crime by disclosing classified information, but I think we need to first investigate and determine whether the government was indeed breaking the law. It cannot be illegal to reveal classified information relating to illegal activity. Otherwise, our government would be able to act completely unchecked by simply choosing to classify information on what they are doing, with no justification.
And, again, what can I install on it besides android?
Well, with the nexus devices, you can easily unlock the bootloader by design, by rading adb commands. So you can install anything you want, even if it's not android. It's just that somebody has to write it.
the NSA was deliberately lying to congress...IMO it should be considered treason
There are very specific conditions on what can be considered treason in the US constitution. It was specifically written to avoid things like that from being treason.
but the very least I think it is a clear-cut case of perjury
I would agree that it should be perjury, yes.
I like how you automatically stifled all critics but calling any argument not helpful to you a fail. How very religious of you.
Now go watch STtNG episode "The Drumhead". I'll expect you're Geek Membership card at the door.
And for added flavor Mr. Mccarthy? Is that you?!
But that's not the fifth amendment, it's the seventh guarantee :)
But yes, I came here to specifically point The Drumhead out as a great episode dealing with the importance of the right against self-incrimination. I'm glad somebody else remembers it.
...and on occasion, die needlessly in what would have otherwise been a completely survivable crash. As is often the case, the good old days weren't that good.
That's not how you do a cost-benefit analysis. "On occasion" can be perfectly acceptable. Exactly what was the risk of a death for a child dying per mile back then, and what is it now? Notice I didn't say, "what is the risk for a child dying when involved in a collision" or anything like that. You have to take into account the chances of getting into a collision in the first place to determine whether adding the safety features are worth the hassle. Additionally, when comparing the numbers, you'll have to correct for other safety features added in cars, such as better crumple zones that are capable of absorbing more of the energy in an impact.
This large scale surveillance bullshit has been so useful against terrorism that nothing happened in Boston.
They've built something which is demonstrably (unable || unwilling) to do its job.
Whatever they say its job is.
I agree with your point, but I find making that argument a dangerous one. When you argue that their methods are ineffective, the implication is that if they were effective, it'd be justified. So they will come back with, "obviously what we're doing isn't enough, and we need to be able to do more."
Instead we should get to the heart of the matter and point out that even if they could eliminate 100% of terrorism, it wouldn't be worth it to ignore our constitution to eliminate or reduce the already extremely low risk of dying in a terrorist attack within the United States. By all means, please work to prevent terrorist attacks, but do so within the limits of your legal authority. If it requires the government to overstep that authority, it's not worth it.
If you saw a Ferrari parked somewhere with a bunch of cash in the front seat, would YOU feel okay stealing it or the car? I would hope not. Stealing is wrong regardless of how easy it is. Why do you give others a pass for something you wouldn't do?
I would not. That said, if you parked that Ferrari with the windows rolled down and the cash in the front seat, would you expect your insurance company to cover the theft?
The actions of the victim don't justify the crime, but the mere fact that they are victims don't absolve them of responsibility for their actions.
Nice objective summary
Actually, it is.
Windows 8 on the desktop is broken. This isn't a subjective tastes issue. It is objectively horrible.
Unless you can explain why someone in a desktop would actually *want* to be subject to tablet limitations like full screen apps, or having to dock apps at specific locations in your screen if you want to work with more than one at a time. I can see why it would be beneficial to be able to run the tablet apps, but if you have a mouse and keyboard, by default they should be placed inside a desktop window that you can do whatever with. Instead, we're being guided by default to use tablet apps instead of desktop ones, and going to a horrible screen that shows a limited set of what you have installed instead of getting a well-organized menu.
If you install classic shell, Windows 8 is perfectly usable, but it doesn't really add anything to what was already available with Windows 7.
Living together does not require marriage. Baby daddies are not fathers. Not that you specifically need a biological mother and father, but two live-in caregivers seems to be the key.
Fair point, but that doesn't say much about monogamy. By your criteria, both parents can sleep around with whoever they like, as long as they raise the children together.
It is not the Court's purpose to restrict the ability of the Executive (i.e., FBI, CIA, etc.) to do things that are potentially abusive. That's the Legislature's job. If you do not like how the current law reads, petition your representative to change it.
That's backwards.
The executive doesn't have the right to do anything they haven't been allowed to by the legislature. If there's no law that specifically says they can take the DNA, the courts should ask where they got that authority and block them. It's the judicial branch's job to interpret the law and determine if it does indeed allow for the action the executive is taking. In this case, the dissenting justices interpreted the 4th amendment of the constitution as specifically denying the executive the ability to collect the DNA from anyone they arrest. I honestly don't see how the other justices don't agree, but them's the breaks.
Keeping a difficult relationship together for the sake of raising the kids benefits society as a whole to an extreme degree.
Holy crap, no, it really doesn't. Being a child to divorce parents really sucks, but if there's one thing that is worse is being a child in a household where the parents don't love each other, but remain together because of a misguided concept of responsibility. You can be perfectly responsible and a part of your child's life without being married to the other parent.
Believe me, I know. I wish my parents had gotten divorced, but that's one of the things they cherry picked to follow in the catholic faith.
Will they answer the question?
Is/Was Harrison Ford's character in the movie a replicant?
I can't keep the different versions of Blade Runner straight in my mind anymore, but at least some of them make it pretty unambiguous that he is (it contains the unicorn dream sequence). So the question is answered.
The idea of a university, though, is that it would be a place focused on higher education. On the liberal arts.
That excludes engineering too, which isn't part of the liberal arts. Seems a bit shortsighted. I think that's what colleges and departments are for. If the Engineering College was handling athletics, that'd be a focus problem.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a place for intellectuals to get together and study things amongst each other without having to deal with the proles and their brutish pursuits?
"Brutish pursuits"? Ah, so elitism is the issue here. That's why we don't agree. I believe what goes into preparing a human being to athletically perform at the peak of what the species is capable of is as beautiful as writing a symphony.
Wasn't that the whole raison d'etre of the university?
To be removed from "brutish pursuits?" No. To teach liberal arts? Yes. But you lost that battle when they became places to get job training.
Specifically, why is it better for society to continue this status quo than to eliminate collegiate sports entirely?
Well, I personally believe that sports, arts, and several other pursuits are valuable. I'm not particularly good at either, but many others are extremely talented, and I'd like to encourage them to reach their full potential.
I suppose I'm feeling the same way you are, equally confused, but on the other side. Specifically, what is there to be gained by eliminating collegiate sports?
If you're not interested in stuff other than engineering, you're going to be a terrible, terrible, terrible engineer.
What you call "distraction from your studies" is what makes you good at your job.
We're all entitled to our own opinions, but I have yet to see any actual evidence of this claim.
Were Einstein, Feynman, or Hawking in college on athletic scholarships?
Feynman had so many interests outside of physics that I'm surprised you know of him without also knowing that fact. One of the things he liked to do was play the bongos. The person you're responding to didn't say it had to be athletic.
I'm not an athletic guy at all, I'm an engineer, and I have no problem at all with someone going through engineering school on an athletic scholarship. I had a football player in my graduating class, and had a few classes with him. He had to do all the same work I did, and had less time to do it, because he needed to practice so damn much. He graduated with a 4.0 or close to it, I don't remember. Either way, it takes a great deal of work ethic to pull it off, which is why most jocks will go for an easy major, something I'm also ok with. If they don't make it to the pros, college won't have as much value to them with regards to helping their career, but that's their choice.
They're also not "taking the spot" of somebody who could get an academic scholarship. They're not funded from the same source. If the athletic scholarship exist, that money wouldn't be available to be given to another student.
How does joining one group preclude you from associating with others outside of that group? I serve on the board of a technology group and a chess group.
Second question: If you think joining a high IQ group precludes you from interacting with folks with other skills not measured on an IQ test, then doesn't joining a special interest group also exclude you from really cool people that might excel in areas other than that special group?
Really? You have such a high IQ and your reading comprehension is that poor?
Sorry, it's just a joke, I couldn't resist. I'm honestly not attacking you here. I feel the reason you're misinterpreting me is because you're going on the defensive and feel like I'm asking you to justify something. I'm not against high IQ societies, I just don't get the point, and am trying to be enlightened here. I'll try to explain myself better:
I didn't say or imply you can't interact with people outside your society. I asked what is the point of joining a group in a high-IQ society that, in addition to filtering by what you're actually interested in, also filters by IQ. It seems to me that you gain nothing and have the potential to lose something. I was asking you what it is that you gain by joining, say, Mensa's chess group versus a chess group open to everyone. You can say you're more likely to find better chess players among people with high IQ, but why not just join a group that limits membership to players rated 2200 or above? This way, you're directly measuring that which you're interested in.
Third question: Where did I say IQ isn't a measure of something valuable? I do think it isn't everything.
I also didn't imply that. Clearly you think it measures something valuable. So do I. I asked you to explain exactly what you felt that something valuable is.
Here's an example of an experience I had lately. I went to a local meeting of a skeptics society recently. It was my first time there, and there were several new people, actually. One of the other new guys joined in on a religious discussion to describe how ridiculous Christians are. I thought he was being unnecessarily combative about it, but I expect skeptics to be atheists or agnostics. However, then he started talking about what things people are "sheep" about, which includes believing Saddam Hussein is dead. Several people proceeded to agree with him (some, perhaps, to avoid a confrontation).
Conspiracy theorists are not something I expected to see at a skeptics meeting. You would figure skepticism toward religion and toward conspiracy theories would go hand in hand, and you wouldn't find this situation in a skeptics group. Similarly, most people would assume high IQ and an ability to carry on an intelligent book discussion would go hand in hand, but I suspect you'd encounter exceptions same as I've encountered in the skeptics group.
Higher signal to noise ratio in the conversation department.
That implies you believe IQ tests do measure something valuable (and I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just pointing out that when you asked, "what is it [IQ] good for?" you do seem to have some ideas about that.
The reason I'm asking, is that I've never seen the point of organizations like that. I understand high-IQ organizations have sub-groups, people within them get together along a common interest. Coders might form a software group, some people form sci-fi book clubs, yet others get together to talk politics. You've cited yourself as an example of someone who excels in abstract reasoning, but does poorly in other areas. So I feel like if I want to join a software group, if I go the high-IQ society route, I might be entering a group that eliminates really cool people who excel at certain areas of software writing, but do poorly in an IQ test. I'm not sure why I should care to exclude them.
I am a member of a high IQ "society" that discrimatinates [sic] against the lowest 99.9% of the general population. Yet, I would do very poorly on this test as my visual processing is poor. I excel in abstract reasoning but do poorly in other areas.
What is intelligence? What is IQ? What is it good for? All good questions.
Those are indeed good questions. Since you're saying you don't have a good answer for them, I'm curious about what you believed the benefit of a high-IQ society was when you decided to join one.
What part of "all you can eat buffet" didnt you understand? Why are you so upset that I brought my pet pygmy elephant in to gorge?
What part of you don't you understand. It says all you can eat, not all your pets can eat.
If a restaurant tells you to stop eating at an all you can eat buffet, and you're actually the one doing the eating, I'll side with you, not the restaurant. If they want to place limitations, that's absolutely fine, but they need to spell those out.
Similarly, I have no problem whatsoever with Verizon not wanting to supply 77 TB a month to people. They really do need to spell out exactly what you're buying, though.
I take it then that it didn't, and probably never would, occur to you that they might simply be conducting reconnaissance to see if an attack is feasible? You do know that Al Qaida agents have been caught more than once doing that?
I think everyone in this thread has gone out on a tangent from what this story was all about.
I don't know if these guys are potential terrorists on a recon mission, or if they're a bunch of guys who were hanging out one night and randomly decided they should check the facility out because of professional curiosity. I don't really care. They were trespassing, which is an already illegal activity, which gives the police all the authority they need to arrest them and question them on what they were doing there. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
What this article is about is having people call the police's "tip" hotline when they decide they see others do "suspicious" things that are perfectly legal. I have a problem with that.
When this is exactly what Microsoft has been doing to everyone else for the past 20 years? Yes, I do fail to see this as a problem.
Karma's a bitch.
Which is why competition is fantastic. I love that the two behemoths are fighting.
Yes, Google is doing what Microsoft has been doing to everyone else for the past 20 years. The difference is that Microsoft used to be the only game in town, so nobody could fight them. Microsoft is now trying to fight them, and as a result, we are the ones who win.
Why should, say, the marching cubes algorithm, which transforms bitmap data into polygonal surface data, not be worthy of a patent when the set of instructions for turning bauxite into aluminum is? Because one uses a silicon chip and electricity and the other uses a pressure vessel and electricity?
The computer is a general purpose machine that will run whatever program you write for it. That program is copyrightable, and thus already protected. It doens't need any more protection than that.
The machine you build for processing bauxite has one function. And instructions to build the processing plant are not copyrightable (in the same way recipes are not copyrightable). Therefore, the process is patentable.
Use PGP/GPG for god's sake. Since when do you delegate encryption and integrity to any gateways? You cannot trust ANYONE except yourself when signing private documents. Do you delegate signatures in sensitive and confidential cases to your co-workers?
I'd go with s/mime, because most e-mail clients will support it without having to install anything else.