First, NoScript does much more than just block JavaScript.
Second, NoScript makes it possible to restrict JavaScript based on the originating domain; that means I can enable JavaScript for e.g. forums.bioware.com and deny for e.g. ea.com. When I visit forums.bioware.com it will not load scripts from ea.com and I can still have a snappy experience on forums.bioware.com. (Ea.com is, for some reason, a slow piece of shit.)
Comments on random newspaper articles are pointless and inane rubbish from people who think "I have an opinion and therefore it must be valid"? It almost never is.
Why the fuck would you ask the general public for their opinion on, say, science, dentistry, mathematics, epidemiology, the financial crisis, or... any number of subjects? The general public are fucking uninformed blithering idiots who think they have something to say.
I may be a blithering idiot, but at least I have the decency/intelligence to think... maybe I don't have anything interesting to say and therefore I'm not going to comment on this news story.... but then I just have. So there.
The major problem with checked exceptions is that the variance rules for the "throws" clause are at odds with how subclassing and method overrides work (for sort-of-good reasons, mind.).
When you override a method you typically expand the set of things it can do, and thereby also the set of things that can go wrong. Unfortunately you can only restrict (or just plainly keep) the set of declared exceptions. There are some ways around this using generic exception types, but I've yet to see a practical and moderately satisfying solution. (More advanced type systems/languages have things like "effect types" to handle these things in safer ways, but I don't see any of those languages becoming mainstream any time soon, unfortunately.)
What exactly is the value of any given answer to your example question? How do you evaluate whether a given answer is "true" in any meaningful sense of the word? How do you even define "truth" in the religious case?
That's the problem with these NOMA (Non-overlapping majesteria) proponents: It's not even clear that answers to "religious questions" have any real meaning if you take the NOMA stance, nor if they (even in principle) can/ have any objective meaning. If you're just talking subjective meaning then you're on the road to solopsism and that way lies madness.
You're certainly right that a sufficiently motivated idiot can compromise any system, but the system designer could probably mitigate the problem of idiot users (dancing bunnies, etc. in their inbox) into irrelevance.
It's just shoddy design that.doc files with macros can be opened directly in MS Word without any kind of sandboxing of the file system to prevent macros from rooting around the file system for other documents to infect. The way I see it, you could have a more fine-grained privilege system where it isn't all-or-nothing, but where some documents (files) get more privilege to "do things" based on where they're from (inbox, local file system, remote file system, etc.). Of course you'd need some way to elevate/demote the amount of trust you (as a user) have in a document. This could perhaps be exploited by spammers/scammers, but but if most of the documents your average user receives in their email runs fine with the lowest possible privileges, then they'd at least be more likely to actually notice when a document in your inbox needed elevated privileges to function. (As opposed to now, where you'd get the exact same warning for every single document in your inbox regardless of the documents. So your average user just learns to click "Yes, I know what I'm doing" without even reading the dialog box.)
(I'm not saying things are much better in Linux land, it's just easier to make the point using MS Word.doc's as an example since Linux email clients don't tend to be quite as fast & loose with loading documents/attachments.)
Most of so-called "Chinese Medicine" is complete bollocks. To paraphrase a line from "Storm" by Tim Minchin: "Do you know what they call Chinese medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."
There's also the fact that in Haskell (or, say, O'Caml) you can structure your application's interface to the web such that you cannot (by abstraction) do unsafe things unless you really want to(*). If you have such a framework the programmer has to be actively working against you to do unsafe things. (And there's nothing that can save you from an actively destructive/malevolent programmer inside your organization.)
(*) Define Unsafe/Safe string variants and force all strings trough Escape/Unescape for all transitions between those two.
The problem with PHP isn't so much that it's like a kitchen knife that's dangerous in the hands of a klutz. It's that PHP is like a dull spool that's dangerous in the hands of a klutz.
The Jodatime library is fantastic for date handling. I think it's the only sane date/time API I've [b]ever[/b] seen. Admittedly, it's a little complex, but that just the nature of the date/time problem domain.
Which is more expensive, a few extra machines or developer time? (I'm assuming a solution that scales properly here, you write scalable solutions in any language.)
Vicarious redemption/forgiveness would probably have been a better example -- though there probably are non-Christian belief systems which permit such things.
Anyway, I was just trying to be a smart-ass. The OP's point was that if you define S = {a} where a is any belief then you're obviously going to be hard-pressed to find anything in S which is not a. Atheism isn't such a set S -- it's simply the position that "you need to show that a exists (beyond some reasonable standard) before we discuss the implications of that any further".
Christianity in daily parlance is based on a belief in the divinity of Christ, but it certainly also includes other precepts and guidelines such as "turn the other cheek" (a decidedly amoral guideline if you ask me -- there are times when this is the absolute worst thing you can do, both for yourself, but also for your fellow man) and "treat others as you would like to be treated" (a good one), etc.
I agree, the problem with Windows is not so much the OS itself but poorly written applications.
Why are applications even installing their own files? Any modern Unixish system provides a package system which is in charge of installing files and if these supposedly 'unfriendly' system can, Windows certainly could.
With such a system in place users might even have a chance of keeping their systems up to date without having to check every single program individually...
Slashdot Mirror
Xmarks lets you store bookmarks wherever you want instead of where Google wants. Plus, it's cross-browser.
Oh, and not everyone you disagree with is a troll.
First, NoScript does much more than just block JavaScript.
Second, NoScript makes it possible to restrict JavaScript based on the originating domain; that means I can enable JavaScript for e.g. forums.bioware.com and deny for e.g. ea.com. When I visit forums.bioware.com it will not load scripts from ea.com and I can still have a snappy experience on forums.bioware.com. (Ea.com is, for some reason, a slow piece of shit.)
There will never ever be a perpetual motion machine.
It's not enough that something is "an idea", it also has be within reason (and known physics!).
Comments on random newspaper articles are pointless and inane rubbish from people who think "I have an opinion and therefore it must be valid"? It almost never is.
Why the fuck would you ask the general public for their opinion on, say, science, dentistry, mathematics, epidemiology, the financial crisis, or... any number of subjects? The general public are fucking uninformed blithering idiots who think they have something to say.
I may be a blithering idiot, but at least I have the decency/intelligence to think... maybe I don't have anything interesting to say and therefore I'm not going to comment on this news story. ... but then I just have. So there.
Just goes to show you can't be too careful.
The major problem with checked exceptions is that the variance rules for the "throws" clause are at odds with how subclassing and method overrides work (for sort-of-good reasons, mind.).
When you override a method you typically expand the set of things it can do, and thereby also the set of things that can go wrong. Unfortunately you can only restrict (or just plainly keep) the set of declared exceptions. There are some ways around this using generic exception types, but I've yet to see a practical and moderately satisfying solution. (More advanced type systems/languages have things like "effect types" to handle these things in safer ways, but I don't see any of those languages becoming mainstream any time soon, unfortunately.)
Are you talkin' about Number Five?
Didn't think so.
(And it's a big assumption.)
What exactly is the value of any given answer to your example question? How do you evaluate whether a given answer is "true" in any meaningful sense of the word? How do you even define "truth" in the religious case?
That's the problem with these NOMA (Non-overlapping majesteria) proponents: It's not even clear that answers to "religious questions" have any real meaning if you take the NOMA stance, nor if they (even in principle) can/ have any objective meaning. If you're just talking subjective meaning then you're on the road to solopsism and that way lies madness.
You're following Stephen Fry, aren't you?
It's sad that we're (going to be) relying on corporations to shield us from our governments.
"humans are God's special creation" thing.
At least learn a little about evolution before trying to "debate" it.
You're certainly right that a sufficiently motivated idiot can compromise any system, but the system designer could probably mitigate the problem of idiot users (dancing bunnies, etc. in their inbox) into irrelevance.
It's just shoddy design that .doc files with macros can be opened directly in MS Word without any kind of sandboxing of the file system to prevent macros from rooting around the file system for other documents to infect. The way I see it, you could have a more fine-grained privilege system where it isn't all-or-nothing, but where some documents (files) get more privilege to "do things" based on where they're from (inbox, local file system, remote file system, etc.). Of course you'd need some way to elevate/demote the amount of trust you (as a user) have in a document. This could perhaps be exploited by spammers/scammers, but but if most of the documents your average user receives in their email runs fine with the lowest possible privileges, then they'd at least be more likely to actually notice when a document in your inbox needed elevated privileges to function. (As opposed to now, where you'd get the exact same warning for every single document in your inbox regardless of the documents. So your average user just learns to click "Yes, I know what I'm doing" without even reading the dialog box.)
(I'm not saying things are much better in Linux land, it's just easier to make the point using MS Word .doc's as an example since Linux email clients don't tend to be quite as fast & loose with loading documents/attachments.)
Most of so-called "Chinese Medicine" is complete bollocks. To paraphrase a line from "Storm" by Tim Minchin: "Do you know what they call Chinese medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."
Theories change. There is a big difference between a theory and a fact.
Not "unsolved". "Unsolvable". The whole thought process behind DRM is that the customer is your adversary. At that point you're already fucked.
There's also the fact that in Haskell (or, say, O'Caml) you can structure your application's interface to the web such that you cannot (by abstraction) do unsafe things unless you really want to(*). If you have such a framework the programmer has to be actively working against you to do unsafe things. (And there's nothing that can save you from an actively destructive/malevolent programmer inside your organization.)
(*) Define Unsafe/Safe string variants and force all strings trough Escape/Unescape for all transitions between those two.
Woo-hoo!
How much less could you care? Maybe so much less that you couldn't care less?
The problem with PHP isn't so much that it's like a kitchen knife that's dangerous in the hands of a klutz. It's that PHP is like a dull spool that's dangerous in the hands of a klutz.
The Jodatime library is fantastic for date handling. I think it's the only sane date/time API I've [b]ever[/b] seen. Admittedly, it's a little complex, but that just the nature of the date/time problem domain.
Which is more expensive, a few extra machines or developer time? (I'm assuming a solution that scales properly here, you write scalable solutions in any language.)
Vicarious redemption/forgiveness would probably have been a better example -- though there probably are non-Christian belief systems which permit such things.
Anyway, I was just trying to be a smart-ass. The OP's point was that if you define S = {a} where a is any belief then you're obviously going to be hard-pressed to find anything in S which is not a. Atheism isn't such a set S -- it's simply the position that "you need to show that a exists (beyond some reasonable standard) before we discuss the implications of that any further".
Christianity in daily parlance is based on a belief in the divinity of Christ, but it certainly also includes other precepts and guidelines such as "turn the other cheek" (a decidedly amoral guideline if you ask me -- there are times when this is the absolute worst thing you can do, both for yourself, but also for your fellow man) and "treat others as you would like to be treated" (a good one), etc.
An afterlife. (There are probably more things, but that's what came to mind first.)
Why are applications even installing their own files? Any modern Unixish system provides a package system which is in charge of installing files and if these supposedly 'unfriendly' system can, Windows certainly could.
With such a system in place users might even have a chance of keeping their systems up to date without having to check every single program individually...