The premise to which you subscribe says that right and wrong are a function of intent (colloquial meaning of intent).
I don't have that as a premise.
I don't agree.
OK. Intent is not something that I wrote about. I'm looking over what I did write, and can't even see where you'd get that impression.
While the case of Abilimech and Sarai at first seems murky, it's easy to resolve if you just accept the notion that in the objective universe it's wrong to marry another man's wife, even if you don't know she's married. This is why I have a problem with the philosophy that says do as you will as long as it does no harm to other. It's impossible to know how your actions will affect everything else. God wants obedience because, having a privileged perspective on the universe, he does know what is absolute best.
So, I still don't see where this addresses anything that I said. Before responding, please go here.
Yeah, I know it makes me sound like a sheep, but everyone is to some degree. I'd just rather cut out all the middlemen.
Replease "Jesus, He and Him" with "my conscience" and the sentence reads the same except seems a little more likely.
BANG! Did you get that from one of my messages? If not, you're the first person who figured this out that I've ever met. I figured it out about 1-2 years ago, and so far nobody who I mention it to has had anything to say except maybe 'interesting'.
Besides, why would God punish Abilimech? He didn't actually do anything wrong, he just married what he thought was a single woman.
I'd like to see a coherant response to that!:)
Here's one thing that plugs in well when people talk about gods as if they are actually in existance; conscience.
Specifically, the moral norms of a person's peer group(s) and the peer groups associated to those group(s) (ex: family, organizations, community). Starting to sound a little familiar?
The pressure from these groups to conform both comforts the individual and strenthens the group. It's like buying bulk at Sam's Club while the unaffiliated usually shop at 7-11!
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated, though I think it snaps together just too well to be luck.
(Note: This does answer why the God in the story blesses some who act immorally and punishes others who do nothing wrong. The 'lesson' being taught is a deep one that tends to be lost on religous people looking for God to be good and just.)
What I mean is this: List off all the things that God has as you understand them. Be careful, thoughtful, and honest; feel free to add or strike things from your list. Even being beyond comprehension is a thing for your list.
For example, is power and might a necessity, or an added bonus? Is kindness and charity above power in what makes God God?
Now, taking your list, is there anything else that also shares some or all of this list? Hey, even Google can help with this one! (Tip: use the ~ key ~like ~this to look up similar words.)
If you now remove characteristics from this list, when does the list stop describing God and start to describe anything or anybody else; a person, an other deity (mythical or not), an abstract idea (love, humility, conscience, excellence, strength), a social relationship? Any set of the above?
Take your time.
Ready?
Here's another set of questions: Why do so many groups argue -- some to the death -- about what is and is not God? Do these contradictory visions of God ever contradict the group's own wishes?
I think I have answers to this, and the answers work incredibly well, though I'll let you come to your own...if you are willing.
You would be suprised. When I worked at G.E. we had some laptops stolen. Not only did the employee steal them on camera, but he used his own ID badge to get into the building and through the doors.
They take them home to do work in the evenings. They dial into the network for free internet. Their kids download Britney. Their begged CD burner is constantly burning audio CDs - they have to beg because there is no real reason for laptops having burners...
Not where you work. I burn work-related disks frequently. It's expected now, though I attempt to get people to use the network instead.
In my experience, janitors and other after hours staff do steal equipment about 1/2 the time.
The funniest one was right after stealing some equioment, the guilty janitor (who also had keys to the server room) went to 'pop the tape' and found it was entirely hard drive based. The guy still kept the computers and had his house raided to return the stolen equipment.
Lesson? Don't let anyone have keys to the !@#$!@#$! server room! Extrapolate other lessons from there....
While I agree it is annoying, and would like Google to take the additional step of killing off the link farms, it's not impossible to find what you're looking for.
Limit the scope of your search to a site ( site:sitetosearch.com ), add extra search terms, or take some away ( -skippageswiththisword ). If you already do these things, look at the O'Reilly Google Hacks book for more advanced techniques.
With this, why have only one object in focus? Here's what I mean;
If autofocus (or any other method) from differnet angles allows for this enhancement, this technique can be used to 'cut' the image into different focus layers.
Piece the layers together, and you get a photo that has depth of field and is much sharper at each level.
The layer information could be stored seperately for later processing or combined with only a little fudging to give a weighted blur to the non-primary layer(s). Keeping the layers seperate and doing a comparison would also allow editing tricks such as cutting out objects at a specific depth or performing color enhancements on each level.
That's why you're under stress. I've done it before, and at times do it intentionally, yet every time I'm punished for it.
How do I deal with it? Oh, let me count the ways...
Pre-emptive: After knocking out the obvious and preventable problems, I keep a list of issues as they come up. I then knock them out as well or...decide not to do them at all. In some cases, you can bargain with people on the solution. In any case, you shouldn't have to manually do the same thing twice unless it is a physical task (moving a system, changing toner). Backups should happen automatically, restoring systems should almost be done by command, new software should be pushed out,... with your job being to monitor that everything is A-OK not that you had to hover over every minor stage.
Recruit the users: Keep in mind that many minor tasks can be demonstrated to your users and they can take care of them for you. After all, many don't want to call you for small issues and will feel better 'learning about computers'.
Trust: Specifically, make them feel like they can be in control at any time. Annoy them with your concern. Walk around, ask people what they think, listen, give them tons of feedback, let them know you have handled specific issues they raised, give them so much feedback that they will be disinterested in asking you a single question -- unless it is really important. Make it so that they do not have to struggle over having you do anything...and they will not ask as many questions. This works very well...if and only if you are pushy about it for a few weeks. Get them to say 'enough'.
Does that mean I have to install XP, download SP2. Burn the SP2 archive onto a CDROM, reinstall XP with the network cable disconnected, and then patch? Geez that'll get old fast
Does Microsoft provide a checksum or other strong verification method that proves that the downloaded SP2 update hasn't been compromised? (Honest question; I've looked before and couldn't find one.)
Ummm, buy RH Linux, install it at home or office, connect to the internet and in less than an hour, it too will be owned. This happened to a friend who wanted to try Linux. He brought a distro from work to home, tried it on his PC then ran into trouble with "crap". Took the computer to work and did the same thing (don't ask me why) with the same results. It's the lack of a firewall, sufficiently blind IP address that's the risk.
Too many of the details you mention make your report unbelievable.
This is an amazing book. It will make you a math wiz even if you are an ace or suck at math. Just put in the time. It will even give you some appreciation for how numbers 'feel'.
Cheap new. Even cheaper used (check Amazon).
The book is thin and has a white cover with blue and red lettering.
(interesting, those screenshots show Suse 9 to be very much like standard Gnome.... and Fedora to have the standard gnome layout, but when I installed Fedora last time, it had the old "RedHat" look...)
Yep. I think Fedora Core 1 defaulted to the 'Gnome and KDE look alike' design. That's no longer the case. The tweaking of the Gnome default layout isn't happening as much as before for most distros that have both KDE and Gnome.
So far, I've not deployed Gnome to a customer site though with all the work they have done on it, and the upcomming work on Beagle/Dashboard, I'm probably going to start using it myself again. (Right now, I use quite a few Gnome apps on KDE.)
as long as my mom, who can be called a computer idiot but still manages to do her work with MS Office, tells me "what's that K icon where START should be", I call bullcrap on any point-and-click Linux.
The problem is similarity. That's one of the reasons why the Gnome-based desktops tend to be different;
If it doesn't match what is expected, people will not click on the wrong thing or get confused when everything isn't exactly the same. By being different, people will tend to look first; they aren't worried that the icon isn't the same they already realize that it's not going to be the same.
Both KDE and Gnome have the same basic menu options, so this is by no means a slam at KDE (I'm using it right now). The only menu difference is the default configuration.
25%? That's 1 out of 4 people; the seperation between the 1 and the other 3 is non-existant. (Think: rule of 10 and 6 degrees of seperation.)
Since my tech support days in what seems like many lives ago, I've taken 5% unsupported as a big problem. 5% is 1 out of 20 customers/users; if you irk that many people, you're in trouble because they talk to other people. Pushing that down to 2% would a better plan as it shows that you are willing to support nearly everyone...and people tend to understand this.
Another quick and handy calculation from back then; At any one time any group of people will have ~60% who are moderately happy, ~20% who are estatic, ~20% who are pissed. The ~25% you propose becomes +5% of all visitors who are very angry and motivated. Angry people will snipe for unreasonable things. You don't want these people being angry. You want fans; the 20% estatic. Give the angry people less to complain about, and they may stay silent. Give them a reason, and they will complain to everyone or try and drag people away from your service. Give the estatic 20% even more to be happy about, and you have people who will help you.
Any minor annoyance or issue with this group can suck up quite a bit of time and effort. It also gives a poor impression and can make your efforts counter productive.
It's a better idea to spend that time by 'fixing' the problem even if the fix isn't ideal.
Thanks for the pointer! This is the first time I've heard about beyondlogic.org. Unlike sysinternals.com, I'm not seeing very many comments about BeyondLogic...a shame. In addition to trustnoexe there seem to be some very nice tools there.
That said, the low number of comments means that they haven't passed the sniff test yet. I'll be checking them out before installing anything just in case.
Oh, not from me. While the failure rate is much higher than I'd expect, that they do fail on a regular basis is not a surprise.
The reasons seem to be simple;
Spyware detectors find and remove known spyware.
Spyware creators know about the spyware scanners. If they decide that being detected is a big enough problem, they work on ways to not be detected.
As the new spyware revision comes out, they are discovered and the spyware detectors are updated.
Rinse and repeat.
Yet, the test results show that the spyware detectors aren't in the arms race against spyware that I described above. Instead, many spyware revisions aren't detected at all. Either they don't know about the spyware revisions, the spyware is not being tested for, or the spyware is being ignored on purpose.
Right now, the bar that the spyware creators have to leap is very low. Both social engineering and direct injection onto systems make spreading these things fairly easy to do for the spyware maker. Tie that in with many spyware detectors not detecting completely, and not being used consistantly, and I don't see an end to this problem soon for most people.
What to do? I'll leave that to others for now. I have my own lists. It is a security issue so the systems should be considered to be on hostile networks and hostile users. I consider 2 hours to lock down a Windows XP system to be a reasonable minimum amount of time to spend on each system -- unless automation tools are used.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have that as a premise.
OK. Intent is not something that I wrote about. I'm looking over what I did write, and can't even see where you'd get that impression.
So, I still don't see where this addresses anything that I said. Before responding, please go here.
Self examination is important.
BANG! Did you get that from one of my messages? If not, you're the first person who figured this out that I've ever met. I figured it out about 1-2 years ago, and so far nobody who I mention it to has had anything to say except maybe 'interesting'.
I'd like to see a coherant response to that! :)
Here's one thing that plugs in well when people talk about gods as if they are actually in existance; conscience .
Specifically, the moral norms of a person's peer group(s) and the peer groups associated to those group(s) (ex: family, organizations, community). Starting to sound a little familiar?
The pressure from these groups to conform both comforts the individual and strenthens the group. It's like buying bulk at Sam's Club while the unaffiliated usually shop at 7-11!
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated, though I think it snaps together just too well to be luck.
(Note: This does answer why the God in the story blesses some who act immorally and punishes others who do nothing wrong. The 'lesson' being taught is a deep one that tends to be lost on religous people looking for God to be good and just.)
Quoted and rephrased;
Here's something to ponder ... though perls before swine and all that ... when you say 'God' in earnest, what thoughts do you have about God?
What I mean is this: List off all the things that God has as you understand them. Be careful, thoughtful, and honest; feel free to add or strike things from your list. Even being beyond comprehension is a thing for your list.
For example, is power and might a necessity, or an added bonus? Is kindness and charity above power in what makes God God?
Now, taking your list, is there anything else that also shares some or all of this list? Hey, even Google can help with this one! (Tip: use the ~ key ~like ~this to look up similar words.)
If you now remove characteristics from this list, when does the list stop describing God and start to describe anything or anybody else; a person, an other deity (mythical or not), an abstract idea (love, humility, conscience, excellence, strength), a social relationship? Any set of the above?
Take your time.
Ready?
Here's another set of questions: Why do so many groups argue -- some to the death -- about what is and is not God? Do these contradictory visions of God ever contradict the group's own wishes?
I think I have answers to this, and the answers work incredibly well, though I'll let you come to your own...if you are willing.
Me, nope, I wouldn't be surprised. Stupidity on both ends of the theft -- the thief and the guardians -- seems to be the norm.
Yep.
He must work for a detective agency.
They are called SECURITY CAMERAS. Most small to moderate facilities have them.
Not where you work. I burn work-related disks frequently. It's expected now, though I attempt to get people to use the network instead.
The funniest one was right after stealing some equioment, the guilty janitor (who also had keys to the server room) went to 'pop the tape' and found it was entirely hard drive based. The guy still kept the computers and had his house raided to return the stolen equipment.
Lesson? Don't let anyone have keys to the !@#$!@#$! server room! Extrapolate other lessons from there....
we now expect that of that 66 million, 90% are probably like this and not as they should be.
...does Han still shoot first or not?
Limit the scope of your search to a site ( site:sitetosearch.com ), add extra search terms, or take some away ( -skippageswiththisword ). If you already do these things, look at the O'Reilly Google Hacks book for more advanced techniques.
Do you mean, something like this?
If autofocus (or any other method) from differnet angles allows for this enhancement, this technique can be used to 'cut' the image into different focus layers.
Piece the layers together, and you get a photo that has depth of field and is much sharper at each level.
The layer information could be stored seperately for later processing or combined with only a little fudging to give a weighted blur to the non-primary layer(s). Keeping the layers seperate and doing a comparison would also allow editing tricks such as cutting out objects at a specific depth or performing color enhancements on each level.
How do I deal with it? Oh, let me count the ways...
Pre-emptive: After knocking out the obvious and preventable problems, I keep a list of issues as they come up. I then knock them out as well or...decide not to do them at all. In some cases, you can bargain with people on the solution. In any case, you shouldn't have to manually do the same thing twice unless it is a physical task (moving a system, changing toner). Backups should happen automatically, restoring systems should almost be done by command, new software should be pushed out, ... with your job being to monitor that everything is A-OK not that you had to hover over every minor stage.
Recruit the users: Keep in mind that many minor tasks can be demonstrated to your users and they can take care of them for you. After all, many don't want to call you for small issues and will feel better 'learning about computers'.
Trust: Specifically, make them feel like they can be in control at any time. Annoy them with your concern. Walk around, ask people what they think, listen, give them tons of feedback, let them know you have handled specific issues they raised, give them so much feedback that they will be disinterested in asking you a single question -- unless it is really important. Make it so that they do not have to struggle over having you do anything...and they will not ask as many questions. This works very well... if and only if you are pushy about it for a few weeks. Get them to say 'enough'.
On a similar tangent, here's something to think about. (People aren't simple chimps; we're very complex apes.)
In Korea ... nevermind.
Does Microsoft provide a checksum or other strong verification method that proves that the downloaded SP2 update hasn't been compromised? (Honest question; I've looked before and couldn't find one.)
Too many of the details you mention make your report unbelievable.
Cheap new. Even cheaper used (check Amazon).
The book is thin and has a white cover with blue and red lettering.
Yep. I think Fedora Core 1 defaulted to the 'Gnome and KDE look alike' design. That's no longer the case. The tweaking of the Gnome default layout isn't happening as much as before for most distros that have both KDE and Gnome.
So far, I've not deployed Gnome to a customer site though with all the work they have done on it, and the upcomming work on Beagle/Dashboard, I'm probably going to start using it myself again. (Right now, I use quite a few Gnome apps on KDE.)
Very impressed with the direction of Gnome.
The problem is similarity. That's one of the reasons why the Gnome-based desktops tend to be different;
SuSE 9
Fedora Core 3
Ubuntu
If it doesn't match what is expected, people will not click on the wrong thing or get confused when everything isn't exactly the same. By being different, people will tend to look first; they aren't worried that the icon isn't the same they already realize that it's not going to be the same.
Both KDE and Gnome have the same basic menu options, so this is by no means a slam at KDE (I'm using it right now). The only menu difference is the default configuration.
(Ignore the last line...I ment to delete it!)
Since my tech support days in what seems like many lives ago, I've taken 5% unsupported as a big problem. 5% is 1 out of 20 customers/users; if you irk that many people, you're in trouble because they talk to other people. Pushing that down to 2% would a better plan as it shows that you are willing to support nearly everyone...and people tend to understand this.
Another quick and handy calculation from back then; At any one time any group of people will have ~60% who are moderately happy, ~20% who are estatic, ~20% who are pissed. The ~25% you propose becomes +5% of all visitors who are very angry and motivated. Angry people will snipe for unreasonable things. You don't want these people being angry. You want fans; the 20% estatic. Give the angry people less to complain about, and they may stay silent. Give them a reason, and they will complain to everyone or try and drag people away from your service. Give the estatic 20% even more to be happy about, and you have people who will help you.
Any minor annoyance or issue with this group can suck up quite a bit of time and effort. It also gives a poor impression and can make your efforts counter productive.
It's a better idea to spend that time by 'fixing' the problem even if the fix isn't ideal.
The problem with setting a high number like
That said, the low number of comments means that they haven't passed the sniff test yet. I'll be checking them out before installing anything just in case.
I'm thinking chicken bones and chanting must be involved.
The reasons seem to be simple;
Yet, the test results show that the spyware detectors aren't in the arms race against spyware that I described above. Instead, many spyware revisions aren't detected at all. Either they don't know about the spyware revisions, the spyware is not being tested for, or the spyware is being ignored on purpose.
Right now, the bar that the spyware creators have to leap is very low. Both social engineering and direct injection onto systems make spreading these things fairly easy to do for the spyware maker. Tie that in with many spyware detectors not detecting completely, and not being used consistantly, and I don't see an end to this problem soon for most people.
What to do? I'll leave that to others for now. I have my own lists. It is a security issue so the systems should be considered to be on hostile networks and hostile users. I consider 2 hours to lock down a Windows XP system to be a reasonable minimum amount of time to spend on each system -- unless automation tools are used.