1. Spyware stuff. during the last few months the popularity of word "spyware" has raised amazingly. Actually, only a few peopla know what the programs considered as "spyware" do, but the name just sounds good, doesn't it? SPYWARE... SPYWARE... hmm, I'm pretty scared... maybe I should stop watching the american thrillers. Someone is spying me... he knows what I'm doing, knows my girlfriends telephone number, knows where do I live, he just controls my life...HE KNOWS !!!! But take a closer look at the "spyware" programs. e.g. SaveNow. SaveNow HELPS people when bying over the internet. You want to buy a pack (a few hundreds) of recordable CDs.... searching on the net.. AH, here...Oh, wait a moment, a popup window appears. When I click on the popup-window I can buy a pack of my favourite CDs and save up to 15% That's cool. I would even call it "HELPWARE". I'm happy.
Oh, so this is one of those people who actually enjoy being interrupted during dinner to recieve a SPECIAL OFFER from company X if they switch phone companies. Now I see, they aren't telemarketers, they're tele-HELPERS!
I got my CDs, some people got some money and everyone is happy. Some people say it collects some information and sends it over the internet... BUT. Has anyone "recorded" the data sent over the net? I use it and didn't notice any data being stolen or anything happened to my data.
Likewise, this guy must be a-okay with having hidden cameras being in his shower. After all, if the data was wired right out of the house and on to the internet straight to some hidden-camera porn site, has anybody in the neighborhood "recorded" that pictures were sent from his household out over the net? He used the shower and might have noticed the camera, but that must be okay because he didn't actually see the pictures leaving the residence.
I'm not going to go on. You already understand the truth, and so does this dishonest money-grubbing scumbag.
> I'd imagine that it is possible to come up > with an algorithim that's lossless and still > as small as any equivalent.jpg file.
You mean like PNG? The problem is browser support - old browsers may not render a new format consistently. Keeping two versions of every graphic and deciding which to send to the browser based on what it can handle is a pain. Having a significant percentage of potential customers see broken links all over everything is unacceptible.
No, I mean a lossless image (as png is) that would be the same size as a lossy image (as jpg is) with no loss at all. For a comparison, take a 24-bit color image with lots of detail and compress it into 2 formats - jpg and png. Notice how much smaller the jpg is? Now if you're already working with a reduced color image (256 or less) a gif image (lossless up to 256 colors) would be small and work in all graphical web browsers though the same image in png format would still be a lot smaller. Anyway, I was talking about evolving a new image format, not browser compatibility.
When are we going to start evolving these algorithims? It would have to be done by a really fast computer, but it's been shown that natural selection applies to computing as well. I'd imagine that it is possible to come up with an algorithim that's lossless and still as small as any equivalent.jpg file. Nature can come up with things we never even imagined. This technique has been used to create a sorting program that is smaller works faster than any we ever created manually. And we often can't figure out how it works. Not a clue!
Hey, I've found a neat way to avoid getting speeding tickets. Here's how it works. It turns out that on almost any public road there will occassionally be little white signs on the side that have a number on them. There's also this little indicator behind the steering wheel that has its own number that goes up or down depending on how hard you push the gas pedal.
Now here's the trick: If you make sure the number on this "speedometer" doesn't exceed the numbers on these "speed limit" signs, you can cruise right on past the cops and they don't even seem to notice you! Just leave a few minutes earlier and you can get to where you're going on time without anybody stopping you to harass you about your velocity. Works like a charm!
Psst, don't tell too many people. The cops might start to catch on that we've found a way to avoid them. Heh, those suckers.
>Yes, I'm happy to "relativize away" quotes > that send a if-you-disagree-with-me-you-deserve-to-be-shot message
Well, you misinterpreted both my post
I made no interpretation about any of your own words. My comment was about the quote and my goal was to get people to think about what it really means.
and the original quotes, if I may say so. The meaning of the quote is that when people start putting more value in safety than in liberty, things can (and often do) go down pretty bad.
No, the quote means exactly what it says: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Look at it this way: totalitarian regimes are usually pretty safe - as long as you tow the party line. Crime was almost nonexistent in the Cold War-era U.S.S.R. But dissent was severely punished. So people were safe, but not free.
Yes, extremely unfortunate living conditions.
> I only said that I don't agree that someone > deserves to have their safety taken away or to > be stripped of all of their liberties if they > were to vote differently at the polls than you.
Now where the hell did you get that from? You're blatantly distorting my words - I am a true democrat, and would never advocate such a thing. I'm insulted that you would give me such intentions and appreciate it if you could apologize.
*sigh* You seem to have an overactive sense of self-defense. I only made statements about how people interpret Franklin's quote and that I don't agree with it's real message. Please re-read my initial analysis of the quote. I have no intentions towards you one way or another. (However I did notice that you briefly placed me on your Slashdot "foe" list.) Still, if you wish an apology anyhow for anything I said was the least bit offensive to you, perceived or intentional, you officially have it. Just don't slap me with a white glove or challenge me to a duel.;)
On the other hand, I understand where you may have misunderstood the original quote. I think it has to do with the word "deserve". You automatically conclude that, when Franklin or Jefferson say that those who would sacrifice freedom for security do not deserve neither, that they are advocating that such freedom and security be removed from them: they are simply making a moral observation. Like someone who receives a gift but doesn't deserve it: you can state that fact without advocating taking the gift away. I'll give you another (partisan) example: I can say that Bush didn't deserve to win the last election, since he got a lesser portion of the national vote than Gore. That doesn't mean that I'm advocating his overthrow (though I'm sure President Chavez of Venezuela would say that he was responsible for his own demise...;-)
You make a good point, one that I shall have to contemplate. But regardless of whether someone who says another deserves something would actually act on it if they had the unhindered power, the quote still has the mentality of "If you disagree with me, you deserve to be locked up." Or shot. Or both.
Remember, I live in the U.S. There are many people here who would be happy to see such a moral judgment made policy. I'm sure you can understand my reaction given my interpretation of what that quote really means. It does not seem to me to be too far from any other malicious judgment, such as "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots".
> People use this quote by Franklin when they > are trying to sound intellectual[...]Is that > what you consider post-modern?
I wasn't trying to sound like an intellectual (I've got my own website to do that!), I just put it there because I like it.
Sorry, people tend to do so. I see I will have to be very careful with my words so that you don't think everything I say is about you. Going back to my barbeque analogy, I personally see this as similar to "I eat the meat because I like it." And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, nor with quoting something because you like it. But considering the subject and presumably logical tone of the quote, I think the quote should be dealt with directly on it's own level. So I'm happy to put the words through the hurtles to see what it really means and how people really interpret it.
I think it's a really good quote. I did think it through, and I still think it's a great quote. I personally think that you have simply misunderstood its meaning.
As do I you.
The post-modern thing is a reference to many people I know who just take the meaning out of everything
But you see I am not trying to remove any meaning. I'm attempting to clarify the quote's meaning.
by excessively relativizing it (it usually boils down to "but, what is life?" or worse "but, what is art?"). That's trying to sound intellectual.
Nah, I'd attribute that level of solipsism to watching "The Matrix" one too many times while smoking pot.;)
I'm not aware how long it will be before this thread becomes unalterable, but you may contact me at my address through the website.
You're just trying to relativize away a great quote. I personally don't go for that post-modern bullshit, so excuse if I don't participate in your petty linguistics.
Yes, I'm happy to "relativize away" quotes that send a if-you-disagree-with-me-you-deserve-to-be-shot message by paring them down to what they really are, just like I would ruin a good barbeque by pointing out that the guests are being served the neighbors' recently-vanished canines. If you're drawn to the barbeque by the smell and enjoy the meat that's fine, but if you take a better look you might find that you're not as hungry as you thought. People use this quote by Franklin when they are trying to sound intellectual -- and this quote is somehow "ruined" if you try to think it through? Is that what you consider post-modern?
Notice that I never said that we (I'm in the U.S.) don't deserve those rights. The liberties provided by the constitution are essential to maintaining a free-thinking democracy. I only said that I don't agree that someone deserves to have their safety taken away or to be stripped of all of their liberties if they were to vote differently at the polls than you.
As for the Israel thing, I'm not going to start a flame war with you. You already ignored the rest of my sig* -- and assumed that you understood why I believe the way I do. Hence, I doubt you would readily listen to any "propaganda" I would respond with. Huh... Interesting that you call the actions of one side acting with rage out of desperation, but you label the second half of the hurtful cycle as simple aggression.
We don't need Freedom of Speech protections to protect Aunt Helen's "I love puppies!" website.
Apparently we do! I've searched and searched and for the life of me I can't find any reference to Aunt Helen's "I love puppies!" website. Curse those censors! They've already gotten to Google on this one!
First Dimitri, now this. Enough is enough! It's time we took a stand against this corporate anti-puppy campaign! Who's willing to register http://www.boycottpetsmart.com?
Re:Titanium is also very flexible.
on
The Sexiest Metal
·
· Score: 2
Isn't stainless steel used in kitchen sinks? What is the difference between steel and "stainless" steel?
This reminds me of two famous (and nearly identical) quotes:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.
Define "essential liberty" and "little temporary safety". The two are so mallable that it's easy to use that quote to nourish one's own bigotry. Once a person has mentally mashed the saying in their head enough to agree with it, they stop thinking of the other viewpoint as someone who wants to be safe, but as the enemy who doesn't deserve any safety. And besides the fact that someone who would give up essential liberties for safety is already willing to forefit safety, I think anyone would be hard pressed to find any justifiable reason to put someone in danger for their political beliefs on how society should be run.
Here's a thought exercise: Do you as readily agree with the following?
"Those who would give up an essential element of human safety to gain a trivial liberty deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:Titanium is also very flexible.
on
The Sexiest Metal
·
· Score: 2
I had a friend in Jr. High whose parents bought him a pair of those Nickel-Titanium glasses because he kept breaking the others. The day after he got them he was showing me how elastic they were. "See, I can bend it like this and it changes back," he said, folding one end over itself.
"That's really cool," I said. "So the whole frame is like that?"
"Yeah," he said, twisting them into a pretzel-like shape, when SNAP! He had to hold his glasses in place for the rest of the day to use them.
He would make a great QA Engineer.
Sounds like one friend I have. He did this twice. You think he would have learned after the first time...
I bet you're one of the same people that bitch at moderators for modding posts off-topic or something when they are down-right funny because you feel they shouldn't be seen.
Er, Noooo... I don't complain much about moderation at all. And that sentence didn't make sense. Why would I bitch at a moderator for modding down a post I wouldn't want people to see? And why wouldn't I want to see a funny post? Most of my mod points come from posts I make that other people moderate as funny.
Go away...
I don't recall saying I was boycotting any site myself, just that Slashdot had gone overboard today and posting a link to a site where people think Slashdot has gone way too far overboard, period.
If you really feel this need to censor people's thoughts, go boycot something else.
Communicating alternatives is not the same as censoring thoughts.
Here is a list of reasons to boycott slashdot. It includes a list of alternatives, including my favorite, BottomQuark. That site hasn't had one April Fools joke all day. Slashdot has had, what, 6 so far?
There are no new ideas in computing. Anybody who tries to sell you a "new idea" in computing is a gasbag who is either a) blissfully ignorant or b) willfully ignorant.
So you're saying that anybody who worked on AtheOS is a willfully ignorant gasbag?
Slashdot Mirror
You must have watched "A.I." recently.
Hey Gigilo Joe, whaddya know?
Okay, am I the only one who sees the potential for, ehm... abuse?
Reprogrammed Valarie + RealDoll = A housemaid that is REALLY eager to please.
(Necessary tools: handsaw, duct tape)
1. Spyware stuff.
during the last few months the popularity of word "spyware" has raised amazingly. Actually, only a few peopla know what the programs considered as "spyware" do, but the name just sounds good, doesn't it? SPYWARE... SPYWARE... hmm, I'm pretty scared... maybe I should stop watching the american thrillers. Someone is spying me... he knows what I'm doing, knows my girlfriends telephone number, knows where do I live, he just controls my life...HE KNOWS !!!! But take a closer look at the "spyware" programs. e.g. SaveNow. SaveNow HELPS people when bying over the internet. You want to buy a pack (a few hundreds) of recordable CDs.... searching on the net.. AH, here...Oh, wait a moment, a popup window appears. When I click
on the popup-window I can buy a pack of my favourite CDs and save up to 15% That's cool. I would even call it "HELPWARE". I'm happy.
Oh, so this is one of those people who actually enjoy being interrupted during dinner to recieve a SPECIAL OFFER from company X if they switch phone companies. Now I see, they aren't telemarketers, they're tele-HELPERS!
I got my CDs, some people got some money and everyone is happy. Some people say it collects some information and sends it over the internet... BUT. Has anyone "recorded" the data sent over the net? I use it and didn't notice any data being stolen or anything happened to my data.
Likewise, this guy must be a-okay with having hidden cameras being in his shower. After all, if the data was wired right out of the house and on to the internet straight to some hidden-camera porn site, has anybody in the neighborhood "recorded" that pictures were sent from his household out over the net? He used the shower and might have noticed the camera, but that must be okay because he didn't actually see the pictures leaving the residence.
I'm not going to go on. You already understand the truth, and so does this dishonest money-grubbing scumbag.
> I'd imagine that it is possible to come up .jpg file.
> with an algorithim that's lossless and still
> as small as any equivalent
You mean like PNG? The problem is browser support - old browsers may not render a new format consistently. Keeping two versions of every graphic and deciding which to send to the browser based on what it can handle is a pain. Having a significant percentage of potential customers see broken links all over everything is unacceptible.
No, I mean a lossless image (as png is) that would be the same size as a lossy image (as jpg is) with no loss at all. For a comparison, take a 24-bit color image with lots of detail and compress it into 2 formats - jpg and png. Notice how much smaller the jpg is? Now if you're already working with a reduced color image (256 or less) a gif image (lossless up to 256 colors) would be small and work in all graphical web browsers though the same image in png format would still be a lot smaller. Anyway, I was talking about evolving a new image format, not browser compatibility.
When are we going to start evolving these algorithims? It would have to be done by a really fast computer, but it's been shown that natural selection applies to computing as well. I'd imagine that it is possible to come up with an algorithim that's lossless and still as small as any equivalent .jpg file. Nature can come up with things we never even imagined. This technique has been used to create a sorting program that is smaller works faster than any we ever created manually. And we often can't figure out how it works. Not a clue!
Well, according to your black box, your lights were on, and you had come to a complete stop.
:)
...horizontally across the freeway. Who's fault?
Hey, I've found a neat way to avoid getting speeding tickets. Here's how it works. It turns out that on almost any public road there will occassionally be little white signs on the side that have a number on them. There's also this little indicator behind the steering wheel that has its own number that goes up or down depending on how hard you push the gas pedal.
Now here's the trick: If you make sure the number on this "speedometer" doesn't exceed the numbers on these "speed limit" signs, you can cruise right on past the cops and they don't even seem to notice you! Just leave a few minutes earlier and you can get to where you're going on time without anybody stopping you to harass you about your velocity. Works like a charm!
Psst, don't tell too many people. The cops might start to catch on that we've found a way to avoid them. Heh, those suckers.
/attempt at humor>
Yep, and luckily I have images turned off by default.
The article reads better with a tin-foil hat.
Hey really? Do they sell them at ThinkGeek? I want one with Tux painted on it!
You thanked him for that? Did you actually follow the link?
"I think Beige has the most RAM..." -- Dilbert's Boss
:)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
>Yes, I'm happy to "relativize away" quotes
;)
;-)
;)
> that send a if-you-disagree-with-me-you-deserve-to-be-shot message
Well, you misinterpreted both my post
I made no interpretation about any of your own words. My comment was about the quote and my goal was to get people to think about what it really means.
and the original quotes, if I may say so. The meaning of the quote is that when people start putting more value in safety than in liberty, things can (and often do) go down pretty bad.
No, the quote means exactly what it says: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Look at it this way: totalitarian regimes are usually pretty safe - as long as you tow the party line. Crime was almost nonexistent in the Cold War-era U.S.S.R. But dissent was severely punished. So people were safe, but not free.
Yes, extremely unfortunate living conditions.
> I only said that I don't agree that someone
> deserves to have their safety taken away or to
> be stripped of all of their liberties if they
> were to vote differently at the polls than you.
Now where the hell did you get that from? You're blatantly distorting my words - I am a true democrat, and would never advocate such a thing. I'm insulted that you would give me such intentions and appreciate it if you could apologize.
*sigh* You seem to have an overactive sense of self-defense. I only made statements about how people interpret Franklin's quote and that I don't agree with it's real message. Please re-read my initial analysis of the quote. I have no intentions towards you one way or another. (However I did notice that you briefly placed me on your Slashdot "foe" list.) Still, if you wish an apology anyhow for anything I said was the least bit offensive to you, perceived or intentional, you officially have it. Just don't slap me with a white glove or challenge me to a duel.
On the other hand, I understand where you may have misunderstood the original quote. I think it has to do with the word "deserve". You automatically conclude that, when Franklin or Jefferson say that those who would sacrifice freedom for security do not deserve neither, that they are advocating that such freedom and security be removed from them: they are simply making a moral observation. Like someone who receives a gift but doesn't deserve it: you can state that fact without advocating taking the gift away. I'll give you another (partisan) example: I can say that Bush didn't deserve to win the last election, since he got a lesser portion of the national vote than Gore. That doesn't mean that I'm advocating his overthrow (though I'm sure President Chavez of Venezuela would say that he was responsible for his own demise...
You make a good point, one that I shall have to contemplate. But regardless of whether someone who says another deserves something would actually act on it if they had the unhindered power, the quote still has the mentality of "If you disagree with me, you deserve to be locked up." Or shot. Or both.
Remember, I live in the U.S. There are many people here who would be happy to see such a moral judgment made policy. I'm sure you can understand my reaction given my interpretation of what that quote really means. It does not seem to me to be too far from any other malicious judgment, such as "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots".
> People use this quote by Franklin when they
> are trying to sound intellectual[...]Is that
> what you consider post-modern?
I wasn't trying to sound like an intellectual (I've got my own website to do that!), I just put it there because I like it.
Sorry, people tend to do so. I see I will have to be very careful with my words so that you don't think everything I say is about you. Going back to my barbeque analogy, I personally see this as similar to "I eat the meat because I like it." And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, nor with quoting something because you like it. But considering the subject and presumably logical tone of the quote, I think the quote should be dealt with directly on it's own level. So I'm happy to put the words through the hurtles to see what it really means and how people really interpret it.
I think it's a really good quote. I did think it through, and I still think it's a great quote. I personally think that you have simply misunderstood its meaning.
As do I you.
The post-modern thing is a reference to many people I know who just take the meaning out of everything
But you see I am not trying to remove any meaning. I'm attempting to clarify the quote's meaning.
by excessively relativizing it (it usually boils down to "but, what is life?" or worse "but, what is art?"). That's trying to sound intellectual.
Nah, I'd attribute that level of solipsism to watching "The Matrix" one too many times while smoking pot.
I'm not aware how long it will be before this thread becomes unalterable, but you may contact me at my address through the website.
Er, that should be "already willing to give up liberty".
Define "essential safety" and "trivial liberty".
That was exactly my point. Glad you caught it.
You're just trying to relativize away a great quote. I personally don't go for that post-modern bullshit, so excuse if I don't participate in your petty linguistics.
Yes, I'm happy to "relativize away" quotes that send a if-you-disagree-with-me-you-deserve-to-be-shot message by paring them down to what they really are, just like I would ruin a good barbeque by pointing out that the guests are being served the neighbors' recently-vanished canines. If you're drawn to the barbeque by the smell and enjoy the meat that's fine, but if you take a better look you might find that you're not as hungry as you thought. People use this quote by Franklin when they are trying to sound intellectual -- and this quote is somehow "ruined" if you try to think it through? Is that what you consider post-modern?
Notice that I never said that we (I'm in the U.S.) don't deserve those rights. The liberties provided by the constitution are essential to maintaining a free-thinking democracy. I only said that I don't agree that someone deserves to have their safety taken away or to be stripped of all of their liberties if they were to vote differently at the polls than you.
As for the Israel thing, I'm not going to start a flame war with you. You already ignored the rest of my sig* -- and assumed that you understood why I believe the way I do. Hence, I doubt you would readily listen to any "propaganda" I would respond with. Huh... Interesting that you call the actions of one side acting with rage out of desperation, but you label the second half of the hurtful cycle as simple aggression.
(*Signature tends to change by the week.)
Shouldn't we wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide who to elect?
We don't need Freedom of Speech protections to protect Aunt Helen's "I love puppies!" website.
Apparently we do! I've searched and searched and for the life of me I can't find any reference to Aunt Helen's "I love puppies!" website. Curse those censors! They've already gotten to Google on this one!
First Dimitri, now this. Enough is enough! It's time we took a stand against this corporate anti-puppy campaign! Who's willing to register http://www.boycottpetsmart.com?
Isn't stainless steel used in kitchen sinks? What is the difference between steel and "stainless" steel?
This reminds me of two famous (and nearly identical) quotes:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.
Define "essential liberty" and "little temporary safety". The two are so mallable that it's easy to use that quote to nourish one's own bigotry. Once a person has mentally mashed the saying in their head enough to agree with it, they stop thinking of the other viewpoint as someone who wants to be safe, but as the enemy who doesn't deserve any safety. And besides the fact that someone who would give up essential liberties for safety is already willing to forefit safety, I think anyone would be hard pressed to find any justifiable reason to put someone in danger for their political beliefs on how society should be run.
Here's a thought exercise: Do you as readily agree with the following?
"Those who would give up an essential element of human safety to gain a trivial liberty deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I had a friend in Jr. High whose parents bought him a pair of those Nickel-Titanium glasses because he kept breaking the others.
The day after he got them he was showing me how elastic they were. "See, I can bend it like this and it changes back," he said, folding one end over itself.
"That's really cool," I said. "So the whole frame is like that?"
"Yeah," he said, twisting them into a pretzel-like shape, when SNAP! He had to hold his glasses in place for the rest of the day to use them.
He would make a great QA Engineer.
Sounds like one friend I have. He did this twice. You think he would have learned after the first time...
As is the rule with all 1.0 Microsoft products. If Microsoft continues to push X-Box, by X-Box 4.0, it will be a decent product.
Yeah, but avoid X-BOX ME like the plague.
OMG, now you're just being silly.
How so?
I bet you're one of the same people that bitch at moderators for modding posts off-topic or something when they are down-right funny because you feel they shouldn't be seen.
Er, Noooo... I don't complain much about moderation at all. And that sentence didn't make sense. Why would I bitch at a moderator for modding down a post I wouldn't want people to see? And why wouldn't I want to see a funny post? Most of my mod points come from posts I make that other people moderate as funny.
Go away...
I don't recall saying I was boycotting any site myself, just that Slashdot had gone overboard today and posting a link to a site where people think Slashdot has gone way too far overboard, period.
If you really feel this need to censor people's thoughts, go boycot something else.
Communicating alternatives is not the same as censoring thoughts.
They won't delete your post, they'll $rtbl you.
What's $rtbl stand for?
I just noticed... where's the "Anonymous" checkbox?
I agree. Slashdot has gone way overboard today.
Here is a list of reasons to boycott slashdot. It includes a list of alternatives, including my favorite, BottomQuark. That site hasn't had one April Fools joke all day. Slashdot has had, what, 6 so far?
I wonder if this will change how many people are participating in The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout?
Now the more important question is: Will this post be deleted or simply moderated down?
There are no new ideas in computing. Anybody who tries to sell you a "new idea" in computing is a gasbag who is either a) blissfully ignorant or b) willfully ignorant.
So you're saying that anybody who worked on AtheOS is a willfully ignorant gasbag?