This illustrates an interesting side-effect of slashdot's karma system. When people get positive feedback for saying something insightful (in the form of + moderation), they tend to say the same or similar things more often, even when they don't apply, in an effort to get more karma.
The result is that slashdot has the most insightful prose of the open web forums, but the conversation is somewhat discontinuous.
All that shows me is that Linus has a great sense of humor.
Seriously, he sounds like he has a witty, insensitive, and intelligent personality. People who are secure and confident will have a laugh and get along great after hearing things like that, while sensitive people might break down and cry.
I'm the same way. People either like and respect me, or think I'm a total jerk, depending on how strong (psychologically) they are.
Good. You keep working harder. The truly wealthy don't really work at all. The harder everyone else works, the more money they make. Keep up the good work.
Personally, I think you're a bit of a nut. I intend to work hard (42-45 hours per week) only as long as it takes for me to live off of the dividends from my investments (looks like 20 years from college graduation is when this will be possible). Then, all you habitually hard-working people will essentially be supporting me.
My girlfriend is french. She is also a professor of economics. She is extremely happy that this guy won. She is convinced that France's economy has been mismanaged for a long time and is hopeful that this guy can change that. Her parents own a few businesses and are being forced to close some of them due to the exreme socialist burdens France places on small business owners.
Also, she knows far more about economics than you or I know.
My point is that some really smart people wanted to see this guy win.
First, there is no such thing as a "soul." Try using adult words when you make arguments and people might take you seriously.
Second, a large percentage of conceptions (of many species, including humans) are forced--aka rape. This was likely true in humans until extremely recently (in evolutionary terms).
Scientists recently observed that 33% of conceptions for a certain species of duck were forced. Female ducks actually evolved a method to expel male semen so that they could select, to some extent, who to mate with.
Don't get me wrong: rape is a terrible crime. I just think we, as a society, might benefit from considering what rape is like in other animals and in our own history. The Bible records that God ordered the Israelites to murder the men in rival tribes and take the women as sex slaves. That is only a few thousand years old!
Perhaps rape is a natural, evolutionarily-driven instinct in some men. Screaming "evil! soul-scarring! execute them!" might not be the most productive response.
Maybe we could reduce the factors that trigger rape instincts in men. Legalize prostitution, perhaps?
Maybe we could engineer society so that women aren't taught to consider rape as a life-ruining experience, and stop teaching men to consider raped women as "damaged goods."
Anyway, that's food for thought for the truly socially conscious.
But... for a key that size, that would not be the probability of anything occurring. So... it's not even remotely right and not even remotely funny... Yes, I know that is the key. It still has nothing to do with probability.
You're right, but the problem is particularly pronounced with software. It doesn't take a college degree to realize that a thick bolt-lock embedded in a doorframe is more secure than a thin chain screwed to the surface of the door. You don't have to be a genius to see that trans fats, sat. fats, and simple carbs should be avoided if you want to be healthy. The majority of people either don't know this or don't know how to check, but doing so is still much easier than hiring a security expert at $90/hour for six months just to get a good idea of the security of a complex piece of software.
There is a reason corporate software salespeople make $200k, while most other sales people make less than half that. Software is just far, far to complex for the market to evaluate accurately.
I hereby renounce the +5 funny on my post! It was totally lame because the math was wrong.
Good. Here on Slashdot, we may not have good interpersonal relationship skills, or the ability to attract women, or high-school-level grammar, or the capacity to form coherent logical arguments; but we do have one ability that we should cherish and respect: the ability to do math properly.
No, I didn't enter "moral ambiguity land." I made the point that legislating harmless cultural/religious taboos (such as which body parts should be visible, which sounds can be said on TV) is ethically equivalently.
That doesn't mean there is nothing to the concept of ethics. It means the specific example you selected is not substantially worse (in principle) in Iran than what happens in the US.
There are a lot of culturally-neutral reasons to criticize them. The reason you picked is certainly not one of them, so I place no value on your analysis of the subject.
You can call it "ignorance" or not "very highly enlightened," but I dismiss your analysis for the same reason I dismiss a non-technician's analysis of a computer problem after he begins by referring to his LCD as "the tube"; or a non-trader's analysis of a stock valuation after he begins by saying "they were rude to me at this one store one time so they are obviously a bad company overall..."; or the same reason I dismiss a non-philosopher's reasoning of whether The Bible is an accurate historical record by starting with "it says rawt here in thu bible..."
I'm not saying Iran is a fair country. I am only saying, specifically, that requiring women to cover their hair isn't really different from requiring them to cover their chests. Both are done out of religious/cultural motivation in order to enforce morality at the expense of liberty.
Sorry for not responding in a few days. I've been sick.
Let's look at your #1. That's true.
Let's look at your #2. That's true, but it STILL DOES NOT GIVE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO PUNISH YOU FOR EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS.
I have the right to free speech. That means I could say, for example, "people with brown eyes are champagne-sipping bums!" Under your flawed reasoning, the government could not stop me from saying that, but they could arrest me "as a result of my actions."
That's dead wrong.
Brown-eyed citizens, or any other private entity, could refuse to associate with me, or could say mean things about me as a result of my actions... but the government CAN NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ARREST ME FOR EXERCISING MY RIGHTS.
They can only arrest me for committing crimes I have no rights to commit.
Go back go high school civics, you champagne-sipping bum.
I speak as a recent(6 years ago) high school graduate who was censored by BESS (the censorware aimed at schools) and circumvented it with a proxy.
I cannot possibly close every last security hole in the over 600 computers I am ultimately responsible for.
Bypassing censorware while you are being forced (upon threat of imprisonment) to be at a school is not taking advantage of a security flaw. It is somewhere in between civil disobedience and harmless teenage mischief.
At my school, we encourage students to report such breaches to us that they discover (and they are guaranteed not to get in trouble for the discovery)
As an earlier poster in this thread said, part of being in school is teaching students how to respect boundaries.
No, your only job is to educate. You are bad enough at that; don't try to do any more.
Same poster also said correctly that similar actions as an adult lead to far more serious consequences such as loss of job or worse.
I have (personally) had people fired at my company for using proxies to screw around while at work. The difference is that we warned them multiple times before firing them, and we terminated their voluntary, at-will employment agreements. High school is not voluntary nor at-will.
When I was in school, we didn't have privoxy or any of that other stuff. I wrote my proxy in raw perl and hosted it on my home dial-up connection. I was pretty proud of it, too. Since BESS blocked 90% of the Internet, including huge numbers of completely harmless sites, it was a fun, harmless, and educational exercise. It was a thousand times more educational than the Pascal programs we wrote in Programming class ("write a program that returns the area of a circle.")
Today, I am paid as a security engineer to do things like write perl, analyze network security, and enforce regulatory requirements. If I had been suspended or expelled for the harmless proxy stuff I did in high school, I could have been denied a chance to go to college, and had my career ruined before I even got on my feet.
The school administration who suspended these kids is doing a disservice to their community, to society, and to our country's economy. They are accomplishing the opposite of their duties as educators. And, in all likelihood, they are doing it because they are madly jealous of the students who quite obviously have superior intelligence to them, and who will be making double their salaries in a few years (unless they ruin the kids' careers while they still have power!)
I was suspended by the half-wit administration at my high school (not for computer use, but for leaving at lunch time without filing out the proper paperwork first!), and they might have expelled me if they were smart enough to catch on to the ease with witch I bypassed their censorware. Suspension did not teach me discipline. It did not educate me in any way. It made me respect them less, subvert them more, and it STOPPED me from learning anything academic for one day. It also made me consider buying their hick-ass shanty homes from their land lords and evicting them now that I have money... but I almost feel sorry for them: stuck in dead-end-jobs with no joy in life except using their brief period of power to try to ruin young people's chances at college and a better life than they have.
The problem here is that 99% of software purchasers simply don't have the ability to evaluate a product on the merits of its security. They do have the ability to evaluate products (1) on the merits of their prices.
The companies that develop software know that (2) doing security properly is extremely expensive, and requires hiring skilled specialists, and inegrating those specialists at all levels of the development process.
When you take points (1) and (2) into consideration, you realize that there is a lot more ROI in developing cheap insecure software than there is in developing expensive secure software.
This is an example of capitalism failing due to poorly-informed consumers. But I can think of no way to solve the problem (a security quantifier???), so the industry will continue along as it does today: cheap software and band-aid security.
And yet people continue to insist that there's not a creator...
There are enough elemental interactions in the universe that "3.4e+38 to one" would actually be very very good odds, and expected to occur randomly many times over. I suppose it is easier to get religion than to learn difficult subjects like probability and statistics, though...
At any rate, not many informed people actually "insist that there's not a creator," rather, they insist that there is no emperical evidence of a(ny) creator(s).
...a headscarf, notice how ALL the women in the photos wear one?
What's your point here? In the US all women are REQUIRED to wear tops. If they refuse, they go to jail. The government does not force men to wear tops.
In Iran, the government requires women to wear tops and headscarfs. It's not much different.
He's the Junk Science guy, which means that you ought to take this entire article with a mountain of salt.
I asked for a mai tai, and they brought me a pina colada, and I said no salt, NO salt for the margarita, but it had salt on it, big grains of salt, floating in the glass... And yes, I won't be leaving a tip, 'cause I could... I could shut this whole resort down. Sir? I'll take my traveler's checks to a competing resort. I could write a letter to your board of tourism and I could have this place condemned. I could put... I could put... strychnine in the guacamole. There was salt on the glass, BIG grains of salt.
Huh? Are you arguing that because you have a right to do something you are somehow exempt from the results of your actions. That would be an interesting defense.
No, I am not arguing anything. I am stating the fact that because you have the constitutional right to do something, the government (sworn to defend the constitution) can not punish you for exercising that right.
I am seriously concerned that some of of the people on this site don't understand this fundamental legal concept, yet they vote. FFS! Do I really need to explain this? Have you graduated high school?
Slashdot Mirror
This illustrates an interesting side-effect of slashdot's karma system. When people get positive feedback for saying something insightful (in the form of + moderation), they tend to say the same or similar things more often, even when they don't apply, in an effort to get more karma.
The result is that slashdot has the most insightful prose of the open web forums, but the conversation is somewhat discontinuous.
All that shows me is that Linus has a great sense of humor.
Seriously, he sounds like he has a witty, insensitive, and intelligent personality. People who are secure and confident will have a laugh and get along great after hearing things like that, while sensitive people might break down and cry.
I'm the same way. People either like and respect me, or think I'm a total jerk, depending on how strong (psychologically) they are.
Good. You keep working harder. The truly wealthy don't really work at all. The harder everyone else works, the more money they make. Keep up the good work.
Personally, I think you're a bit of a nut. I intend to work hard (42-45 hours per week) only as long as it takes for me to live off of the dividends from my investments (looks like 20 years from college graduation is when this will be possible). Then, all you habitually hard-working people will essentially be supporting me.
My girlfriend is french. She is also a professor of economics. She is extremely happy that this guy won. She is convinced that France's economy has been mismanaged for a long time and is hopeful that this guy can change that. Her parents own a few businesses and are being forced to close some of them due to the exreme socialist burdens France places on small business owners.
Also, she knows far more about economics than you or I know.
My point is that some really smart people wanted to see this guy win.
Lets get a few things out of the way.
First, there is no such thing as a "soul." Try using adult words when you make arguments and people might take you seriously.
Second, a large percentage of conceptions (of many species, including humans) are forced--aka rape. This was likely true in humans until extremely recently (in evolutionary terms).
Scientists recently observed that 33% of conceptions for a certain species of duck were forced. Female ducks actually evolved a method to expel male semen so that they could select, to some extent, who to mate with.
Don't get me wrong: rape is a terrible crime. I just think we, as a society, might benefit from considering what rape is like in other animals and in our own history. The Bible records that God ordered the Israelites to murder the men in rival tribes and take the women as sex slaves. That is only a few thousand years old!
Perhaps rape is a natural, evolutionarily-driven instinct in some men. Screaming "evil! soul-scarring! execute them!" might not be the most productive response.
Maybe we could reduce the factors that trigger rape instincts in men. Legalize prostitution, perhaps?
Maybe we could engineer society so that women aren't taught to consider rape as a life-ruining experience, and stop teaching men to consider raped women as "damaged goods."
Anyway, that's food for thought for the truly socially conscious.
But... for a key that size, that would not be the probability of anything occurring. So... it's not even remotely right and not even remotely funny... Yes, I know that is the key. It still has nothing to do with probability.
You're right, but the problem is particularly pronounced with software. It doesn't take a college degree to realize that a thick bolt-lock embedded in a doorframe is more secure than a thin chain screwed to the surface of the door. You don't have to be a genius to see that trans fats, sat. fats, and simple carbs should be avoided if you want to be healthy. The majority of people either don't know this or don't know how to check, but doing so is still much easier than hiring a security expert at $90/hour for six months just to get a good idea of the security of a complex piece of software.
There is a reason corporate software salespeople make $200k, while most other sales people make less than half that. Software is just far, far to complex for the market to evaluate accurately.
No, I didn't enter "moral ambiguity land." I made the point that legislating harmless cultural/religious taboos (such as which body parts should be visible, which sounds can be said on TV) is ethically equivalently.
That doesn't mean there is nothing to the concept of ethics. It means the specific example you selected is not substantially worse (in principle) in Iran than what happens in the US.
There are a lot of culturally-neutral reasons to criticize them. The reason you picked is certainly not one of them, so I place no value on your analysis of the subject.
You can call it "ignorance" or not "very highly enlightened," but I dismiss your analysis for the same reason I dismiss a non-technician's analysis of a computer problem after he begins by referring to his LCD as "the tube"; or a non-trader's analysis of a stock valuation after he begins by saying "they were rude to me at this one store one time so they are obviously a bad company overall..."; or the same reason I dismiss a non-philosopher's reasoning of whether The Bible is an accurate historical record by starting with "it says rawt here in thu bible..."
you get the picture.
I'm not saying Iran is a fair country. I am only saying, specifically, that requiring women to cover their hair isn't really different from requiring them to cover their chests. Both are done out of religious/cultural motivation in order to enforce morality at the expense of liberty.
Sorry for not responding in a few days. I've been sick.
Let's look at your #1. That's true.
Let's look at your #2. That's true, but it STILL DOES NOT GIVE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO PUNISH YOU FOR EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS.
I have the right to free speech. That means I could say, for example, "people with brown eyes are champagne-sipping bums!" Under your flawed reasoning, the government could not stop me from saying that, but they could arrest me "as a result of my actions."
That's dead wrong.
Brown-eyed citizens, or any other private entity, could refuse to associate with me, or could say mean things about me as a result of my actions... but the government CAN NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ARREST ME FOR EXERCISING MY RIGHTS.
They can only arrest me for committing crimes I have no rights to commit.
Go back go high school civics, you champagne-sipping bum.
When I was in school, we didn't have privoxy or any of that other stuff. I wrote my proxy in raw perl and hosted it on my home dial-up connection. I was pretty proud of it, too. Since BESS blocked 90% of the Internet, including huge numbers of completely harmless sites, it was a fun, harmless, and educational exercise. It was a thousand times more educational than the Pascal programs we wrote in Programming class ("write a program that returns the area of a circle.")
Today, I am paid as a security engineer to do things like write perl, analyze network security, and enforce regulatory requirements. If I had been suspended or expelled for the harmless proxy stuff I did in high school, I could have been denied a chance to go to college, and had my career ruined before I even got on my feet.
The school administration who suspended these kids is doing a disservice to their community, to society, and to our country's economy. They are accomplishing the opposite of their duties as educators. And, in all likelihood, they are doing it because they are madly jealous of the students who quite obviously have superior intelligence to them, and who will be making double their salaries in a few years (unless they ruin the kids' careers while they still have power!)
I was suspended by the half-wit administration at my high school (not for computer use, but for leaving at lunch time without filing out the proper paperwork first!), and they might have expelled me if they were smart enough to catch on to the ease with witch I bypassed their censorware. Suspension did not teach me discipline. It did not educate me in any way. It made me respect them less, subvert them more, and it STOPPED me from learning anything academic for one day. It also made me consider buying their hick-ass shanty homes from their land lords and evicting them now that I have money... but I almost feel sorry for them: stuck in dead-end-jobs with no joy in life except using their brief period of power to try to ruin young people's chances at college and a better life than they have.
Sorry about the "slick," bub. I'm just bitter that I did the math right, yet you got all the karma.
And just to rub it in, Mr. +5, you tell me that you didn't even have to spend five years and $50,000 on an education to get where you are. psh.
How did you come to that? 16^32 yeilds 3.402823669e+38 in Gcalctool.
The problem here is that 99% of software purchasers simply don't have the ability to evaluate a product on the merits of its security. They do have the ability to evaluate products (1) on the merits of their prices.
The companies that develop software know that (2) doing security properly is extremely expensive, and requires hiring skilled specialists, and inegrating those specialists at all levels of the development process.
When you take points (1) and (2) into consideration, you realize that there is a lot more ROI in developing cheap insecure software than there is in developing expensive secure software.
This is an example of capitalism failing due to poorly-informed consumers. But I can think of no way to solve the problem (a security quantifier???), so the industry will continue along as it does today: cheap software and band-aid security.
At any rate, not many informed people actually "insist that there's not a creator," rather, they insist that there is no emperical evidence of a(ny) creator(s).
We're talking about 16^32 here, slick. That's: (16 possible hex digits) * (16 possible hex digits) * ... (to 32 places).
Don't they teach counting in college anymore?
What good is the "old Apple spirit" if only you and a few other people ever benefit from it?
Not much. Quit being so full of yourself.
They should have started by making a map of there English class.
You've demonstrated that you can't think from a culturally-neutral point of view, so I'm just going to ignore the rest of your post.
In Iran, the government requires women to wear tops and headscarfs. It's not much different.
No, I am not arguing anything. I am stating the fact that because you have the constitutional right to do something, the government (sworn to defend the constitution) can not punish you for exercising that right.
I am seriously concerned that some of of the people on this site don't understand this fundamental legal concept, yet they vote. FFS! Do I really need to explain this? Have you graduated high school?