Unfortunately, this system is not realistic and poses some massive privacy concerns. While it may be feasible to create the network of cameras described in (a), it is substantially difficult with current technology to implement the optical character recognition required to implement part (b).
BTW, X being a legal signature, I don't ever sign on those pads. I don't even get strange looks, since the sophisticated system is just hunky dory with the whole thing.
There's also non-US contributers to factor in, just because the US economy is sliding into the crapper doesn't mean the rest of the world is following suite.
Um... this isn't a US downturn. This is a global recession. Please spend five minutes investigating this before you pie in the sky comment.
I can't agree more. People don't realize that we already have technology which can utilize 95% of what we consider nuclear waste to produce more electricity. Even better is what is left won't be dangerous after a few decades. The mentality behind this effort is simple FUD to keep us from creating more nuclear power. It's shameful neo-Ludditism.
I would assume those which are not killing people in the streets. You know, if you aren't even going to bother reading the comments or expanding on your thoughts, don't bother writing at all.
On a related note, who thought it was a clever thing to make the reply and parent buttons stick out like a sore thumb among the comments on slashdot? I am looking at you CmdrTaco./shakes fist
Unfortunately for your position, the current mainstream scientific theory doesn't specify that the Big Bang is the "beginning of everything", just the beginning of our present universe.It's not even that. The big bang does not cover the actual creation event, only a mere fraction after some highly ordered event. The big bang doesn't require a creation event, and is just as happy putting some steady state cyclical event in for "the begining". It is agnostic to creation like evolution is agnostic to the creation of self-replicating organisms.
strawmen are so easy to knock down, aren't they? I am an atheist, and do not claim it has existed forever or had some supernatural causation. I will claim that "The data is insufficient for a determination" and you can quote me on that. On the other hand, the bible tells me nothing useful about creation, it's evolution or the conditions that existed beforehand. In otherwords, it is a totally worthless hypothesis.
There are other theories, that may even be testible, that say the big bang was caused by M-Brane collisions. Steady state may be discredited, but that isn't the end of natural explanations of creation or the lack thereof. "Because of god" is the least useful theory you could put forward to predict future or model past events. Not only have you not explained anything, but it raises even more questions that are harder to answer than the one you sought to simplify.
What bothers me is that there is a misconception about what secular means. It is relatively common among the born-agains that secular is the same thing as atheist. Furthermore, they believe, a priori, that all the founding fathers were all confirmed protestants. I assume they think Jefferson was the original southern baptist, since I often hear him mentioned as particularly devout. None of this is true, but it doesn't jive with the one-world-view-god-bless-america crowd. I think this goes to the real meat of the subject. It's not about evolution vs creationism. It's about objectivity vs dogma. I can talk about creationism not being an actual scientific theory till I am blue in the face, it isn't going to matter while people are uncomfortable having their ideas being questioned. As long as people are taught their doctrine are infallible, they will fight to the death to maintain them.
Now imagine yourself holding the Earth still and moving the sun around the Earth, with all the planets doing their thing as they move "around" the sun?
Imagine it? Your living it. Your vantage point is anchored to the planet. You can come up with any theory you want, but you need to explain why the other planets, from our perspective, sometimes backtrack their orbit.
For example, James Watson (one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA) is clearly an intelligent man who's made significant contributions to science, and who still holds the idiotic belief that some races are naturally more intelligent than others owing purely to genetic reasons. The man? Smart. The belief? Stupid.
Is it stupid? There are definitely statistics that show a range of intellectual aptitude between races. As far as I have ever seen, there has been a lot of bluster about racism and no good science given to explain those facts. Does James Watson deserve scorn, probably. But not for the seeming racist view, but rather for his jumping to conclusions. You have no more proof that it isn't genetic, than Watson has that it is.
The societal thought police love jumping on someone with the will to mention inconvenient facts. They denounce college deans for pointing out that women do comparatively poor at science and math. I believe that women are just as capable as men at accomplishing something they work at, but those are the facts, damn it! The corrosive nature of creationism on science is mirrored by the political correctness crusade.
If your argument is that some denialist agenda is better than others, well your wrong. It isn't about stupid arguments, it is about irrational and unsupportable positions. Religion is irrational and Fundamentalism even more so, but so is your need to ignore facts to maintain your belief that every man and woman is created equal.
You are confusing chroot the cli wrapper and chroot the system call. The system call requires root to even work. chroot can never be used to increase security. It only ever can be used to obscure it. I'll let you in on a little secret, the people your trying to obscure it from, they already know that you did this. They already have scripts to handle it. You've already lost.
Chroot does not increase security, it obscures it. Obscurity is not security. Say it ten times.
Ppeople who think chroot has increased their systems security are living in a fools paradise. If the daemon can't be trusted on the real system root, why in the heck would you trust it on the system at all?
Sure, it's pretty hard to set up an experiment to test evolution.
No, it is very easy to set up an experiment. I do it all the time when I reuse yeast on many consecutive brewing sessions. Yeast rapidly evolves due to it's simple nature, and six generations is enough to change it's behavior. This results in a very different beer that can change a nice cream ale into a poor chimay. The thing that is hard is understanding what is happening, not finding the examples of it in your daily life.
along with the corollary: "Several members of congress have taken bribes and now support the Copyright Alliance"
The criminals taking the bribes: Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) Howard Berman (D-CA) Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC)
I am not about to say that these guys are the only criminals in congress. Every single congressman takes PAC money. That money is a bribe. Even the best intentioned, reform minded, person that goes to Washington eventually succumbs to careerism. The only people who can stop that in our Government are the same people who want the system to remain the way it is.
If naive doesn't apply to children I doubt it applies to anyone. Kids _become_ the most computer savvy people after spending time with them. The idea they will be more knowledgeable than computer scientists is so laughable as to be endearing. On the other hand, it is one of the better trolls.
How do you figure that a change in communication protocol will change ISPs desire to offer tiered service? Blocking web servers has nothing to do with not having enough public IPs and everything to do with competition. The reason your broadband is cheap is the same reason port 80 is blocked.
Slashdot Mirror
The post office begs to differ.
BTW, X being a legal signature, I don't ever sign on those pads. I don't even get strange looks, since the sophisticated system is just hunky dory with the whole thing.
Um... this isn't a US downturn. This is a global recession. Please spend five minutes investigating this before you pie in the sky comment.
Describe a one time pad. The channel transmits true statistical randomness, which is the exact opposite of information.
I can't agree more. People don't realize that we already have technology which can utilize 95% of what we consider nuclear waste to produce more electricity. Even better is what is left won't be dangerous after a few decades. The mentality behind this effort is simple FUD to keep us from creating more nuclear power. It's shameful neo-Ludditism.
I would assume those which are not killing people in the streets. You know, if you aren't even going to bother reading the comments or expanding on your thoughts, don't bother writing at all.
On a related note, who thought it was a clever thing to make the reply and parent buttons stick out like a sore thumb among the comments on slashdot? I am looking at you CmdrTaco. /shakes fist
Unfortunately for your position, the current mainstream scientific theory doesn't specify that the Big Bang is the "beginning of everything", just the beginning of our present universe.It's not even that. The big bang does not cover the actual creation event, only a mere fraction after some highly ordered event. The big bang doesn't require a creation event, and is just as happy putting some steady state cyclical event in for "the begining". It is agnostic to creation like evolution is agnostic to the creation of self-replicating organisms.
strawmen are so easy to knock down, aren't they? I am an atheist, and do not claim it has existed forever or had some supernatural causation. I will claim that "The data is insufficient for a determination" and you can quote me on that. On the other hand, the bible tells me nothing useful about creation, it's evolution or the conditions that existed beforehand. In otherwords, it is a totally worthless hypothesis.
There are other theories, that may even be testible, that say the big bang was caused by M-Brane collisions. Steady state may be discredited, but that isn't the end of natural explanations of creation or the lack thereof. "Because of god" is the least useful theory you could put forward to predict future or model past events. Not only have you not explained anything, but it raises even more questions that are harder to answer than the one you sought to simplify.
What bothers me is that there is a misconception about what secular means. It is relatively common among the born-agains that secular is the same thing as atheist. Furthermore, they believe, a priori, that all the founding fathers were all confirmed protestants. I assume they think Jefferson was the original southern baptist, since I often hear him mentioned as particularly devout. None of this is true, but it doesn't jive with the one-world-view-god-bless-america crowd.
I think this goes to the real meat of the subject. It's not about evolution vs creationism. It's about objectivity vs dogma. I can talk about creationism not being an actual scientific theory till I am blue in the face, it isn't going to matter while people are uncomfortable having their ideas being questioned. As long as people are taught their doctrine are infallible, they will fight to the death to maintain them.
Imagine it? Your living it. Your vantage point is anchored to the planet. You can come up with any theory you want, but you need to explain why the other planets, from our perspective, sometimes backtrack their orbit.
Or: option number three, it benefited both, and they both made it possible. Even if it wasn't built with malice in mind, it will be used that way.
Why do you want to track every financial transaction?
Is it stupid? There are definitely statistics that show a range of intellectual aptitude between races. As far as I have ever seen, there has been a lot of bluster about racism and no good science given to explain those facts. Does James Watson deserve scorn, probably. But not for the seeming racist view, but rather for his jumping to conclusions. You have no more proof that it isn't genetic, than Watson has that it is.
The societal thought police love jumping on someone with the will to mention inconvenient facts. They denounce college deans for pointing out that women do comparatively poor at science and math. I believe that women are just as capable as men at accomplishing something they work at, but those are the facts, damn it! The corrosive nature of creationism on science is mirrored by the political correctness crusade.
If your argument is that some denialist agenda is better than others, well your wrong. It isn't about stupid arguments, it is about irrational and unsupportable positions. Religion is irrational and Fundamentalism even more so, but so is your need to ignore facts to maintain your belief that every man and woman is created equal.
You are confusing chroot the cli wrapper and chroot the system call. The system call requires root to even work. chroot can never be used to increase security. It only ever can be used to obscure it. I'll let you in on a little secret, the people your trying to obscure it from, they already know that you did this. They already have scripts to handle it. You've already lost.
Chroot does not increase security, it obscures it. Obscurity is not security. Say it ten times.
Ppeople who think chroot has increased their systems security are living in a fools paradise. If the daemon can't be trusted on the real system root, why in the heck would you trust it on the system at all?
How about you jam your suggestions in your a.. you m.....f...... Don't you have something better to do then criticize someones self censorship?
UAV Begs to differ.
along with the corollary:
"Several members of congress have taken bribes and now support the Copyright Alliance"
The criminals taking the bribes:
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Howard Berman (D-CA)
Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC)
I am not about to say that these guys are the only criminals in congress. Every single congressman takes PAC money. That money is a bribe. Even the best intentioned, reform minded, person that goes to Washington eventually succumbs to careerism. The only people who can stop that in our Government are the same people who want the system to remain the way it is.
keep up the book suggestions!
If naive doesn't apply to children I doubt it applies to anyone. Kids _become_ the most computer savvy people after spending time with them. The idea they will be more knowledgeable than computer scientists is so laughable as to be endearing. On the other hand, it is one of the better trolls.
How do you figure that a change in communication protocol will change ISPs desire to offer tiered service? Blocking web servers has nothing to do with not having enough public IPs and everything to do with competition. The reason your broadband is cheap is the same reason port 80 is blocked.