Don't have one. My general understanding is that the blowing up of Muslims has increased while suicide bombings have not decreased. I can't imagine how you might have a different general understanding, so if you do then we are probably at an impasse.
Blowing up Muslims before they get a chance to do it themselves does not have a proven track record of decreasing or preventing suicide bombings. Indirectly, no.
Sure, man. There are people who are disgusted by violence even in cases of self-defense, and of course they have every right to their morals also.
But this kind of schadenfreude doesn't mean that human life has lost all sanctity or that "it is justifiable to end a man's life because he sends you unwanted email". Hence all kinds of objection.
If that's how you would like to evaluate the worth of human life, then you are correct. Your method isn't provably more correct than someone who believes human life to be sacred. Your method also isn't provably more correct than someone who is a pacifist for other reasons.
Anyway, fine. I take it back. Murder is only clearly a disproportional response if you believe in an inherent value to human life. Your position is exactly the one that grandparent was disgusted by. I was trying to point out that there are other reasons for wanting the guy dead.
Dunno what you're talking about. Spam costs billions of dollars. That's harm.
You're right: sending spam is hardly sufficient to qualify you as a sociopath. But that isn't what I said, is it. I only said that this guy was a sociopath, and it was an exaggeration. Only mildly so:
"Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others."
No, I'll admit that he didn't necessarily have clinical antisocial personality disorder.
Is spam that much of an annoyance to you that you are filled with satisfaction when a man is bludgeoned to death, only because that man was a spammer?
This person has made a living by harming other people. He has done so for a long time. He would have been delighted to continue harming people for the rest of his life. Murder is clearly a disproportional response but you shouldn't be surprised when people are happy to see a sociopath take it worse than he was giving out.
Heh. I just googled for a link on Rapa Nui history to post in response to the "last tusked elephant" comment before I followed the link and discovered that was mentioned in the first sentence of the article.
Some versions I've heard of the story indicate that the statues were built to praise the bird-man who would bring back the birds and the trees to the island. So they were cutting down their last trees in an effort to fix their environment. Dunno if that's the way it really played out.
The iPod video would eventually work its price down to the $300-$400 range. But it'd start at $500 or more. Dunno if they have to charge that much but they definitely can.
Your provisos are completely ludicrous. A new macintosh and a $1000+ television? I would hope that Apple has a larger target market in mind when they start selling music videos for $2.
Think of it as your portable movie library. (considering that that's what iPods already are for music purposes.)
No, iPods are for listening to music on the go. Are you actually suggesting that their main function is to allow you to take your music to a friends house and play on their stereo?
I think he's suggesting that the virtues of a 60GB iPod over a 4GB iPod mini has nothing to do with listening to music on the go.
According to As Seen On TV, Apple was forced to wait for a H.264 hardware decoder before they moved into portable video. It makes sense that enough time has passed for that problem to be solved. Thus, the Apple Store videos will probably be H.264. If Apple makes any equivalent to ripping, it'll probably be to H.264 just like CDs go to AAC by default. The device may be capable of playing MPEG4 also, but do you think Apple is going to forgo the opportunity to put their high end iPod at the $500 price point again for a little while?
Besides, if you want to warn users about phishing, you don't even need any of these tricks. GMail, for example, warns me with a big red banner when it thinks that an email may be a phishing attempt
What makes you think Google isn't using SPF and Sender-ID for those banners? And dunno what you mean "no false negatives". I've seen quite a few fishing attempts on my gmail account that had no banner.
All the SPF and Sender-ID critics continuously point out that SPF and Sender-ID only have the features they were originally designed to have. Ok. That's plenty. How can it not be a good thing to be able to show whether a given SMPT agent is authorized by the domain? Yes, obviously, we all know that spammers will then be able to set up their own domains and spam via those domains with SPF and Sender-ID. That's FINE. That was the entire goal of the technology. All of a sudden, plain old blacklists will work way way better. You won't get spam messages that appear to be from acquaintances. No one ever said that messages using SPF and Sender-ID should always pass through your spam filter.
No, not a record. That's the way it happens every time. The number of link clicks from an article posting is determined by height on the page, so it begins almost instantaneously. Certainly faster than the minimum 20 seconds for someone to type "frist psto" and wait for/. to let them post.
It may have been lagging before/. linked to it. It's full of excellent articles written by a few very popular writers.
I don't know what you're talking about. The whole point is that the generated application will use one code path when run on Intel processors and another code path when run on AMD processors. No matter whether you do your compilation on AMD or Intel.
Lots of people use ICC, but it sounds like lots of people know the workaround to make it generate decent code for both AMD and Intel, which is to make the application lie about the processor architecture at runtime.
Anyway, yes, there are definitely programs that run fine on Intel but crash on AMD and vice versa. My home computer crashes sometimes. It's AMD. My work computer crashes also. It's Intel. They crash at different times. In a system as complicated as a computer, I don't think I'll ever be able to say whether the problem is some ICC compiled game or something.
I disagree. If your zombie explanation is biological in nature, then there's going to be brain function. The zombies in 28 Days Later will have brain function and die from a blow to the head.
If your zombie explanation is supernatural, there doesn't have to be brain function. You can just say that the zombie is animated by an evil spirit or a lost soul, and there's no reason your zombie has to have a head. In Doom III, for example, the zombies were created by opening a portal to Hell. Some of them don't have heads. Fine with me.
Slashdot Mirror
+5 funny.
Don't have one. My general understanding is that the blowing up of Muslims has increased while suicide bombings have not decreased. I can't imagine how you might have a different general understanding, so if you do then we are probably at an impasse.
Blowing up Muslims before they get a chance to do it themselves does not have a proven track record of decreasing or preventing suicide bombings. Indirectly, no.
Ha HA! Got him there!
He should go work for Lockheed Martin, where their #1 job is preventing suicide bombers.
In systems engineering they focus on killing the whole person.
Sorry. Can't help it. Consider the ethics of what you'll do for a living in either position.
Sure, man. There are people who are disgusted by violence even in cases of self-defense, and of course they have every right to their morals also.
But this kind of schadenfreude doesn't mean that human life has lost all sanctity or that "it is justifiable to end a man's life because he sends you unwanted email". Hence all kinds of objection.
If that's how you would like to evaluate the worth of human life, then you are correct. Your method isn't provably more correct than someone who believes human life to be sacred. Your method also isn't provably more correct than someone who is a pacifist for other reasons.
Anyway, fine. I take it back. Murder is only clearly a disproportional response if you believe in an inherent value to human life. Your position is exactly the one that grandparent was disgusted by. I was trying to point out that there are other reasons for wanting the guy dead.
You're right: sending spam is hardly sufficient to qualify you as a sociopath. But that isn't what I said, is it. I only said that this guy was a sociopath, and it was an exaggeration. Only mildly so:No, I'll admit that he didn't necessarily have clinical antisocial personality disorder.
My understanding was that those were all Disney "Imagineering" projects and that most of the Croquet-related developers were Disney employees.
I was a little surprised to know that he worked for HP at all. Does anyone have better knowledge of AK's employment?
Heh. I just googled for a link on Rapa Nui history to post in response to the "last tusked elephant" comment before I followed the link and discovered that was mentioned in the first sentence of the article.
Some versions I've heard of the story indicate that the statues were built to praise the bird-man who would bring back the birds and the trees to the island. So they were cutting down their last trees in an effort to fix their environment. Dunno if that's the way it really played out.
You knew what I meant.
The iPod video would eventually work its price down to the $300-$400 range. But it'd start at $500 or more. Dunno if they have to charge that much but they definitely can.
My bet is that it'll play H.264 and anything Quicktime compatible out of the box.
According to As Seen On TV, Apple was forced to wait for a H.264 hardware decoder before they moved into portable video. It makes sense that enough time has passed for that problem to be solved. Thus, the Apple Store videos will probably be H.264. If Apple makes any equivalent to ripping, it'll probably be to H.264 just like CDs go to AAC by default. The device may be capable of playing MPEG4 also, but do you think Apple is going to forgo the opportunity to put their high end iPod at the $500 price point again for a little while?
But the Millenium Falcon will use HD-DVD!
Sony's PS3 will use whichever format is more widely used a quadrillion years from now when they actually start building hardware.
All the SPF and Sender-ID critics continuously point out that SPF and Sender-ID only have the features they were originally designed to have. Ok. That's plenty. How can it not be a good thing to be able to show whether a given SMPT agent is authorized by the domain? Yes, obviously, we all know that spammers will then be able to set up their own domains and spam via those domains with SPF and Sender-ID. That's FINE. That was the entire goal of the technology. All of a sudden, plain old blacklists will work way way better. You won't get spam messages that appear to be from acquaintances. No one ever said that messages using SPF and Sender-ID should always pass through your spam filter.
Not my kind of thing, but that sounds like exactly the feature set of yahoo groups.
Fortunately you and he are not in charge of the criminal justice system.
I don't know what you're talking about. The whole point is that the generated application will use one code path when run on Intel processors and another code path when run on AMD processors. No matter whether you do your compilation on AMD or Intel.
Lots of people use ICC, but it sounds like lots of people know the workaround to make it generate decent code for both AMD and Intel, which is to make the application lie about the processor architecture at runtime.
Anyway, yes, there are definitely programs that run fine on Intel but crash on AMD and vice versa. My home computer crashes sometimes. It's AMD. My work computer crashes also. It's Intel. They crash at different times. In a system as complicated as a computer, I don't think I'll ever be able to say whether the problem is some ICC compiled game or something.
Since when is anal rape an acceptable punishment for any crime?
Of course we'll accidentally punish the wrong person occasionally, but the punishment for *all* criminals is supposed to be humane.
I disagree. If your zombie explanation is biological in nature, then there's going to be brain function. The zombies in 28 Days Later will have brain function and die from a blow to the head.
If your zombie explanation is supernatural, there doesn't have to be brain function. You can just say that the zombie is animated by an evil spirit or a lost soul, and there's no reason your zombie has to have a head. In Doom III, for example, the zombies were created by opening a portal to Hell. Some of them don't have heads. Fine with me.