Does the book touch on the limitations of commodity PC hardware as a router, firewall, etc? Most specifically, the inability to provide line-rate filtering at small packet sizes?
Unfortunately- there are a lot of "uppity online geeks" out there right now. They seem to delight in telling people to RTFM, flagging bug reports as dupes, and sending people on wild goose chases through the Internet. All requiring more effort than simply answering the damn question or throwing out a command line entry. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who can't seem to search bug tracking software for duplicate bugs, can't seem to search Google for answers to their commonly asked questions, and refuse to read the manual for the software they're trying to use. While "uppity online geeks" certainly answer questions when appropriate, if the answer is in a FAQ or easily found elsewhere, repeatedly answering the same questions gets tiresome.
I think that the only thing more frustrating than people asking repeatedly-answered questions is people who ask for help on an uncommon issue, then post a little later with, "Nevermind, I fixed it." Maybe if they included how they fixed it, they would save someone else from having to ask the same damned question.
Actually, Evil isn't relative - it's subjective. That's what I meant. I just haven't had my coffee this morning.
In other words, it's a stupid, disingenuous slogan And that's pretty much the point. It's a slogan with which Google simply cannot reasonably comply, as a multinational company.
Google should drop it for that reason alone. Well, there are lots of stupid slogans out there. Where do you want to go today? Whatever it is, you can get it on eBay? None of these make any more sense or are any more true.
A slogan, while meaning to be representative of a company, should not be considered a restriction on the company. It's all marketing.
But given that Google is originally a US company, founded by Norteamericanos Was Sergey Brin nationalized before he founded it? Even if he were, that wouldn't necessarily mean that all of his values are that of Americans.
Hell, not all Americans have the same values. The free speech you're so fond of doesn't extend to video games, according to 51% of the people (citation) and a whopping 70% thought that the government should be allowed to censor the media in times of war (citation.)
By that measurement, this action is evil and since you can only be judged by your actions, then Google is evil. I don't think we have enough of the story to know. What are the laws in this country? Did Google know why they were being asked to reveal the IP address of this user? Did Google have a reasonable expectation of the outcome of revealing the IP address? Did an employee at Google make a mistake in revealing the IP address (i.e. did someone violate corporate policy?)
Evil is relative, and Google is a multinational company. It's quite possible that in China, the government would consider Google "evil" for not helping them to censor their people into submission.
The problem is that the world can't agree on morality. The problem is that dictators (some of them democratically elected) don't believe in civil rights. The problem is that human beings abuse power (and even those who think that they never would tend to do so when given power.)
What is your point? Does that somehow mean that the effect on my wallet is insignificant?
I'm well aware that gas prices in the US have been (and still are) lower than in almost every other country in the world. That doesn't mean that the increases don't still hurt.
My point was that humans have always done that.... There is no proof our metabolism/eating habits way back when was any different than it is today. While I agree that for as long as we could be called homo sapiens, we've probably had this metabolic behavior, I do have to laugh at your own hypocrisy. You say that humans have always done that, and that there's no proof that we didn't. There's also no proof that we did.
As for my words, I suppose that they could have been chosen better. The evolutionary lineage of modern-day humans necessarily goes back to single-celled organisms (unless life came to exist on this planet multiple times independantly.) When I said that we evolved this trait, I meant that in the purest form of the word. Our ancestors (whether they were recognizably primates at the time or not) evolved to store fat, and to use that fat in times when food is scarce. That is, unless you'd like me to believe that single-celled organisms stored fat back then?
But Darwinism is about genetics, not about societal pressures. The term for that is "Social Darwinism." Perhaps the original poster misspoke.
That being said we almost surely have outpaced evolution. Indeed, we have. Instead of adapting to suit our environment, we adapt our environment to suit us.
The poster said "Darwinism" not "modern evolutionary theory." I can't help that everyone else in the thread assumed that he meant something different from what he said.
What matters is whether genetic traits passed on to your offspring enable them to reach maturity and reproduce. Everything else is Social Darwinism, not Darwinism.
I see the problem. Everyone here is talking about Social Darwinism. Darwinism is concerned with genetics enabling an organism to reproduce. Social Darwinism is concerned with societal factors enabling an organism to reach maturity and reproduce.
Which has everything to do with the survival of the species, but nothing to do with Darwinism. Darwinism cares about genetic differences within the species enabling individuals within that speces to reach maturity and reproduce, thus passing those traits on. Having grandparents (or anyone else, for that matter, such as doctors) help you along the way is not an example of Darwinism. Having genetic traits which help get you to adulthood is.
Darwinism is a fairly narrow portion of the greater concept of species perpetuation.
Seriously, extreme obesity is a darwin rule in action, usually That's an interesting take on it, since we've basically evolved to eat when we can (when food is available) so that we can survive during leaner times.
nobody wants to breed with us People tend to get obese later in life, but this might apply to a small number of people in prime breeding age.
heart disease/stroke usually kill us "early" Oh, so you don't really understand Darwinism. Unless you get heart disease or have a stroke before you hit sexual maturity, this is irrelevant. For almost everyone--even the obese--health complications don't get extreme enough to kill you with a high statistical probability until you're well past your sexual prime, and getting there is all that Darwinism cares about.
[everything else] Well, the point isn't that people are making smug comments. The point is that if you're eating more because you require more energy to carry an extra 50 or so pounds, then you're consuming more of a limited resource than everyone else. It's not like he's saying, "Man you fat people are ugly!"
And full disclosure--I'm about 50 pounds overweight. I've been working on this for a number of reasons--health, comfort, and the ability to bike to work instead of having to drive my car (those fill ups at the gas tank are starting to hurt.)
That's a good analogy, but from your tone, you seem to have misinterpreted what I said.
I said that there is a correlation (that is, child abusers tend to also view child porn) but no causation (that is, there is no scientific evidence that child porn viewers tend to eventually become child abusers.)
What percentage of speeders are in fatal collisions? I don't remember exactly, but it's less than 1, yet still it's probably the most prosecuted crime in the US. Well, it's low-hanging fruit. Almost no investigative work is required to handle moving violations. It's also one of the most commonly violated offenses on the books. If there were a way to accurately measure instances of speeding, I'd venture to guess that despite being enforced frequently, the percentage of speeders who are ticketed is extremely low.
Of course, being a revenue stream for the city doesn't hurt, either.
What percentage of people who possess child porn actually paid for it, thus supporting the child-pr0n industry? Probably very few, but I don't really know.
What percentage of those in possession of child porn eventually decide to go out and abuse children? There's a high correlation between abusers and child porn owners, but no known causation that I'm aware of.
Even so, many parents appear to feel it's the biggest threat their children face and no price is too high if it reduces the risk one iota. One of the benefits of a democratic republic like ours is that the leaders can decide to ignore their constituents when their constituents are wrong. One of the drawbacks is that the career politicians can't do this without risking losing their jobs.
Keep in mind that people, in general, are stupid. They are often incapable of overriding emotional response with rational thought. It's sad, but even if you came out with hard statistics that showed no causation, parents would probably still riot in the streets if politicians went soft on child porn.
I think that it's a combination of 2 and 5: minorities tend to be poorer, and thus can't afford high quality legal counsel.
Point 2 probably partially leads to point 5. Discrimination tends to help keep oppressed people down. Oppressed people tend to be poorer and have fewer opportunities, and tend to be discriminated against for being poor, as well as being a minority.
Not really. This is customs, so they're not looking for indications that you're a terrorist, they're looking for indications that you're bringing contraband into the country. While I wonder what the point of imaging the drive is, I doubt very seriously that the presence of a hidden partition alone would cause problems.
This is customs. They want to ensure that you're not bringing contraband into the country. Realistically, they're probably looking for child porn. Customs won't have the authority to go looking in your house just because there's nothing on the notebook. If there's nothing on the notebook, they're happy.
I've oft-wished that you could have a completely transparent boot loader that used held-down keys to determine which OS to boot into (with one key to boot into a menu.)
Slashdot Mirror
find is more likely to work than rpm on deb-based systems.
Does the book touch on the limitations of commodity PC hardware as a router, firewall, etc? Most specifically, the inability to provide line-rate filtering at small packet sizes?
I think that the only thing more frustrating than people asking repeatedly-answered questions is people who ask for help on an uncommon issue, then post a little later with, "Nevermind, I fixed it." Maybe if they included how they fixed it, they would save someone else from having to ask the same damned question.
A slogan, while meaning to be representative of a company, should not be considered a restriction on the company. It's all marketing. But given that Google is originally a US company, founded by Norteamericanos Was Sergey Brin nationalized before he founded it? Even if he were, that wouldn't necessarily mean that all of his values are that of Americans.
Hell, not all Americans have the same values. The free speech you're so fond of doesn't extend to video games, according to 51% of the people (citation) and a whopping 70% thought that the government should be allowed to censor the media in times of war (citation.) By that measurement, this action is evil and since you can only be judged by your actions, then Google is evil. I don't think we have enough of the story to know. What are the laws in this country? Did Google know why they were being asked to reveal the IP address of this user? Did Google have a reasonable expectation of the outcome of revealing the IP address? Did an employee at Google make a mistake in revealing the IP address (i.e. did someone violate corporate policy?)
Evil is relative, and Google is a multinational company. It's quite possible that in China, the government would consider Google "evil" for not helping them to censor their people into submission.
The problem is that the world can't agree on morality. The problem is that dictators (some of them democratically elected) don't believe in civil rights. The problem is that human beings abuse power (and even those who think that they never would tend to do so when given power.)
The guy didn't have the radio off--the phone was just in sleep mode, where it still polls for e-mail (if you have it set up to do that.)
The Slashdot article linked to http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/09/10/att-is-cruising-for-a-bruising explains it all.
What is your point? Does that somehow mean that the effect on my wallet is insignificant?
I'm well aware that gas prices in the US have been (and still are) lower than in almost every other country in the world. That doesn't mean that the increases don't still hurt.
As for my words, I suppose that they could have been chosen better. The evolutionary lineage of modern-day humans necessarily goes back to single-celled organisms (unless life came to exist on this planet multiple times independantly.) When I said that we evolved this trait, I meant that in the purest form of the word. Our ancestors (whether they were recognizably primates at the time or not) evolved to store fat, and to use that fat in times when food is scarce. That is, unless you'd like me to believe that single-celled organisms stored fat back then?
The poster said "Darwinism" not "modern evolutionary theory." I can't help that everyone else in the thread assumed that he meant something different from what he said.
Right. And where do you think that extra fat comes from? It comes from eating more than you need to function in times when food is available.
You just agreed with exactly what I said.
What matters is whether genetic traits passed on to your offspring enable them to reach maturity and reproduce. Everything else is Social Darwinism, not Darwinism.
I see the problem. Everyone here is talking about Social Darwinism. Darwinism is concerned with genetics enabling an organism to reproduce. Social Darwinism is concerned with societal factors enabling an organism to reach maturity and reproduce.
Which has everything to do with the survival of the species, but nothing to do with Darwinism. Darwinism cares about genetic differences within the species enabling individuals within that speces to reach maturity and reproduce, thus passing those traits on. Having grandparents (or anyone else, for that matter, such as doctors) help you along the way is not an example of Darwinism. Having genetic traits which help get you to adulthood is.
Darwinism is a fairly narrow portion of the greater concept of species perpetuation.
That's only partially true, because factors other than natural selection can prevent an organism from breeding.
And full disclosure--I'm about 50 pounds overweight. I've been working on this for a number of reasons--health, comfort, and the ability to bike to work instead of having to drive my car (those fill ups at the gas tank are starting to hurt.)
That's a good analogy, but from your tone, you seem to have misinterpreted what I said.
I said that there is a correlation (that is, child abusers tend to also view child porn) but no causation (that is, there is no scientific evidence that child porn viewers tend to eventually become child abusers.)
What I meant was that there's no demonstrated causation wherein people who view child porn go on to abuse children.
Of course, being a revenue stream for the city doesn't hurt, either. What percentage of people who possess child porn actually paid for it, thus supporting the child-pr0n industry? Probably very few, but I don't really know. What percentage of those in possession of child porn eventually decide to go out and abuse children? There's a high correlation between abusers and child porn owners, but no known causation that I'm aware of. Even so, many parents appear to feel it's the biggest threat their children face and no price is too high if it reduces the risk one iota. One of the benefits of a democratic republic like ours is that the leaders can decide to ignore their constituents when their constituents are wrong. One of the drawbacks is that the career politicians can't do this without risking losing their jobs.
Keep in mind that people, in general, are stupid. They are often incapable of overriding emotional response with rational thought. It's sad, but even if you came out with hard statistics that showed no causation, parents would probably still riot in the streets if politicians went soft on child porn.
I think that it's a combination of 2 and 5:
minorities tend to be poorer, and thus can't afford high quality legal counsel.
Point 2 probably partially leads to point 5. Discrimination tends to help keep oppressed people down. Oppressed people tend to be poorer and have fewer opportunities, and tend to be discriminated against for being poor, as well as being a minority.
Not really. This is customs, so they're not looking for indications that you're a terrorist, they're looking for indications that you're bringing contraband into the country. While I wonder what the point of imaging the drive is, I doubt very seriously that the presence of a hidden partition alone would cause problems.
This is customs. They want to ensure that you're not bringing contraband into the country. Realistically, they're probably looking for child porn. Customs won't have the authority to go looking in your house just because there's nothing on the notebook. If there's nothing on the notebook, they're happy.
Which is sad, because with the declining value of the dollar, we could really use the tourists.
I've oft-wished that you could have a completely transparent boot loader that used held-down keys to determine which OS to boot into (with one key to boot into a menu.)