While it's not exactly what you're talking about, I just thought it was odd that I got the email seconds after reading this post.
smartRay Network, Inc. launched the world's first Personal Mobile Portal for
Wireless Application Protocol (WAP/HDML) and "Internet Phones." The FREE, integrated service offers consumers a mobile email account, news headlines, stock quotes, weather forecasts, lotto results, and more sent directly to users' cellular phones, pagers, and pdas. smartRay.com services are currently accessible both directly from a mobile "Internet Phone" at mobile.smartRay.com and via the web at www.smartRay.com.
smartRay.com is merging content with cutting-edge communications tools to deliver information that consumers want, when they want it, wherever they are. As avid Slashdot readers, the engineers at smartRay.com felt that Slashdot content was vital to their wireless offering. "The geeks here at smartRay.com made us do it," says Troy Tyler, smartRay Network President and CEO, "We want to deliver the best content to our users for free regardless of device and service provider. We are proud to offer Slashdot."
Founded in January 1999, and to date a Microsoft free environment, smartRay Network Inc. is dedicated to unleashing the potential of wireless devices to help consumer end users simplify and enjoy their lives. smartRay.com offers an integrated, complementary suite of Internet-based services to the growing universe of digital mobile phones, "Internet Phones," pagers, and PDAs. smartRay Network is based in New York.
It found no instances of the word Linux, which I found humorous.
However, a little brain usage, search for "line" and get this:
... there an a to think you're doing is making good news slash my next monday's announcement makes it you can use less leonard still want to which it's tilman of the of the open sores movement I have not part of the open sewers that but why in part of the priests out their foundations giving his last line next to the flashlight next with you a while and we can end of the various duckling and in the he's serving snacks that promptly opening the top of that there is god who will bomb and the crowd is bernie this is definitely the most exciting play a thing would have to have one of I mean you for a column about how...
The words "end of the various duckling" and around there are in fact "Eric Raymond" in the clip, which I thought utterly hysterical. You can tell because they say "it's Eric Raymond, and he's serving snacks," which partway comes out correct.
Linux seems to have came out as "line next" a lot, and "line of" in some clips I've found..
Obviously, the technology is not quite there yet.:-)
So people should only have a right to privacy if they have strong enough encryption? And they should be willing to cede that right if their encryption is broken?
First of, your *RIGHT* to privacy is a complete bullshit phrase. If I really want to spy on you, do you think I give a damn about your rights? C'mon. Everyone has the right to privacy. But you gotta protect your rights, or someone else will take them away from you.
To protect your right to privacy, you gotta make sure no one else can hear you. If I went into the park, and yelled my credit card info at passers-by, could I bitch about my right to privacy being violated? I don't think so. So stop bitching about your lack of privacy when you use devices that spew unencrypted data into the radio waves for any passers-by to hear.
So they don't claim copyright on the signal they're rebroadcasting, but it's not legal for me to turn around and re-rebroadcast it? Which is it going to be?
Key difference: They're not broadcasting.:-)
Internet broadcasting has not yet been defined as "broadcasting" under the laws in question. The laws are well-defined for stuff that goes on the airwaves, but the internet is not the airwaves.
Also, since they're adding their Advertising, which is copyrighted by them, directly to the stream, you probably would get nailed there too.
I'd have to disagree with this to some extent, as I rarely notice the author of a post. Usually, I only notice the content, disregarding who actually said it. If the content is interesting enough, or makes me angry (as is so often the case), I reply and state my mind. But at no time do I look at the author of a post.
Probably the only time I notice is when an author replies to something I said to something they said, thus starting a conversation thread. I only notice that when I start getting a lot of posts on the same subject pop up on my User page, which I check to see replies to my posts.
In fact, I hadn't noticed Signal11's name until you pointed it out, and I just now had to scroll up to see that it was Dirtside I'm responding to. I think many people here judge based more on content, opinion, and general overall well-writtenness of an item rather than reputation.
The subject of this message was supposed to be "(Score: -80,000)" without the quotes. But as you can see/. makes it go away entirely, thus leaving nothing to click on in the list. A tad annoying I'd say.
Obviously it's looking for a (Score: xxx) type of thing at the end of the Subject line, but if there's nothing in front of that, it just leaves an empty subject.
So you would resort to violence to stop someone from speaking to you just because you disagree with what they say?
Of course. If they continue to spout their beliefs to me, even after I've repeatedly said I don't care and don't wish to hear them, then yes, I'd beat the crap out of them. Anything to shut them up. You fail to understand that while violence is the last option, sometimes you are forced to the last option.
You admin that you don't respect their beliefs, then you turn around and expect them to respect yours by not espousing their views to you. Stop being such a hypocrite, be a little open minded.
I'm quite open-minded about anything at all. But quite frankly, I've been over the religion question many more times than I care to have. It's amazing the number of preachy Xtians who will, upon learning that I'm an atheist, assume that I have not read the bible, or thought about it at all. In all actuality, I've thought about it a considerable amount more than they probably have, when I was younger. I've actually read the bible, cover to cover, and thought about what it said several times. Most Xtians I've met cannot honestly say that. I even agree with many of the precepts given therein. I know more about their religion than they do most of the time, and there's nothing they can say that will do anything other than to piss me off about the subject. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. If I kindly say that I really am not interested, and they continue as if I didn't know everything they were talking about anyway, then there's really precious little choice of action is there? It sucks, but I do not choose to waste their time and mine by letting them continue to speak to me. Like I said, I've only had to resort to violence twice. But there's been over 30 times where someone has tried to convert me, and I'm frankly sick to death of it.
Learn how to discuss things rationally. Most people will listen and leave you alone if you give them a good reason.
Then your experiences are far different from mine, my friend. Most preachy people will NOT listen when you say "look, I appreciate your effort and all, but I've thought about this probably a lot longer than you have. There's nothing in that bible of yours that I haven't read and thought about. So forget it, okay?" In fact, I usually have to say something so obscenely blasphemous to get them to leave that I wouldn't mention it to my mother. It has gotten that bad before.
I would have to say that anyone who resorts to hitting someone who is trying to help them (whether you believe it or not) has no right to denounce the actions of anyone else.
You again don't quite understand. You act as if this is something out of the blue, that I have not thought about to a great extent. I have tried to refuse their so-called "help". Several times. It simply had no effect. The only option left was violence. Ignoring them completely didn't work, because these are the kind of bastards that simply can't be ignored. Continually pestering you about it for weeks on end. At least smacking them makes them leave me the hell alone, even if it does earn you a bad reputation. I mean, you reach a breaking point. It's not like this guy walks up, says "have you heard the word of jesus", and then I kick his ass. It's a continual pain in your side for weeks and weeks and weeks until you just can't stand the sight of the guy anymore. Finally, you just snap, alright? I'm not proud of it, but it works.
I for one prefer no moderation, I like to think for myself when it comes to other people's opinions.
That's the beauty of the system. You can turn off moderation for you as an individual. Set the preferences to sort based on date, or something, then turn off scores in your preferences. Easy.
you specifically stated that religion 'is a personal thing', that is a religious belief. According to my religion it is a community thing and one of my most important tasks in life is to try to educate as many people as possible about what I believe.
You happen to think religion is a community thing. Well la-di-frickin-da, go hang out with your community, and leave the rest of us the hell alone. Freedom of religion is also freedom from other people's religions in my view.
How does expressing my religious views make me look bad?
That's not the point. The point is that it connot possibly make you look good. While it may not necessarily make you look bad, if the guy you're talking to is of that bent, then he'll hate you for it. Belief is one thing that cannot be questioned in most people. Belief is without proof. You either believe, or you don't. Nobody CHOOSES to believe in a god. They either do, or they don't. It's just that simple.
I've never looked down on someone for expressing their religious views, I don't know many people who have, and those I do know that look down on people for things like that are usually people that I don't have much respect for.
Perhaps you haven't considered the notion that I don't respect or care about your religious beliefs. "oh, but you must respect other people's beliefs!" WHY? Stupid is stupid, faith doesn't make it smart. Nothing personal you understand, but if someone tells me their beliefs, and I think them stupid, then I lose respect for that person. Again, it's not a decision I make, it simply how things are.
Anyone trying to convert me (or educate if you prefer that term, as it amounts to the same spiel from a religious freak) is liable for a punch in the face as a response. If that's what it takes to shut the preaching bastard up, that's what I do. Usually, I can freak the guy preaching out enough with an offhand comment so that it doesn't come to that, but I have had to resort to that method twice in my lifetime.
Conspicuously absent is anything that says you have the right to infringe on my otherwise legal religious duties or obligations because you happen to find them annoying.
Also conspicuously absent is your right to impose your belief system on me, thereby infringing upon my rights of walking the hell away.
Like many people, you are sadly underinformed on the laws you live under.
No, I'm quite good at interpretation of the law. You however, are sadly misinformed about the point I was making in the first place.
What you fail to understand is that as Christians we have been COMMANDED to share our faith - it's called the Great Commission - to "go forth and make disciples of all the nations". If we did anything less we would only be talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
Exactly. That's one reason I usually mention Xtians specifically in these types of discussions. They're generally not content to "live and let live".
As for the First Amendment, don't forget that "Freedom of Religion" is also "Freedom FROM Religion".
who are you to dictate how someone should or should not spread their faith? Apparently you have no problem espousing your own religious views in a public forum. Hypocrite.
Sheesh...
A) I have said nothing about my religious views.
B) Saying what you believe is fine, but saying it to someone who doesn't want to hear about it only annoys that person. Deliberately. If it's relevent to the discussion, that's fine. But taking words out of context to espouse your own views is just stupid.
C) I can dictate any damn thing I please. Welcome to free speech. Anyone else can shout their religous views to the world. Good on them. I was merely stating that, in general, it's not a good idea to do so, as it can only make you look bad, never good.
it seems like a lot of folks don't understand what the various moderation descriptors (especially "Flamebait" and "Troll") mean. The above post does not appear to be a troll -- constructive criticism of/. is just that.
I agree. I think that the "overrated" and "underrated" should be used to simply mark a post up or down. The others should be used only if they're descriptive. Also, I wish that the term "Troll" was not a negative score. I'm not saying it should be positive, but not all Trolls are bad.
This is similar to calling the "first post" messages "Flamebait" (well, maybe hot grits and petrified are flamebait). They're not. Trolls at best.
Maybe there should be a "First Post Moron" descriptor.:-)
Okay, i think you read a little too much into the Armageddon comment by Katz. However, since I agree with your views for most of your comment, I'll let that lie.
Many slashdot readers choose... to confine their knowledge of Christianity to one extremist view... And hence, they not only fall off the proverbial horse, but fall behind it, face down, and wonder how anyone could want to be involved in this horse when all they can see is it's rear end.
First lets talk about personal belief.
When someone tells me they are a x-tian, or of any type of faith in fact, I generally turn around and walk away. Why? Because people who say things like that in public should be shunned and barred from polite society.:-)
I don't CARE what religion you are. Deal with your spiritual beliefs on your own time. Belief is a personal thing. It should NOT be presented to others carelessly.
The good thing is that there is, as there is with many patents, a way around it -- Barnes & Noble just has to change enough that it can be considered different.
The problem is that the patent isn't for a piece of code or something. The patent is essentially for a method. Store the customer info in a DB, then have a button on each item to make an "instant buy" type of thing. That's it. Anything that does that in any way at all is covered by the patent.
Honestly, the technology used by places like amazon and buy.com aren't really that good. All they seem to do is store your ip. That's just great if you happen to order something from a public computer. It saves your info for anyone else to use.
Actually, they use cookies. Anyway, you can set your account not to use permanent cookies on most sites (I don't know about Amazon)...
And if you ever use a public computer to purchase something, thereby entering your CC info, you are an idiot. Nearly every public computer I've ever used, I've found a keyboard sniffer installed by some enterprising young cracker on it.:-) Go to the library sometime and take a real good look at some of the free systems sitting around...
The sad thing is how many people don't seem to realize what can happen if they save private information on public machines. In the computer lab at school, so many people use programs like Eudora and Outlook Express to check their school mail accounts and leave their account info saved locally. They don't seem to realize that anyone who logs in at the same machine can access their mail account.
This is why you remove stupid programs like these and force the user to do it your way.
Back at school, so many people were leaving their account info around, that finally, they disabled SMTP/POP3 access from the labs. Blocked those IP ranges. Suddenly, those people using eudora at 50 terminals had to telnet into the main system like they were supposed to do in the first place. Those people using their own personal systems were not in those IP ranges, and were not blocked. Later they switched to IMAP and some standard program that always asked for username/password in the public labs, along with hardware-based locking of the drives from changes.
A good sysadmin will do things like that to make it happen the right way. I mean yes, freedom of choice; yes, each user knows different programs.. But when 50 people complain to you that the email they just sent was on some random users account because they didn't change the mail program setting before they sent the e-mail, and replies are going every which way.. Well, I think you'd see the benefits of making the user do what you damn well want them to do.
Of course, at some place like a library you don't have that sysadmin. You just have a standard PC with a phone cord plugged in.
In my opinion, a company that cares about the people ordering from them would make them log in and produce the information from that. It's slightly less convenient, but it's also more secure.
What, and upset all the customers who use their computers from home, who never have anyone else access the system? Sounds like a bad solution to me. Upset the masses to protect the few who don't know any better? No. Bad idea.
A preliminary injunction means that this will probably go to trial.
I hope to hell this stupid patent is overturned. I mean this is as obvious as you get. Storing the customer info in a database has been done for years. Making a 1-step buy button on the item is so obvious that it's ridiculous. There's plenty of prior art, as well.
I hope that B&N fights this one tooth and nail. With any luck, Amazon's patent will be ruled as unenforceable or overturned or something. Hopefully, the judge will see this as well, and decide to make a statement about companies patenting the blatently obvious to mess their competitors about, and say that the only way the get away with it is that the patent office is too busy to care anymore.
I disagree that you cannot prove that there is a god in the world. I believe that I can prove it. It does border, however, on what your understanding of time is.
Bunk. Of course you cannot prove god exists. God does not interact with the universe in any sense of the word interact. If I were to witness a miracle, it would not prove that god exists, it would tell me that I don't know everything there is to know about reality (which is true). Even if you could point out god, how could you prove that that _IS_ god, and not some other figure? Could be some Hindu deity in another form. I mean, really.
I like the way you say "the layman is smarter than you give him credit for" and yet your signature says "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - Lazarus Long"
Is this a preliminary article? This looks like it's in a seriously unfinished state.
Several sentences were repeated (whole paragraphs even). Some factual information was incorrect (wargames/Mitnick? hahahahha!). There weren't many quotes, although I saw some paraphrasing.
Frankly, I could write a better article.
Still, it gets the gist of the idea right. Thank god Jane's noticed the hacker/cracker difference. I wish they point out the importance of that more.
Although it has some stupid examples (IR in a lamp? WTF?), they're mainly used to make a point. The point being that a good hacker thinks outside the lines, to some extent. I don't normally check my lamps for hidden transmitters, do you?:-) Although there's better ways to do it, the writer was trying to say that there's an large number of ways to spy on you that you wouldn't even think of, but an evil cracker might.
A bit stupid all in all. C'mon Janes, go for the gusto. Get a bit technical. Don't be afraid of having to write for a layman. The layman is smarter than you give him credit for. Use analogies (sp?). Make it interesting for crying out loud.
A bit of a dumb move by Steve.. The last thing you want to do when trying to build a company up is to piss off your employees.
While it is a minor thing, nothing I'd quit over, it would make be quite angry. I mean, what about tradition, huh? What about pride in your work? Does craftsmanship mean nothing?
Admittedly, it's just Apple, which is a horrible steaming pile of crap nowadays. Forget good products, we'll sell colored ones!
Whatever happened to the movers and shakers? What happened to the guys who did these things because they thought the technology was cool, not because of profit potential?
I just can't help but wondering where the new generation of weirdos is.:-)
The "Don't unnecessarily multiply entities." is what I disagree with. If it truly is uneccesary, then the statement is obvious. Otherwise, it only makes sense when it is common sense. Or at least that is how I understood your original explanation.
Okay, sure then.
Occam's razor IS "Don't unnecessarily multiply entities." And it cannot be used for a proof.
It is a guideline, not a rule as such. The basic meaning behind it says that given two arguements, the simpler one usually is correct. The "usually" is the key. It may not be correct. Gravity may indeed be caused by invisible fairies. Who knows?
Occam's razor is a pretty good argument against Creationism, but not a great one. God created the Universe. Who created god? Nobody, he's always existed. Then why do you need god to explain the existance of the Universe? Why can't the Universe have always existed? The thing Occam's razor shows is that god is unneccesary to explain the existance of the universe. It says nothing about whether god really exists or not. Mainly, I've used this argument to shut up those idiots who try to force the burden of proof of the nonexistance of god onto me. Usually, I can force them to try to prove god exists (you can't, it's not possible) since they claim more "entities" than I do. I claim the Universe exists. They claim that the Universe exists and god created it. Thus they have the burden of proof.
Anyway, it's all that type of thing. Occam's razor, in a sense, _IS_ common sense, but if there's one thing I know to be fact in this entire world, it's that common sense is anything but common. I refer you to my favorite Heinlein quote in my sig...
Slashdot Mirror
While it's not exactly what you're talking about, I just thought it was odd that I got the email seconds after reading this post.
---
It found no instances of the word Linux, which I found humorous.
... there an a to think you're doing is making good news slash my next monday's announcement makes it you can use less leonard still want to which it's tilman of the of the open sores movement I have not part of the open sewers that but why in part of the priests out their foundations giving his last line next to the flashlight next with you a while and we can end of the various duckling and in the he's serving snacks that promptly opening the top of that there is god who will bomb and the crowd is bernie this is definitely the most exciting play a thing would have to have one of I mean you for a column about how ...
:-)
However, a little brain usage, search for "line" and get this:
The words "end of the various duckling" and around there are in fact "Eric Raymond" in the clip, which I thought utterly hysterical. You can tell because they say "it's Eric Raymond, and he's serving snacks," which partway comes out correct.
Linux seems to have came out as "line next" a lot, and "line of" in some clips I've found..
Obviously, the technology is not quite there yet.
---
So people should only have a right to privacy if they have strong enough encryption? And they should be willing to cede that right if their encryption is broken?
First of, your *RIGHT* to privacy is a complete bullshit phrase. If I really want to spy on you, do you think I give a damn about your rights? C'mon. Everyone has the right to privacy. But you gotta protect your rights, or someone else will take them away from you.
To protect your right to privacy, you gotta make sure no one else can hear you. If I went into the park, and yelled my credit card info at passers-by, could I bitch about my right to privacy being violated? I don't think so. So stop bitching about your lack of privacy when you use devices that spew unencrypted data into the radio waves for any passers-by to hear.
---
So they don't claim copyright on the signal they're rebroadcasting, but it's not legal for me to turn around and re-rebroadcast it? Which is it going to be?
:-)
Key difference: They're not broadcasting.
Internet broadcasting has not yet been defined as "broadcasting" under the laws in question. The laws are well-defined for stuff that goes on the airwaves, but the internet is not the airwaves.
Also, since they're adding their Advertising, which is copyrighted by them, directly to the stream, you probably would get nailed there too.
---
I'd have to disagree with this to some extent, as I rarely notice the author of a post. Usually, I only notice the content, disregarding who actually said it. If the content is interesting enough, or makes me angry (as is so often the case), I reply and state my mind. But at no time do I look at the author of a post.
Probably the only time I notice is when an author replies to something I said to something they said, thus starting a conversation thread. I only notice that when I start getting a lot of posts on the same subject pop up on my User page, which I check to see replies to my posts.
In fact, I hadn't noticed Signal11's name until you pointed it out, and I just now had to scroll up to see that it was Dirtside I'm responding to. I think many people here judge based more on content, opinion, and general overall well-writtenness of an item rather than reputation.
---
If you had any idea how many drivers and pedestrians were killed each year by other drivers going too fast...
They're not killed by drivers going to fast, they're killed by drivers going faster than that driver can handle.
High speeds do not cause more accidents. That has been proven. However, high speeds cause the accidents that do occur to have a higher fatality rate.
---
Guess it's still there..
---
Test to see if they actually fixed the bug..
If this post has no subject, it's still there..
---
Well, this at least exposed a bug on /.
/. makes it go away entirely, thus leaving nothing to click on in the list. A tad annoying I'd say.
The subject of this message was supposed to be "(Score: -80,000)" without the quotes. But as you can see
Obviously it's looking for a (Score: xxx) type of thing at the end of the Subject line, but if there's nothing in front of that, it just leaves an empty subject.
Still, very funny.
---
Really screwy...
Perhaps it's just deleting the (Score: 2) thing to keep people from mucking it about..
---
My my my, aren't we bitter?
:-)
No, not bitter. Just overly annoyed.
So you would resort to violence to stop someone from speaking to you just because you disagree with what they say?
Of course. If they continue to spout their beliefs to me, even after I've repeatedly said I don't care and don't wish to hear them, then yes, I'd beat the crap out of them. Anything to shut them up. You fail to understand that while violence is the last option, sometimes you are forced to the last option.
You admin that you don't respect their beliefs, then you turn around and expect them to respect yours by not espousing their views to you. Stop being such a hypocrite, be a little open minded.
I'm quite open-minded about anything at all. But quite frankly, I've been over the religion question many more times than I care to have. It's amazing the number of preachy Xtians who will, upon learning that I'm an atheist, assume that I have not read the bible, or thought about it at all. In all actuality, I've thought about it a considerable amount more than they probably have, when I was younger. I've actually read the bible, cover to cover, and thought about what it said several times. Most Xtians I've met cannot honestly say that. I even agree with many of the precepts given therein. I know more about their religion than they do most of the time, and there's nothing they can say that will do anything other than to piss me off about the subject. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. If I kindly say that I really am not interested, and they continue as if I didn't know everything they were talking about anyway, then there's really precious little choice of action is there? It sucks, but I do not choose to waste their time and mine by letting them continue to speak to me. Like I said, I've only had to resort to violence twice. But there's been over 30 times where someone has tried to convert me, and I'm frankly sick to death of it.
Learn how to discuss things rationally. Most people will listen and leave you alone if you give them a good reason.
Then your experiences are far different from mine, my friend. Most preachy people will NOT listen when you say "look, I appreciate your effort and all, but I've thought about this probably a lot longer than you have. There's nothing in that bible of yours that I haven't read and thought about. So forget it, okay?" In fact, I usually have to say something so obscenely blasphemous to get them to leave that I wouldn't mention it to my mother. It has gotten that bad before.
I would have to say that anyone who resorts to hitting someone who is trying to help them (whether you believe it or not) has no right to denounce the actions of anyone else.
You again don't quite understand. You act as if this is something out of the blue, that I have not thought about to a great extent. I have tried to refuse their so-called "help". Several times. It simply had no effect. The only option left was violence. Ignoring them completely didn't work, because these are the kind of bastards that simply can't be ignored. Continually pestering you about it for weeks on end. At least smacking them makes them leave me the hell alone, even if it does earn you a bad reputation. I mean, you reach a breaking point. It's not like this guy walks up, says "have you heard the word of jesus", and then I kick his ass. It's a continual pain in your side for weeks and weeks and weeks until you just can't stand the sight of the guy anymore. Finally, you just snap, alright? I'm not proud of it, but it works.
---
I for one prefer no moderation, I like to think for myself when it comes to other people's opinions.
That's the beauty of the system. You can turn off moderation for you as an individual. Set the preferences to sort based on date, or something, then turn off scores in your preferences. Easy.
---
you specifically stated that religion 'is a personal thing', that is a religious belief. According to my religion it is a community thing and one of my most important tasks in life is to try to educate as many people as possible about what I believe.
You happen to think religion is a community thing. Well la-di-frickin-da, go hang out with your community, and leave the rest of us the hell alone. Freedom of religion is also freedom from other people's religions in my view.
How does expressing my religious views make me look bad?
That's not the point. The point is that it connot possibly make you look good. While it may not necessarily make you look bad, if the guy you're talking to is of that bent, then he'll hate you for it. Belief is one thing that cannot be questioned in most people. Belief is without proof. You either believe, or you don't. Nobody CHOOSES to believe in a god. They either do, or they don't. It's just that simple.
I've never looked down on someone for expressing their religious views, I don't know many people who have, and those I do know that look down on people for things like that are usually people that I don't have much respect for.
Perhaps you haven't considered the notion that I don't respect or care about your religious beliefs. "oh, but you must respect other people's beliefs!" WHY? Stupid is stupid, faith doesn't make it smart. Nothing personal you understand, but if someone tells me their beliefs, and I think them stupid, then I lose respect for that person. Again, it's not a decision I make, it simply how things are.
Anyone trying to convert me (or educate if you prefer that term, as it amounts to the same spiel from a religious freak) is liable for a punch in the face as a response. If that's what it takes to shut the preaching bastard up, that's what I do. Usually, I can freak the guy preaching out enough with an offhand comment so that it doesn't come to that, but I have had to resort to that method twice in my lifetime.
Oh well..
---
Conspicuously absent is anything that says you have the right to infringe on my otherwise legal religious duties or obligations because you happen to find them annoying.
Also conspicuously absent is your right to impose your belief system on me, thereby infringing upon my rights of walking the hell away.
Like many people, you are sadly underinformed on the laws you live under.
No, I'm quite good at interpretation of the law. You however, are sadly misinformed about the point I was making in the first place.
Oh well.
---
What you fail to understand is that as Christians we have been COMMANDED to share our faith - it's called the Great Commission - to "go forth and make disciples of all the nations". If we did anything less we would only be talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
Exactly. That's one reason I usually mention Xtians specifically in these types of discussions. They're generally not content to "live and let live".
As for the First Amendment, don't forget that "Freedom of Religion" is also "Freedom FROM Religion".
---
who are you to dictate how someone should or should not spread their faith? Apparently you have no problem espousing your own religious views in a public forum. Hypocrite.
Sheesh...
A) I have said nothing about my religious views.
B) Saying what you believe is fine, but saying it to someone who doesn't want to hear about it only annoys that person. Deliberately. If it's relevent to the discussion, that's fine. But taking words out of context to espouse your own views is just stupid.
C) I can dictate any damn thing I please. Welcome to free speech. Anyone else can shout their religous views to the world. Good on them. I was merely stating that, in general, it's not a good idea to do so, as it can only make you look bad, never good.
---
it seems like a lot of folks don't understand what the various moderation descriptors (especially "Flamebait" and "Troll") mean. The above post does not appear to be a troll -- constructive criticism of /. is just that.
:-)
I agree. I think that the "overrated" and "underrated" should be used to simply mark a post up or down. The others should be used only if they're descriptive. Also, I wish that the term "Troll" was not a negative score. I'm not saying it should be positive, but not all Trolls are bad.
This is similar to calling the "first post" messages "Flamebait" (well, maybe hot grits and petrified are flamebait). They're not. Trolls at best.
Maybe there should be a "First Post Moron" descriptor.
---
Okay, i think you read a little too much into the Armageddon comment by Katz. However, since I agree with your views for most of your comment, I'll let that lie.
... to confine their knowledge of Christianity to one extremist view ... And hence, they not only fall off the proverbial horse, but fall behind it, face down, and wonder how anyone could want to be involved in this horse when all they can see is it's rear end.
:-)
Many slashdot readers choose
First lets talk about personal belief.
When someone tells me they are a x-tian, or of any type of faith in fact, I generally turn around and walk away. Why? Because people who say things like that in public should be shunned and barred from polite society.
I don't CARE what religion you are. Deal with your spiritual beliefs on your own time. Belief is a personal thing. It should NOT be presented to others carelessly.
---
The good thing is that there is, as there is with many patents, a way around it -- Barnes & Noble just has to change enough that it can be considered different.
:-) Go to the library sometime and take a real good look at some of the free systems sitting around...
The problem is that the patent isn't for a piece of code or something. The patent is essentially for a method. Store the customer info in a DB, then have a button on each item to make an "instant buy" type of thing. That's it. Anything that does that in any way at all is covered by the patent.
Honestly, the technology used by places like amazon and buy.com aren't really that good. All they seem to do is store your ip. That's just great if you happen to order something from a public computer. It saves your info for anyone else to use.
Actually, they use cookies. Anyway, you can set your account not to use permanent cookies on most sites (I don't know about Amazon)...
And if you ever use a public computer to purchase something, thereby entering your CC info, you are an idiot. Nearly every public computer I've ever used, I've found a keyboard sniffer installed by some enterprising young cracker on it.
The sad thing is how many people don't seem to realize what can happen if they save private information on public machines. In the computer lab at school, so many people use programs like Eudora and Outlook Express to check their school mail accounts and leave their account info saved locally. They don't seem to realize that anyone who logs in at the same machine can access their mail account.
This is why you remove stupid programs like these and force the user to do it your way.
Back at school, so many people were leaving their account info around, that finally, they disabled SMTP/POP3 access from the labs. Blocked those IP ranges. Suddenly, those people using eudora at 50 terminals had to telnet into the main system like they were supposed to do in the first place. Those people using their own personal systems were not in those IP ranges, and were not blocked. Later they switched to IMAP and some standard program that always asked for username/password in the public labs, along with hardware-based locking of the drives from changes.
A good sysadmin will do things like that to make it happen the right way. I mean yes, freedom of choice; yes, each user knows different programs.. But when 50 people complain to you that the email they just sent was on some random users account because they didn't change the mail program setting before they sent the e-mail, and replies are going every which way.. Well, I think you'd see the benefits of making the user do what you damn well want them to do.
Of course, at some place like a library you don't have that sysadmin. You just have a standard PC with a phone cord plugged in.
In my opinion, a company that cares about the people ordering from them would make them log in and produce the information from that. It's slightly less convenient, but it's also more secure.
What, and upset all the customers who use their computers from home, who never have anyone else access the system? Sounds like a bad solution to me. Upset the masses to protect the few who don't know any better? No. Bad idea.
---
A preliminary injunction means that this will probably go to trial.
I hope to hell this stupid patent is overturned. I mean this is as obvious as you get. Storing the customer info in a database has been done for years. Making a 1-step buy button on the item is so obvious that it's ridiculous. There's plenty of prior art, as well.
I hope that B&N fights this one tooth and nail. With any luck, Amazon's patent will be ruled as unenforceable or overturned or something. Hopefully, the judge will see this as well, and decide to make a statement about companies patenting the blatently obvious to mess their competitors about, and say that the only way the get away with it is that the patent office is too busy to care anymore.
I need to vent my anger more often.
---
I disagree that you cannot prove that there is a god in the world. I believe that I can prove it. It does border, however, on what your understanding of time is.
Bunk. Of course you cannot prove god exists. God does not interact with the universe in any sense of the word interact. If I were to witness a miracle, it would not prove that god exists, it would tell me that I don't know everything there is to know about reality (which is true). Even if you could point out god, how could you prove that that _IS_ god, and not some other figure? Could be some Hindu deity in another form. I mean, really.
---
I like the way you say "the layman is smarter than you give him credit for" and yet your signature says
:-)
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - Lazarus Long"
So which one is it? Are we smart or stupid?
Both. Such is the paradox of existence.
---
Is this a preliminary article? This looks like it's in a seriously unfinished state.
:-) Although there's better ways to do it, the writer was trying to say that there's an large number of ways to spy on you that you wouldn't even think of, but an evil cracker might.
Several sentences were repeated (whole paragraphs even). Some factual information was incorrect (wargames/Mitnick? hahahahha!). There weren't many quotes, although I saw some paraphrasing.
Frankly, I could write a better article.
Still, it gets the gist of the idea right. Thank god Jane's noticed the hacker/cracker difference. I wish they point out the importance of that more.
Although it has some stupid examples (IR in a lamp? WTF?), they're mainly used to make a point. The point being that a good hacker thinks outside the lines, to some extent. I don't normally check my lamps for hidden transmitters, do you?
A bit stupid all in all. C'mon Janes, go for the gusto. Get a bit technical. Don't be afraid of having to write for a layman. The layman is smarter than you give him credit for. Use analogies (sp?). Make it interesting for crying out loud.
ah well...
---
A bit of a dumb move by Steve.. The last thing you want to do when trying to build a company up is to piss off your employees.
:-)
While it is a minor thing, nothing I'd quit over, it would make be quite angry. I mean, what about tradition, huh? What about pride in your work? Does craftsmanship mean nothing?
Admittedly, it's just Apple, which is a horrible steaming pile of crap nowadays. Forget good products, we'll sell colored ones!
Whatever happened to the movers and shakers? What happened to the guys who did these things because they thought the technology was cool, not because of profit potential?
I just can't help but wondering where the new generation of weirdos is.
---
The "Don't unnecessarily multiply entities." is what I disagree with. If it truly is uneccesary, then the statement is obvious. Otherwise, it only makes sense when it is common sense. Or at least that is how I understood your original explanation.
Okay, sure then.
Occam's razor IS "Don't unnecessarily multiply entities." And it cannot be used for a proof.
It is a guideline, not a rule as such. The basic meaning behind it says that given two arguements, the simpler one usually is correct. The "usually" is the key. It may not be correct. Gravity may indeed be caused by invisible fairies. Who knows?
Occam's razor is a pretty good argument against Creationism, but not a great one. God created the Universe. Who created god? Nobody, he's always existed. Then why do you need god to explain the existance of the Universe? Why can't the Universe have always existed? The thing Occam's razor shows is that god is unneccesary to explain the existance of the universe. It says nothing about whether god really exists or not. Mainly, I've used this argument to shut up those idiots who try to force the burden of proof of the nonexistance of god onto me. Usually, I can force them to try to prove god exists (you can't, it's not possible) since they claim more "entities" than I do. I claim the Universe exists. They claim that the Universe exists and god created it. Thus they have the burden of proof.
Anyway, it's all that type of thing. Occam's razor, in a sense, _IS_ common sense, but if there's one thing I know to be fact in this entire world, it's that common sense is anything but common. I refer you to my favorite Heinlein quote in my sig...
---