The word 'fraction' does not only refer to the mathematical definition. It also means 'A portion or fragment' (according to Webster's). It is certainly in this sense that the phrase is used.
. o O ( In school they teach that plants have roots. How ridiculous! How can you take the root of something that's not a number? )
You kidding? I'm a vi user, but I wouldn't touch vim. I abstained on this one.. as I abstained on most. This awards thing is actually stupider than I thought it'd be.. quite a feat.
I'll spare you all my rant on that last topic. Sheesh! --neil
Actually, it's -today- that everyone uses antibiotics too much, and it's very difficult to get them to stop even in the face of cold, hard scientific evidence. The main problem is with people taking antibiotics when they don't even have a bacterial infection, which is quite common in developing countries where antibiotics are some of the only medicine the people can get (and non-prescription too.. they pop a handful of them for headaches). And throughout the world, antibiotics are used as a staple of food animal feed, since it makes them grow larger.. at the possible cost of aiding in the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria which can be passed on to humans. It's being outlawed in some places, but those drug companies have a lot of lawyers and they fight hard.
The FDA does not have the authority to regulate antiviral usage overseas, which is where most of the problem lies (such as throughout Africa, where most bacterial diseases are well over 50% resistant to second- and third-line antibiotics). Although I'm no microbiologist, there doesn't appear to me to be any reason why the exact same situation as has occured with antibacterials could not occur with antivirals. Possibly because virii are simpler creatures, although they don't lack the ability to evolve.
However, worst-case scenario is that we'll abuse the drugs for a few decades and then they'll stop working and we'll be thrown back into the archaic medical technology of the late 1990s, when viruses couldn't be fought. That might not be so hard on us, because by then we'll already have had to cope with a return to the halcyon days before we could treat polio and syphillis.
How can society cope with a world where seeing can not equal believing?
Gee, that's profound, Jon Katz Jr.. I experienced a similarly crushing blow a few months ago when I found out that all of the people on the sitcoms I watched actually didn't exist! They were just other people, 'actors' I think they're called, PRETENDING to be these people we're watching shows about! Well, when I found this out I was shocked, because what's to stop people from 'acting' outside of the sitcom world? This sort of deception could have horrible effects on, say, the world of politics! Something needs to be done about this!
And I won't even -tell you- about the visual deception of that evil show The Simpsons. Let's just say that just because they're lovable doesn't mean they even exist. To think I was fooled for so long!
--neil comedy is not flamebait even if you don't think it's funny
Ephedrine is many things to many people, from 'herbal ecstacy' to decongestant to study aid. It's basically an oral form of adrenaline. The Lycaeum has a FAQ which is very informative.
Microsoft was in the right on this one - a standard does need to be made, by an industry-wide group.
Not that I necessarily disagree, but Hemos, shouldn't editorial comments be made in the COMMENTS section of the article rather than the one intended for NEWS? Slashdot is never going to gain any respect if you posters can't keep from drenching every article in your opinions as if yours any more valid than those of the rest of us. Keep the news reserved for facts.
This is absolutely wrong. While today's system of punishment in China isn't exactly the same as the one instated 2,200 years ago, it's damn near the same as the one a hundred years ago (Communist revolution was in 1949 for the history-impaired). (In fact, the modern Chinese 'bullet to the back of the head' is relatively humanitarian compared to the process of Leng T'Che, abolished in the 1900s, in which they would give the criminal opium to prolong his life and cut all of his limbs off.) Your single example is both uncommon and given the wrong emphasis. If it's even true, which I am not convinced of, the man will not have a particular normal life from now on. He will be unable to find a job due to the stigma from the tattoo on his face and will have to turn to either begging, working in an inner-city without governmental authorization (registration card), or stealing. In any case, he'll be arrested again and probably executed the next time. Nonetheless, in China, this is a 'very light sentence.'
To your last point: Would you say there are any 'wealthy and stable societies' which are not flatly Western? I can't think of any non-Western countries that have what you call a 'reasonable judiciary system,' which means that you should probably call it a 'Western judiciary system.' Maybe you think Western means reasonable, but this is a global forum.
Not that I'm one of the above-mentioned 'armchair Marxists,' but there's really nothing about China being a Communist country that directly defines its brutal stance on crime. Case in point: it's been that brutal for thousands of years (the Communist revolution was in 1949 for the history-impaired). You could say 'China is still totalitarian' and you'd be a lot more correct.
Furthermore, your characterization of the protests in Tiananmen Square as 'rather insignificant' shows you've seen them through the Western lens just as much as the media has wanted you to. A huge, organized protest such as that one would be a landmark event in any nation, much less one with such a long-standing history of submission to government. Not to defend the Chinese government (trust me), but I'd say that the U.S. response to the Branch Davidians in Waco was more out-of-line than the Chinese response to the Tiananmen protesters, if you consider 'out-of-line' to mean a stronger reaction than would be expected (different in each country, of course).
Can The Bill of Rights Stop Revolutionary Anonymous Cowards? Can Dying Babies Feel Pain? More Bad News from Democracy The Myth of Linux Nothing Quite Like the World War The World: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
This Jargon file quote doesn't support your point at all. It merely says that the hack's cleverness is admirable, not its strong moral quality. If you really need me to think of an example of something that's admirably clever and yet morally questionable I'll do it, but I rather expect that you can come up with one if you try.
I'd be willing to concede that 'hacking at its finest' would not be morally questionable; what I was arguing against, though, was the assertion that immoral means non-hack, which is a very popular viewpoint here.
As a side note, I don't consider the Jargon file to be dogma anyway. Useful, perhaps, but if it's going to be used to strip words of definitions that they've held for years merely because of an attempt at politicking.. well, that's just too bad.
ObNewThought: What's immoral in one era is often celebrated in the next. This might not apply to breaking into web servers, but use your imagination.
Just look at the original poster's definition. 'Without hurting anyone' is needlessly tacked on, it does not contribute to the other elements and only limits them. Never mind the irony attributed to the fact that one major meaning of 'hacking,' whether the Slashdot community believes it or not, is unauthorized entry into computer systems; indeed, some people would say 'without hurting anyone' is antithesis to hacking.
To me and to a lot of other people, defining hacking this way is like defining a web page as 'a file publically accessible over the Internet which contains no information inappropriate to minors.' Definitions shouldn't be infused with morality. Let the morality come after the definition. Say 'I don't approve of immoral hacking;' say 'I don't approve of immoral web pages;' but don't say 'this immoral thing isn't a hack' any more than you'd say 'this immoral thing isn't a web page.'
Here again is that implicit judgement that if it hurts someone it's not considered a 'hack.' I still want to know exactly why hacking has to be morally sanguine before you do it.
In fact, that whole topic of moral sanguinity makes a huge and unnecessary gray area. For instance, say you're a hired programmer and you write a solution to a problem which is backwards, nearly illegible on first glance, and absolutely brilliant (and, of course, functional). However, many would argue that you have some kind of moral obligation to your employer to write maintainable code. Does this mean what you did wasn't hacking but PVAC?
How the hell can you possibly justify 'without hurting anyone' as being part of the definition of hacking? Does it stop being ingenious if you hurt someone? Does it stop you from getting what you want/need if you hurt someone? You don't have to morally condone it, but don't force your morality into the definition.
Re:This is no longer the case with me.
on
Interface Zen
·
· Score: 1
Hot coffee and sweet sticky soda I haven't tried, but I was amazed to have lost a 15-year-old ultradurable superclick IBM keyboard to a glass of water. Something must've shorted out inside it..
Anyway, they're fortunately easy to get. As the poster suggested, eBay is one good place; some retail stores sell them too; the only one I know off the top of my head is JameCo. Despite what this poster insinuates, also, they're cheap. JameCo has 'em for $14.95 a pop. I got my replacement on eBay for $3.
I happen to know that Slashdot utilizes a FEATURE in my web browser which sends the version number and architecture type which the browser runs on, and they record it attached to my IP address! And since I've read most of the posts in this section I realize that the companies which I patronize are EXPLICITLY INVADING MY PRIVACY if they know ANYTHING about the computer I'm using without me telling them actively!
I'll see you bastards in court!
--neil
Do I really have to mention that this was sarcastic?
If any lawyers read this, thought it wasn't sarcastic, and think I could win, please contact me.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Check out the Intercal quine. It's the most painful piece of source I've ever seen (and I keep up with the ioccc).
--neil
. o O ( In school they teach that plants have roots. How ridiculous! How can you take the root of something that's not a number? )
I somehow doubt you could store a fraction of Babelfish's dictionary files on any Pilot out there. Maybe in a few years...
I'll spare you all my rant on that last topic. Sheesh! --neil
The FDA does not have the authority to regulate antiviral usage overseas, which is where most of the problem lies (such as throughout Africa, where most bacterial diseases are well over 50% resistant to second- and third-line antibiotics). Although I'm no microbiologist, there doesn't appear to me to be any reason why the exact same situation as has occured with antibacterials could not occur with antivirals. Possibly because virii are simpler creatures, although they don't lack the ability to evolve.
However, worst-case scenario is that we'll abuse the drugs for a few decades and then they'll stop working and we'll be thrown back into the archaic medical technology of the late 1990s, when viruses couldn't be fought. That might not be so hard on us, because by then we'll already have had to cope with a return to the halcyon days before we could treat polio and syphillis.
--neil
I just hope you don't own any guns.
Three Microsofts competing for 'world domination' is worse than one Microsoft three times closer to world domination, with no hindering competition?
Gee, that's profound, Jon Katz Jr.. I experienced a similarly crushing blow a few months ago when I found out that all of the people on the sitcoms I watched actually didn't exist! They were just other people, 'actors' I think they're called, PRETENDING to be these people we're watching shows about! Well, when I found this out I was shocked, because what's to stop people from 'acting' outside of the sitcom world? This sort of deception could have horrible effects on, say, the world of politics! Something needs to be done about this!
And I won't even -tell you- about the visual deception of that evil show The Simpsons. Let's just say that just because they're lovable doesn't mean they even exist. To think I was fooled for so long!
--neil
comedy is not flamebait even if you don't think it's funny
Ephedrine is many things to many people, from 'herbal ecstacy' to decongestant to study aid. It's basically an oral form of adrenaline. The Lycaeum has a FAQ which is very informative.
--neil
http://slashdot.org/hof.shtml
As I've gathered, the right to do this is fundamental to Slashdot's existance. :)
Not that I necessarily disagree, but Hemos, shouldn't editorial comments be made in the COMMENTS section of the article rather than the one intended for NEWS? Slashdot is never going to gain any respect if you posters can't keep from drenching every article in your opinions as if yours any more valid than those of the rest of us. Keep the news reserved for facts.
--neil
To your last point: Would you say there are any 'wealthy and stable societies' which are not flatly Western? I can't think of any non-Western countries that have what you call a 'reasonable judiciary system,' which means that you should probably call it a 'Western judiciary system.' Maybe you think Western means reasonable, but this is a global forum.
Furthermore, your characterization of the protests in Tiananmen Square as 'rather insignificant' shows you've seen them through the Western lens just as much as the media has wanted you to. A huge, organized protest such as that one would be a landmark event in any nation, much less one with such a long-standing history of submission to government. Not to defend the Chinese government (trust me), but I'd say that the U.S. response to the Branch Davidians in Waco was more out-of-line than the Chinese response to the Tiananmen protesters, if you consider 'out-of-line' to mean a stronger reaction than would be expected (different in each country, of course).
Looking forward to enraged responses,
--neil
Can Dying Babies Feel Pain?
More Bad News from Democracy
The Myth of Linux
Nothing Quite Like the World War
The World: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
and my favorite:
The Power of the Hellmouth Hype
Is it just me, or are comments disappearing from this article? (And yes, I'm sure they weren't just scored below my threshold.)
I'd be willing to concede that 'hacking at its finest' would not be morally questionable; what I was arguing against, though, was the assertion that immoral means non-hack, which is a very popular viewpoint here.
As a side note, I don't consider the Jargon file to be dogma anyway. Useful, perhaps, but if it's going to be used to strip words of definitions that they've held for years merely because of an attempt at politicking.. well, that's just too bad.
ObNewThought: What's immoral in one era is often celebrated in the next. This might not apply to breaking into web servers, but use your imagination.
To me and to a lot of other people, defining hacking this way is like defining a web page as 'a file publically accessible over the Internet which contains no information inappropriate to minors.' Definitions shouldn't be infused with morality. Let the morality come after the definition. Say 'I don't approve of immoral hacking;' say 'I don't approve of immoral web pages;' but don't say 'this immoral thing isn't a hack' any more than you'd say 'this immoral thing isn't a web page.'
In fact, that whole topic of moral sanguinity makes a huge and unnecessary gray area. For instance, say you're a hired programmer and you write a solution to a problem which is backwards, nearly illegible on first glance, and absolutely brilliant (and, of course, functional). However, many would argue that you have some kind of moral obligation to your employer to write maintainable code. Does this mean what you did wasn't hacking but PVAC?
Food for thought.
--neil
How the hell can you possibly justify 'without hurting anyone' as being part of the definition of hacking? Does it stop being ingenious if you hurt someone? Does it stop you from getting what you want/need if you hurt someone? You don't have to morally condone it, but don't force your morality into the definition.
Anyway, they're fortunately easy to get. As the poster suggested, eBay is one good place; some retail stores sell them too; the only one I know off the top of my head is JameCo. Despite what this poster insinuates, also, they're cheap. JameCo has 'em for $14.95 a pop. I got my replacement on eBay for $3.
--neil, whose typing is mistaken for gunfire
And? What's your point?
I'll see you bastards in court!
--neil
Do I really have to mention that this was sarcastic?
If any lawyers read this, thought it wasn't sarcastic, and think I could win, please contact me.:)
Survey says: Nope, legal!