I'm "deeply" religious. Probably more so that most that would admit it here. The most intolerant people I know are the ones the cry "intolerance" every chance they get. Want to watch porn? Go ahead, I don't care, don't call me intolerant because I don't want to see it when society shoves it in my face. Want to smoke pot, crack, shoot heroin or whatever? Go ahead, I hope you Darwin yourself in the process. Just don't call me intolerant because I don't want my kids to end up like Lindsay Lohan or Dr Spock's kid.
Yeah, there are plenty of hypocrites to go around, but my excuse is that I am a hypocrite (meaning I admit it when I am). I'm not perfect, nor pretend to be.
My faith is one of the reason's why I'm a Libertarian.
I think the sentiment that ALL home schooled children are retarded or stupid or whatever is worse idiocy than believing in something that may or may not exist, simply because the evidence shows that many (most??) home schooled kids are better educated (on less budget) than the progressive union munged public education system we currently have.
How would you recognize evil? How would you distinguish evil from EVIL?
In this case I was answering a specific comment, not on the evilness of Zuckerberg, namely that someone thought of the thing someone else thought wasn't possible a few years ago, from a period nearly 1900 years ago.
Or to put it completely differently, mankind hasn't really changed in 2000 years, the problems we have now are the same problems from 2000 years ago, evil men wanting to rule over others.
Man cannot rule over himself, what makes him think he can rule over others?
In the case of the rare disease where I have access to all the medical material I need to help my doctor treat me, because I am not allowed to treat myself, nor prescribe drugs and other medical treatments and otherwise cannot afford the specialist who knows about as much as I do now, because I've become specialized in knowledge of my disease, equal to or even possibly exceeding the capabilities of the Dr, with the sole exception that I cannot practice medicine in my or any other state (ie Piece of paper).
Mind you, in law, I don't have access to the same sort of clearing house of information that medical journals and research have, per reviewed and rated for my use, for the cost of doing my own research.
Law being much less precise than the medical information is such a "fuzzy" practice that is based not on procedures that can be replicated, but rather on the BS that is currently being manufactured by the top law schools.
Yes, I find helping my doctor so much easier than trying to help my lawyer. One treats me like a human with a brain, the other like a payment on his BMW.
Trying to equate the two is not really fair. While both have moments of exercising a god complex, one is in it because he is human, the other because it makes him shitloads of money.
Re:I'm sick of these sorts of comments
on
PS3 Root Key Found
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps you need to realize that it isn't hydro-carbon based fuels that are causing global warming, it is hot air producing lawyers. Shakespeare was right
we can not begin to comprehend the future uses, good or bad, for all the data people are currently freely giving up without a second thought.
Rev 13:16 KJV - And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: Rev 13:17 KJV - And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
How about a place where the common man can get good defensive law advice and sharing of defense related material against big corporation mega tort scare tactics, like the one SCO tried on Novell, IBM et. al.?
Begging for money IS advertising. They even offer a product for sale if you donate enough, usually with the phrase "our gift for you with a pledge of $xxx.xx per month"
What you've done is proven that CO2 levels may be rising. You haven't proven what has caused those rises. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Further, you haven't proven AGW at all, only extrapolated your bias to prove it. What this solar minimum is proving is that the SUN has much more effect on the temperature of the earth than any CO2 increase, man made or otherwise. Take a moment and listen to the music.
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who cannot hear the music". - George Carlin
1) is easy 2) is easy if you don't tell them that you're doing it 3) is easy when they realize that you've just saved them from losing everything because of #2. The only thing they lost is stuff not where it is supposed to be, and installed programs that deviated from #1. And if they don't have install media or license keys or if it isn't free d/l from the internet, then it doesn't get installed again (and even then... only maybe).
The tools are there if you have the time and resources to implement them. And if you spend your money on humans support rather than doing things right, then that is your problem.
Actually, what we really need is an OS that maps all memory the into one contiguous map, from fastest, to slowest and put the files rarely used on the slowest media and the ones used towards the fastest. But also include knowledge of memory that is temporary and fast verses slow (tape) and/or even unavailable (network shares) seamlessly as one huge pile.
I'm already there (provisioning) using existing tools. When a computer is busted, I have replacements standing by, and data is on the server, so people don't lose anything. Re-image, re-name, drop into AD OU and and GPUPDATE and everything is back to working. Takes a tech ten minutes to replace workstation.
It is how one analyst and one tech can manage 800 computers of all types across five campuses. Standardization is key. People hate it, until they realize that it makes the whole thing functional.
The idea is that a thin client only needs to be bought once, and not replaced every three to five years like a traditional PC.
The reality is, that thin clients only last two cycles before they wear out and need replacement, which only makes them marginally better than purchasing new boxes. Not only that, you *have* to replace the backend equipment on regular basis, and often that equipment comes at a price premium compared to desktop computers, which eats into the cost savings.
The end result is marginally (if that) cost saving on hardware. The REAL savings is on tech support since everything is run from single image. Systems admins are more expensive than techs, but you need a lot fewer to support centralized servers.
Funny, you point to socialism and confiscatory taxation as a means for whatever "fairness" you thing you're proving, by all means have at it. I'm not going to argue with methods that steal from people to give to others, under the frame of "fairness".
Being Libertarian, I don't pit one artificial group against another artificial group. I pit liberty against slavery, and freedom against totalitarian/authoritarian rules.
If you see things as rich vs poor, and right vs left, that is your right. But you're no better than those you hate, forcing your views on others. You just dress it up in populist terminology.
I see where Sen Rockefeller is coming from, and it scares the crap out of me. Someone might actually try it. And they might just keep trying it until they succeed.
At least FOX and MSNBC don't try to hide their bias to much. With other MSM news outlets they cry objectivity when it is clear that they aren't any more objective than either FOX news or MSNBC. Dan Rather? Helen Thomas?
People knew who these people were, well before they were exposed by their own actions and words. But you'd never hear of it anywhere.
All you need is an algorithm to generate usernames and passwords based on website name. Perhaps something like...
mynameslashdot/slashdot1234abcd.... that way, each site gets its own login ID and Password, but is EASILY remembered. Now of course that is a simplified example, yours should be more meaningful and unique, but just as easy for YOU to remember. That is something that a computer wouldn't be able to easily regress to a generic algorithm and then exploit.
The problem is that nobody is teaching people that it is possible, only that it is hard (or impossible) as you have done.
If you're from Europe, where everything is left or far left, America does indeed look like it is right or far right. It all depends upon where you stand on the "left vs right" line. But America has always had a strong individual streak compared to old Europe, and its perpetual caste system.
You just don't realize that you've replaced one set of ruling elites, with another. Some of us don't want that kind of leadership, and you can frown all you want at us, we don't care (except Obama and his apology tours).
You really think that once the government starts to regulate the internet, that it won't stick its hand into what is "fair" or not on the internet. The fact that there was such a concept as "Fairness doctrine" is proof that certain people just can't stand competition, be it certain politicians or Comcast.. And do you REALLY think that once government sets up NN that it will be free from meddling and payoffs to legislators to get it amended to the will of Big Business at the expense of the citizen/consumer?
All one has to do is look at the Cluster F*$# of Patents, Copyrights and so on to realize that government cannot regulate anything effectively on behalf of EVERYONE.
And all you have to do is listen to the likes of Rockefeller (Senator) who recently said that FOX and MSNBC should be pulled off the air to realize that there is at least one person in DC that wants to control media in abusive ways. That is one too many to risk even thinking about letting ALL the assholes there having any control.
To me the fight between big Government and Big Corps is almost the same as those debating who takes away more rights the (D) or the (R) in power.
In the Case of NN, I'm all for NN, provided that it doesn't harm business, and government doesn't get more power. Those on the left don't see government having power as being a problem, as long as it is their kind of power.And this is why the people on the right have concerns, because it isn't beyond the left to limit speech that "offends" them in some way, or if the threat of "fairness doctrine".
Just recently the far left Senator Rockefeller mentioned taking FOX news and MSNBC off the air. And it doesn't matter if he was "joking" or not, simply saying it shows how these people think; that if you don't agree with them, you should be silenced.
THAT is the concern for many people who don't want government control of the internet, because once you start defining that the government CAN control it, it is just a matter of time before it controls the whole of it in one way or another.
On the other hand you have douchebags like Comcast who won't update their peer links to realistic expectations and are artificially putting choke points into their internet models so that they can extract more cash from content providers, and protect their monopoly.
The answer isn't a simple "let the government regulate it" as many people think.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm "deeply" religious. Probably more so that most that would admit it here. The most intolerant people I know are the ones the cry "intolerance" every chance they get. Want to watch porn? Go ahead, I don't care, don't call me intolerant because I don't want to see it when society shoves it in my face. Want to smoke pot, crack, shoot heroin or whatever? Go ahead, I hope you Darwin yourself in the process. Just don't call me intolerant because I don't want my kids to end up like Lindsay Lohan or Dr Spock's kid.
Yeah, there are plenty of hypocrites to go around, but my excuse is that I am a hypocrite (meaning I admit it when I am). I'm not perfect, nor pretend to be.
My faith is one of the reason's why I'm a Libertarian.
I think the sentiment that ALL home schooled children are retarded or stupid or whatever is worse idiocy than believing in something that may or may not exist, simply because the evidence shows that many (most??) home schooled kids are better educated (on less budget) than the progressive union munged public education system we currently have.
From http://www.buzzle.com/articles/results-homeschooling-vs-public-schools.html
see also the charts here (yes, citing wikipedia, bastion of liberalism that it is)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homeschool_academic_scores.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homeschool_grades_chart.gif
But hey as long as it was good for a giggle it must be true (Jon Stewart school of facts). Who's the real idiot?
I'm so sorry.
With all due respect :-)
How would you recognize evil? How would you distinguish evil from EVIL?
In this case I was answering a specific comment, not on the evilness of Zuckerberg, namely that someone thought of the thing someone else thought wasn't possible a few years ago, from a period nearly 1900 years ago.
Or to put it completely differently, mankind hasn't really changed in 2000 years, the problems we have now are the same problems from 2000 years ago, evil men wanting to rule over others.
Man cannot rule over himself, what makes him think he can rule over others?
In the case of the rare disease where I have access to all the medical material I need to help my doctor treat me, because I am not allowed to treat myself, nor prescribe drugs and other medical treatments and otherwise cannot afford the specialist who knows about as much as I do now, because I've become specialized in knowledge of my disease, equal to or even possibly exceeding the capabilities of the Dr, with the sole exception that I cannot practice medicine in my or any other state (ie Piece of paper).
Mind you, in law, I don't have access to the same sort of clearing house of information that medical journals and research have, per reviewed and rated for my use, for the cost of doing my own research.
Law being much less precise than the medical information is such a "fuzzy" practice that is based not on procedures that can be replicated, but rather on the BS that is currently being manufactured by the top law schools.
Yes, I find helping my doctor so much easier than trying to help my lawyer. One treats me like a human with a brain, the other like a payment on his BMW.
Trying to equate the two is not really fair. While both have moments of exercising a god complex, one is in it because he is human, the other because it makes him shitloads of money.
Perhaps you need to realize that it isn't hydro-carbon based fuels that are causing global warming, it is hot air producing lawyers. Shakespeare was right
And the last two White House occupants (Bush/Obama).
And people still love the (D)s and (R)s
Rev 13:16 KJV - And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Rev 13:17 KJV - And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Just sayin'
How about a place where the common man can get good defensive law advice and sharing of defense related material against big corporation mega tort scare tactics, like the one SCO tried on Novell, IBM et. al.?
Begging for money IS advertising. They even offer a product for sale if you donate enough, usually with the phrase "our gift for you with a pledge of $xxx.xx per month"
Meh
What you've done is proven that CO2 levels may be rising. You haven't proven what has caused those rises. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Further, you haven't proven AGW at all, only extrapolated your bias to prove it. What this solar minimum is proving is that the SUN has much more effect on the temperature of the earth than any CO2 increase, man made or otherwise. Take a moment and listen to the music.
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who cannot hear the music". - George Carlin
1) is easy ... only maybe).
2) is easy if you don't tell them that you're doing it
3) is easy when they realize that you've just saved them from losing everything because of #2. The only thing they lost is stuff not where it is supposed to be, and installed programs that deviated from #1. And if they don't have install media or license keys or if it isn't free d/l from the internet, then it doesn't get installed again (and even then
The tools are there if you have the time and resources to implement them. And if you spend your money on humans support rather than doing things right, then that is your problem.
Actually, what we really need is an OS that maps all memory the into one contiguous map, from fastest, to slowest and put the files rarely used on the slowest media and the ones used towards the fastest. But also include knowledge of memory that is temporary and fast verses slow (tape) and/or even unavailable (network shares) seamlessly as one huge pile.
I'm already there (provisioning) using existing tools. When a computer is busted, I have replacements standing by, and data is on the server, so people don't lose anything. Re-image, re-name, drop into AD OU and and GPUPDATE and everything is back to working. Takes a tech ten minutes to replace workstation.
It is how one analyst and one tech can manage 800 computers of all types across five campuses. Standardization is key. People hate it, until they realize that it makes the whole thing functional.
My Droid has more power than a "computer" that ran Windows, from ten years or so ago.
Arbitrary distinctions in law don't serve any purposes. Law should be about absolutes and shouldn't define things that will obviously shift over time.
The idea is that a thin client only needs to be bought once, and not replaced every three to five years like a traditional PC.
The reality is, that thin clients only last two cycles before they wear out and need replacement, which only makes them marginally better than purchasing new boxes. Not only that, you *have* to replace the backend equipment on regular basis, and often that equipment comes at a price premium compared to desktop computers, which eats into the cost savings.
The end result is marginally (if that) cost saving on hardware. The REAL savings is on tech support since everything is run from single image. Systems admins are more expensive than techs, but you need a lot fewer to support centralized servers.
Funny, you point to socialism and confiscatory taxation as a means for whatever "fairness" you thing you're proving, by all means have at it. I'm not going to argue with methods that steal from people to give to others, under the frame of "fairness".
Being Libertarian, I don't pit one artificial group against another artificial group. I pit liberty against slavery, and freedom against totalitarian/authoritarian rules.
If you see things as rich vs poor, and right vs left, that is your right. But you're no better than those you hate, forcing your views on others. You just dress it up in populist terminology.
I see where Sen Rockefeller is coming from, and it scares the crap out of me. Someone might actually try it. And they might just keep trying it until they succeed.
At least FOX and MSNBC don't try to hide their bias to much. With other MSM news outlets they cry objectivity when it is clear that they aren't any more objective than either FOX news or MSNBC. Dan Rather? Helen Thomas?
People knew who these people were, well before they were exposed by their own actions and words. But you'd never hear of it anywhere.
If you design a piece of hardware, capable of running Windows 7, but DOESN'T is it a computer? What if it runs Windows 7 in a VM on another OS?
I hate governments more each day.
If you can't, then you're not thinking right.
All you need is an algorithm to generate usernames and passwords based on website name. Perhaps something like ...
mynameslashdot/slashdot1234abcd. ... that way, each site gets its own login ID and Password, but is EASILY remembered. Now of course that is a simplified example, yours should be more meaningful and unique, but just as easy for YOU to remember. That is something that a computer wouldn't be able to easily regress to a generic algorithm and then exploit.
The problem is that nobody is teaching people that it is possible, only that it is hard (or impossible) as you have done.
Ghandi said it slightly differently. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
My daddy said it this way "Two wrongs don't make it right. It just means you have more things wrong"
If you're from Europe, where everything is left or far left, America does indeed look like it is right or far right. It all depends upon where you stand on the "left vs right" line. But America has always had a strong individual streak compared to old Europe, and its perpetual caste system.
You just don't realize that you've replaced one set of ruling elites, with another. Some of us don't want that kind of leadership, and you can frown all you want at us, we don't care (except Obama and his apology tours).
You really think that once the government starts to regulate the internet, that it won't stick its hand into what is "fair" or not on the internet. The fact that there was such a concept as "Fairness doctrine" is proof that certain people just can't stand competition, be it certain politicians or Comcast.. And do you REALLY think that once government sets up NN that it will be free from meddling and payoffs to legislators to get it amended to the will of Big Business at the expense of the citizen/consumer?
All one has to do is look at the Cluster F*$# of Patents, Copyrights and so on to realize that government cannot regulate anything effectively on behalf of EVERYONE.
And all you have to do is listen to the likes of Rockefeller (Senator) who recently said that FOX and MSNBC should be pulled off the air to realize that there is at least one person in DC that wants to control media in abusive ways. That is one too many to risk even thinking about letting ALL the assholes there having any control.
To me the fight between big Government and Big Corps is almost the same as those debating who takes away more rights the (D) or the (R) in power.
In the Case of NN, I'm all for NN, provided that it doesn't harm business, and government doesn't get more power. Those on the left don't see government having power as being a problem, as long as it is their kind of power.And this is why the people on the right have concerns, because it isn't beyond the left to limit speech that "offends" them in some way, or if the threat of "fairness doctrine".
Just recently the far left Senator Rockefeller mentioned taking FOX news and MSNBC off the air. And it doesn't matter if he was "joking" or not, simply saying it shows how these people think; that if you don't agree with them, you should be silenced.
THAT is the concern for many people who don't want government control of the internet, because once you start defining that the government CAN control it, it is just a matter of time before it controls the whole of it in one way or another.
On the other hand you have douchebags like Comcast who won't update their peer links to realistic expectations and are artificially putting choke points into their internet models so that they can extract more cash from content providers, and protect their monopoly.
The answer isn't a simple "let the government regulate it" as many people think.