I think that the linked page is not a press release, it's a stock exchange filing. And that's probably the only thing they wanted to say about it, if it hadn't been for the press.
Atheists keep bringing them up because they don't understand theology
Yep, I willingly acknowledge that.... This stuff with monotheism and omnipotence always makes me really, really confused. You mean Satan has powers too? But then, God has all the powers hasn't he...? Or are there other gods with no powers? Must be really boring to be a god without powers... So, basically, you have monoteism with many gods, but you have to choose the right one, which is the right one because he is so good, but there are others with powers too, in spite of the good guy having all. Yep, I'm confused.
So, you are agueing that God cannot be treated as an axiom?
Of course they can't. That would lead to completely absurd deductions. Oh, wait, it does, that's the problem.:-)
I've noticed a lot of Athiests who assert God's non-existence as a theorem, rather than an axiom in their philosophical system,
Then you haven't been paying attention to what they've had to say. Atheists do not assert God's non-existance at all, whether as a theorem or an axiom. It simply has no place in their philosophy.
But there is a fight over definitions here, so let me state mine, rather superficially:
Agnostics: Someone who asserts that proof of God's existence or non-existence is impossible to obtain.
Atheist: Someone who finds that the concept of God is of no value in their philosophical system.
Imtheist: Someone who asserts God's non-existence.
It is not uncommon that clergy lump these two latter categories together under the name of "atheism", to better raise straw-men and generally suppress the ideas behind these positions.
What I mean by "no value" is a very, very long story, something that is a topic for a different forum than/. But it is generally a "huh?" position....:-)
I have a very similar project: 30 houses, all within a circle of 100 meters, with possible extensions to up to 90 houses in the vicinity. The old TV cable network is so old it needs replacement within a couple of years anyway, so many are keen on getting something better. Most of the people living there have ADSL lines allready.
The thing is, I've contacted a lot of electro- and tele wiring companies. Some were absolutely clueless (we prefer coax to Cat5, because coax has much better capacity, it is more like fibre), but most just seemed to think that it wasn't a project they were interested in getting into, it seemed like they thought: "Nobody is doing this, so it is not going to happen anyway, so we don't care"...
Out of 20 wiring companies I've contacted, about half didn't respond to e-mails, and just a single company actually made a bid. The one who did make a bid seems like a good one, though.
I don't know where the project stands right now, I've pretty much left it to somebody else. But I'd really like it to be realized, because then I could have my server in the basement rather than in server-hosting...
I'm an orienteer (well, I've done some rock climbing, mountain bike rides, triathlon and cross country skiing too), my favorite variant being ski-orienteering (me in action) and I've heard that in the US, 75 % of orienteers have a master's or higher, and of them 27 % have a Ph.D. That's not exactly a cross section of the population.
Unsurprisingly, we were pretty early on getting a rec.sport.orienteering news group. Registration systems for events are nowadays completely Internet-based, allthough the quality of some systems are not very high. But at least we've got some good open standards.
I think this sets it a bit apart from e.g. bicycling in that in bicycling, the overwhelming majority are non-geeks, whereas in orienteering, we're perhaps not the majority, but at least it shows.
Because not everyone who sets off on these trails has a clue.
There really is no substitution for clues when it comes to the woods, or mountaineering for that matter.
My experience is that for everything you introduce that make people rely on help from the outside, you're making people ignore that fact. That's why the death tolls in places like Mt. Blanc and Aconcagua (and Sylene in Sweden for that matter) are incredibly high. People think that they can just go up there and they'll be rescued if something goes wrong, but they can't. Instead, they die like flies.
I'm the author of Learn Orienteering, and I take the opposite the approach to everything: They key is to enable people to become more and more self-contained.
Things can still go wrong, and still search and rescue operations might be necessary. I have been involved in one too, and also received some training in it. Indeed, one could be fatally wounded, and need the help, but those risks become much more managable for the individual when they know what they are up against. It is a part of life.
In conclusion, I don't think sensors everywhere is going to make people a lot safer. Providing free training to everyone is.
I have found that KernelTrap often discusses things in language I can understand, and then it should be quite accessible to many more than kernel hackers...:-)
Bah. The reason why a bunch of religious morons haven't been able to climb it is just that, they are morons. Mt. Ararat is a fairly straightforward climb.
Our amateur Turkish-American-German group proved that most anyone in reasonably good physical shape and having willpower and team spirit can safely and successfully reach the summit of Mt. Ararat.
In fact, even religious morons are able to do it, and the 'anomaly' has been examined, but I think scientists remain unimpressed.
I do not see any privicy issues if a program reads my email in a single pass and add ads as soon as it does not store the data, does not integrate and post-analyze the data, does not use the data for profiling, etc.
I agree. As long as the information flow has one direction, to me, I see no problems at all.
The problem arises if it goes the other way, to advertisers. So, it is a matter of trust: Do you trust that they won't ever been doing this? Can you trust them never to do this, secretly or openly when at some point, people have become too dependant on the service? Can you trust that there won't be a mega-merger where the company can share information internally, yet distribute it very widely? Finally, can you trust that any information they have is properly protected against unauthorized access?
Those are issues I think should be regulated by law, but information flow to me is fine.
To the masses, technology is divine. They don't realize that technology as often demonic as it is angelic.
I prefer to say that to the masses technology is magic (see also Arthur C. Clark...). And they have an attitude towards technology like an audience seeing a lady getting sawed in two: Either joyful thrills or reserved fear. It is also the reaction I usually see among politicians. Neither has a true, critical attitude towards it.
The great hacker, as I see it, is one who groks the technology, understands the problems, be they technical, social or otherwise, warns against the problems, and then fixes the problems.
The hacker is not one who will halt technology that has good uses, he will fix the problems that exists, but it may take some time.
The problem arises when there is a strong incentive (read: money) to not fix the problem, then, the great hacker is usually ignored, when society most likely would have had much to gain from listening to him, because what he says is usually a well-informed middle ground between joy and fear.
We have a real challenge there, to speak out from our beards so that people understand.
They do this in South Korea. I still see quite a lot of korean spam, but I don't know if it has helped. But how many languages are there in the world. The funny thing about spammers is that they don't care if you understand the language at all. So, you'll need to filter on them all. And the funny thing about some mail programs around here is that they are often configured to break RFCs by replacing Re: with something more L10Ned, namely Ad:
The vuln that lead to the escalation to root in the Debian compromise was a bug which the kernel hackers didn't realize had security issues. It was indeed a known bug, but it took a cracker to figure out that it had security implications.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the linked page is not a press release, it's a stock exchange filing. And that's probably the only thing they wanted to say about it, if it hadn't been for the press.
Besides, Dagbladet's two main tech writers are regular /. readers. While they're not perfect, I don't find them any worse than digi.no.
Yep, I willingly acknowledge that.... This stuff with monotheism and omnipotence always makes me really, really confused. You mean Satan has powers too? But then, God has all the powers hasn't he...? Or are there other gods with no powers? Must be really boring to be a god without powers... So, basically, you have monoteism with many gods, but you have to choose the right one, which is the right one because he is so good, but there are others with powers too, in spite of the good guy having all. Yep, I'm confused.
Please explain.
Of course they can't. That would lead to completely absurd deductions. Oh, wait, it does, that's the problem. :-)
Then you haven't been paying attention to what they've had to say. Atheists do not assert God's non-existance at all, whether as a theorem or an axiom. It simply has no place in their philosophy.
But there is a fight over definitions here, so let me state mine, rather superficially:
It is not uncommon that clergy lump these two latter categories together under the name of "atheism", to better raise straw-men and generally suppress the ideas behind these positions.
What I mean by "no value" is a very, very long story, something that is a topic for a different forum than /. But it is generally a "huh?" position.... :-)
Clearly he wrote the kernel himself. He's just too shy to admit it.
The thing is, I've contacted a lot of electro- and tele wiring companies. Some were absolutely clueless (we prefer coax to Cat5, because coax has much better capacity, it is more like fibre), but most just seemed to think that it wasn't a project they were interested in getting into, it seemed like they thought: "Nobody is doing this, so it is not going to happen anyway, so we don't care"...
Out of 20 wiring companies I've contacted, about half didn't respond to e-mails, and just a single company actually made a bid. The one who did make a bid seems like a good one, though.
I don't know where the project stands right now, I've pretty much left it to somebody else. But I'd really like it to be realized, because then I could have my server in the basement rather than in server-hosting...
Unsurprisingly, we were pretty early on getting a rec.sport.orienteering news group. Registration systems for events are nowadays completely Internet-based, allthough the quality of some systems are not very high. But at least we've got some good open standards.
I think this sets it a bit apart from e.g. bicycling in that in bicycling, the overwhelming majority are non-geeks, whereas in orienteering, we're perhaps not the majority, but at least it shows.
See, that's a strong password, it even has a number!
There really is no substitution for clues when it comes to the woods, or mountaineering for that matter.
My experience is that for everything you introduce that make people rely on help from the outside, you're making people ignore that fact. That's why the death tolls in places like Mt. Blanc and Aconcagua (and Sylene in Sweden for that matter) are incredibly high. People think that they can just go up there and they'll be rescued if something goes wrong, but they can't. Instead, they die like flies.
I'm the author of Learn Orienteering, and I take the opposite the approach to everything: They key is to enable people to become more and more self-contained.
Things can still go wrong, and still search and rescue operations might be necessary. I have been involved in one too, and also received some training in it. Indeed, one could be fatally wounded, and need the help, but those risks become much more managable for the individual when they know what they are up against. It is a part of life.
In conclusion, I don't think sensors everywhere is going to make people a lot safer. Providing free training to everyone is.
I have found that KernelTrap often discusses things in language I can understand, and then it should be quite accessible to many more than kernel hackers... :-)
Well, I can't quite agree with that, the Web was and is pretty much Tim Berners-Lee's baby, he did the foundation pretty much by himself.
But it is telling that he is very much against the patent system too.
Yeah, and in Norway, there are hotspots on every Statoil gas station too, but they are expensive... :-(
Quoting Gregory Bogle from the Peakware summitt log for Ararat:
In fact, even religious morons are able to do it, and the 'anomaly' has been examined, but I think scientists remain unimpressed.
Dunno, it gives legitimacy to spammers, and probably brings them more customers, and that means more spam.
Spammers usually don't pay much for hardware or bandwidth anyway, they steal it.
Of course. Hope more complain. And BTW,
Google Runs Ads For Spammers 18:10 Monday 03 November 2003 Rejected
I agree. As long as the information flow has one direction, to me, I see no problems at all.
The problem arises if it goes the other way, to advertisers. So, it is a matter of trust: Do you trust that they won't ever been doing this? Can you trust them never to do this, secretly or openly when at some point, people have become too dependant on the service? Can you trust that there won't be a mega-merger where the company can share information internally, yet distribute it very widely? Finally, can you trust that any information they have is properly protected against unauthorized access?
Those are issues I think should be regulated by law, but information flow to me is fine.
I'm pretty sure they won't. Google runs ads for spammers
I prefer to say that to the masses technology is magic (see also Arthur C. Clark...). And they have an attitude towards technology like an audience seeing a lady getting sawed in two: Either joyful thrills or reserved fear. It is also the reaction I usually see among politicians. Neither has a true, critical attitude towards it.
The great hacker, as I see it, is one who groks the technology, understands the problems, be they technical, social or otherwise, warns against the problems, and then fixes the problems.
The hacker is not one who will halt technology that has good uses, he will fix the problems that exists, but it may take some time.
The problem arises when there is a strong incentive (read: money) to not fix the problem, then, the great hacker is usually ignored, when society most likely would have had much to gain from listening to him, because what he says is usually a well-informed middle ground between joy and fear.
We have a real challenge there, to speak out from our beards so that people understand.
Bah, We've allready made it all the way to R!
Uhm, that's right... Sorry.
This is simply not a workable approach.
Actually, he reads Slashdot, and he takes for granted that everybody knows what it is, just see the "Hall of Flame" at the end of this article.
The vuln that lead to the escalation to root in the Debian compromise was a bug which the kernel hackers didn't realize had security issues. It was indeed a known bug, but it took a cracker to figure out that it had security implications.
They were. Five years ago. Now, like any corporation that grows too big and powerful, they are just corrupt and decadent.
I was just wondering...: Can they copyright this stuff (that is, the movie), so long after the actual photos were taken...?