No. You have incorrectly equated genetic copying errors with evolution. Evolution is a lot more complicated than that, and DNA copy errors are a minority of the driving force behind evolutionary change.
Evolution is a bit more complicated than that -- a lot more, actually. It is not correct that genome copying mistakes lead to everything in humans; most evolution is due to gene expression, for instance, and there are also other complicating factors. So, no, what you said is not right, and is not +5 Insightful.
Not really. Most evolution is due to gene expression. Only a small minority is due to mutation. I think the leading theory was that humans gradually expressed more and more of the genes for intelligence, not that it was due to a genetic mutation. But, it is easy to be confused, because mutation is sort of the canonical way that DNA changes, despite being the minority.
I'm not clear on whether you need Microsoft's "pack" only to actually load up and watch a video, or also to rip it. If you ask me, which you didn't, the best practice is to put in the DVD, rip it to a file, put the DVD into a box in a closet, and watch the file as many times as you like. I do this specifically to avoid the commercials, especially that annoying commercial for the FBI. This works well for Netflix: receive DVD, rip it in about 45 minutes, put it in the mail the next day, watch the video from the file without commercials, delete the file (or keep it if you wish). I get about two DVDs per week that way, or about 8 per month, which is the only way Netflix is worth the monthly cost.
Maybe it's because, having thought really hard about it, the people of today decided that they can come up with ideals which are even more ideal than the ideals of the founding fathers. You know, progress and all that.
Or, hey, maybe it's because the founding fathers lived during the pinacle of human thinking, and everyone born since then is a fucking stupid idiot who should just do exactly what what was wanted by fifty white land-owning males in the 1700s in New England.
Or, hey, maybe that's all a big false dichotomy.
[This comment is not an attack on you, Intrepid, because what you said in that comment is fair and reasonable.]
Right right. Well, in society we (those of us who are not shit people or their fanbois) don't only apologize for illegal behavior, we apologize for the vastly larger set of rude or unkind behaviors. Do you not understand that, or do you disagree that this behavior is rude, or (this is the one I figure is true, and to which I somewhat sympathize) do you think that law officers are not obliged to follow rules of common courtesy when they fuck up royally?
Here's another one: did you read about that kid who got locked up for five days and forgotten, and almost died? The law officers who fucked that up royally apologized to the kid. Do you think that was an appropriate apology, or should they have withheld the apology because what they did was not, technically, illegal? [Against procedure, yes; illegal, no, or else we would expect criminal charges against the officers, which nobody expects.]
I see. So you are saying that if font color is specified, then background color is a necessary corollary setting. I can see that, but still, if people override defaults, then I think it's hard to blame anyone else when they see their own chosen settings. Does your browser allow you to override font colors too? If so, then that may be the best solution here: you yourself overrode one default, without overriding the other.
Most web designers, quite understandably define every little thing. Some people like you (and maybe me) think that's a good idea, but some people would prefer to set their own preferences and have them respected.
Whatevs. It could go either way. I don't agree that it is an embarrassing rookie mistake.
I disagree. Good web design means using defaults and allowing users to override them. The OP set his default background to a certain color, and yet now he complains when he sees that color? No, sorry, that's your fault -- I mean, not fault, credit. It's your credit that you get to choose your own background color. Same with fonts. If you love comic sans, then use that as your default font and you'll see it often. Why would it be "good design" for a web author to try to override your defaults?
Yes indeed, libertarianism is very, very principled. The principles are stupid and wrong, but at least they are consistent. That's more than can be said for other ideologies, such as Christian Nationalism, or a number of others. Most libertarians are also forced by reality to be hypocrites, but there is a small number of non-hypocrites (in the small number of libertarians) too, who will follow those principles to true insanity. I don't know you, of course, so I have no idea whether you are a hypocrite, or insane.
Indeed I do realize that. I came to this story only to post that comment and make that point. I didn't care about the story enough to look it up on my own, which I do realize is trivial, but I do care (just barely) enough about Slashdot to put in a snipe about how to do a good job as an editor. I take your chiding in turn, but please in the future use LMGTFY.com instead of Google.com.
Oh, okay, so now we've moved the goalpost from "only governments go to war", to "Hitler was government" to "Hitler was a politician". Yes, Hitler was a politician, so are you ready to stop making meaningless statements like "Hitler was government"?
Every time we've pushed back at your nonsense, you've given it up.
If we kept pushing, you would be forced to give it all up, because the entire ideology is nonsense.
"To see the machine built and running programs would be the final proof that Babbage really did invent the general purpose computer in the age of the steam engine."
Um, no. "Dreaming up" a thing is not tantamount to "inventing" the thing. "Inventing" implies, to me at least, actually building the thing.
The things were not authenticated correctly. A transaction which the guy didn't want was put through. The authentication system was inadequate for the job
This is a good point. No auth system can be perfect, but perhaps this one was inadequate.
Yeah. My first and second classes were programming classes, first in C++ (intro) then in some LIST-like languages (second class). After that I spend two full years doing proofs and runtime analysis and induction and algorithms, with little or no programming on computers. Yeah, okay, I might have typed up answers and submitted them on a computer, but I wasn't writing and compiling software. After that, in my senior year, we did a lot of programming again in intensive classes. Other students may have mixed in a programming class into their junior year. I graduated in 2002.
Aside: ever since I was in my CS program, I've always disliked the name "Computer Science", largely because I spend two full years of college never using a computer for any of my classes. Calling it Computer Science puts the machine at the center of the endeavor, whereas really it is an abstract conceptual field, like all liberal studies.
I disagree. My understanding is that "hacker" predates "cracker", and that some nerds decided they didn't like the pejorative sense of "hacker", so they adopted it as their own (cf. "nigger") and proffered "cracker" as a pejorative replacement. Most nerds, and all non-nerds, rejected this attempt at redefining the word "hacker", and continued to use it with its original meaning. To this day, that minority of nerds, especially the ones who like rhetorical pugilism, continue to make their specious case on Internet forums.
I offer the Oxford dictionary as a cite: hacker. Note that your preferred definition is given as a secondary, informal definition. Their definition of "cracker" is similar.
I can't get past your first two sentences. "Do whatever they want" means "no rules". And that is in fact what a free market is -- no rules, do whatever you want -- and that is in fact how policy makers use the phrase: they want a market with no rules, no regulations, no taxes. BUT, that is NOT how most CITIZENS use the phrase, and the policy makers rely on that fact to get support for policies which nearly nobody supports.
Slashdot Mirror
You are wasting your breath. He won't ever get it. Teach your children.
No. You have incorrectly equated genetic copying errors with evolution. Evolution is a lot more complicated than that, and DNA copy errors are a minority of the driving force behind evolutionary change.
Evolution is a bit more complicated than that -- a lot more, actually. It is not correct that genome copying mistakes lead to everything in humans; most evolution is due to gene expression, for instance, and there are also other complicating factors. So, no, what you said is not right, and is not +5 Insightful.
Ding, ding, winner. The most common form of DNA change is gene expression, which has been the leading theory for the evolution of intelligence.
Not really. Most evolution is due to gene expression. Only a small minority is due to mutation. I think the leading theory was that humans gradually expressed more and more of the genes for intelligence, not that it was due to a genetic mutation. But, it is easy to be confused, because mutation is sort of the canonical way that DNA changes, despite being the minority.
Yeah, it's about time this happened, considering 2003 was the year of Linux on the desktop.
Not at all. What gave you that impression?
I'm not clear on whether you need Microsoft's "pack" only to actually load up and watch a video, or also to rip it. If you ask me, which you didn't, the best practice is to put in the DVD, rip it to a file, put the DVD into a box in a closet, and watch the file as many times as you like. I do this specifically to avoid the commercials, especially that annoying commercial for the FBI. This works well for Netflix: receive DVD, rip it in about 45 minutes, put it in the mail the next day, watch the video from the file without commercials, delete the file (or keep it if you wish). I get about two DVDs per week that way, or about 8 per month, which is the only way Netflix is worth the monthly cost.
Maybe it's because, having thought really hard about it, the people of today decided that they can come up with ideals which are even more ideal than the ideals of the founding fathers. You know, progress and all that.
Or, hey, maybe it's because the founding fathers lived during the pinacle of human thinking, and everyone born since then is a fucking stupid idiot who should just do exactly what what was wanted by fifty white land-owning males in the 1700s in New England.
Or, hey, maybe that's all a big false dichotomy.
[This comment is not an attack on you, Intrepid, because what you said in that comment is fair and reasonable.]
Right right. Well, in society we (those of us who are not shit people or their fanbois) don't only apologize for illegal behavior, we apologize for the vastly larger set of rude or unkind behaviors. Do you not understand that, or do you disagree that this behavior is rude, or (this is the one I figure is true, and to which I somewhat sympathize) do you think that law officers are not obliged to follow rules of common courtesy when they fuck up royally?
Here's another one: did you read about that kid who got locked up for five days and forgotten, and almost died? The law officers who fucked that up royally apologized to the kid. Do you think that was an appropriate apology, or should they have withheld the apology because what they did was not, technically, illegal? [Against procedure, yes; illegal, no, or else we would expect criminal charges against the officers, which nobody expects.]
I see. So you are saying that if font color is specified, then background color is a necessary corollary setting. I can see that, but still, if people override defaults, then I think it's hard to blame anyone else when they see their own chosen settings. Does your browser allow you to override font colors too? If so, then that may be the best solution here: you yourself overrode one default, without overriding the other.
Most web designers, quite understandably define every little thing. Some people like you (and maybe me) think that's a good idea, but some people would prefer to set their own preferences and have them respected.
Whatevs. It could go either way. I don't agree that it is an embarrassing rookie mistake.
I disagree. Good web design means using defaults and allowing users to override them. The OP set his default background to a certain color, and yet now he complains when he sees that color? No, sorry, that's your fault -- I mean, not fault, credit. It's your credit that you get to choose your own background color. Same with fonts. If you love comic sans, then use that as your default font and you'll see it often. Why would it be "good design" for a web author to try to override your defaults?
Yep. That's what I do at my nerd job. GP is wrong.
Yes indeed, libertarianism is very, very principled. The principles are stupid and wrong, but at least they are consistent. That's more than can be said for other ideologies, such as Christian Nationalism, or a number of others. Most libertarians are also forced by reality to be hypocrites, but there is a small number of non-hypocrites (in the small number of libertarians) too, who will follow those principles to true insanity. I don't know you, of course, so I have no idea whether you are a hypocrite, or insane.
/wink
Indeed I do realize that. I came to this story only to post that comment and make that point. I didn't care about the story enough to look it up on my own, which I do realize is trivial, but I do care (just barely) enough about Slashdot to put in a snipe about how to do a good job as an editor. I take your chiding in turn, but please in the future use LMGTFY.com instead of Google.com.
Oh, okay, so now we've moved the goalpost from "only governments go to war", to "Hitler was government" to "Hitler was a politician". Yes, Hitler was a politician, so are you ready to stop making meaningless statements like "Hitler was government"?
Every time we've pushed back at your nonsense, you've given it up.
If we kept pushing, you would be forced to give it all up, because the entire ideology is nonsense.
Yes, that is what we are saying.
Yawn.
Governments are people.
Your points are invalid.
They also wrote this:
"To see the machine built and running programs would be the final proof that Babbage really did invent the general purpose computer in the age of the steam engine."
Um, no. "Dreaming up" a thing is not tantamount to "inventing" the thing. "Inventing" implies, to me at least, actually building the thing.
WTF is NFC? Both authors and editors should keep in mind that all acronyms used in the headline (or story) should be defined in the story.
The things were not authenticated correctly. A transaction which the guy didn't want was put through. The authentication system was inadequate for the job
This is a good point. No auth system can be perfect, but perhaps this one was inadequate.
Yeah. My first and second classes were programming classes, first in C++ (intro) then in some LIST-like languages (second class). After that I spend two full years doing proofs and runtime analysis and induction and algorithms, with little or no programming on computers. Yeah, okay, I might have typed up answers and submitted them on a computer, but I wasn't writing and compiling software. After that, in my senior year, we did a lot of programming again in intensive classes. Other students may have mixed in a programming class into their junior year. I graduated in 2002.
Aside: ever since I was in my CS program, I've always disliked the name "Computer Science", largely because I spend two full years of college never using a computer for any of my classes. Calling it Computer Science puts the machine at the center of the endeavor, whereas really it is an abstract conceptual field, like all liberal studies.
I think the field should be called "Computation".
I disagree. My understanding is that "hacker" predates "cracker", and that some nerds decided they didn't like the pejorative sense of "hacker", so they adopted it as their own (cf. "nigger") and proffered "cracker" as a pejorative replacement. Most nerds, and all non-nerds, rejected this attempt at redefining the word "hacker", and continued to use it with its original meaning. To this day, that minority of nerds, especially the ones who like rhetorical pugilism, continue to make their specious case on Internet forums.
I offer the Oxford dictionary as a cite: hacker. Note that your preferred definition is given as a secondary, informal definition. Their definition of "cracker" is similar.
I can't get past your first two sentences. "Do whatever they want" means "no rules". And that is in fact what a free market is -- no rules, do whatever you want -- and that is in fact how policy makers use the phrase: they want a market with no rules, no regulations, no taxes. BUT, that is NOT how most CITIZENS use the phrase, and the policy makers rely on that fact to get support for policies which nearly nobody supports.