I'd disagree. One of the reasons the military uses drones is that they are more stealthy than helicopters or planes, so the "enemy" has less chance of detecting them.
So the police shouldn't use drones because they are more effective? Should they also stop using unmarked cars, or police cruisers with the lights mounted inside the cabin/grill instead of top of the car? Perhaps all cops should wear their uniform, and never go undercover.
I'm one for putting strict controls on police, especially vis-a-vis the use of force, and this new tactic does raise some important questions, but I think the argument that this is bad simply because its a more effective tool is pretty weak.
I'll echo those who are saying not to rule out online backup. I use Carbonite at home and Carbonite Pro at work. If you commit to three years, Carbonite is $43.33 per year (you can get an additional discount with offer code twit or twig IIRC). The initial backup will take several weeks for that much data if you have a standard broadband connections (i.e.
We have limited upstream bandwidth at work, and rolling it out on multiple machines did place a noticeable strain on our connection, but for a home user you should be fine.
Was I the only one who had to read the summary's first sentence about four or five times to get that 'unhappy' was being used as a noun and not an adjective? I think the problem was the hyperlink. Had it started with 'rousted' I think I would have been able to parse the sentence much easier.
I agree with you about OpenID. It needs to be far more user friendly. And you do have a point about FB login - it works because it's so user-friendly (i.e. easy to set up). The danger is that it is not an open standard, and it puts too many eggs in one basket. If there were enough choices of ID providers, then maybe I wouldn't be so worried. But then the website has to enable all of them. Better to have some open standard like OpenID in which the authentication could be done by Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, Microsoft, yourself or whomever. Then each website could enable the single standard, and the user could choose which "host" to use for his/her ID authentication.
Read Matt Taibbi's blog post over at Rolling Stone. They are using what's called a "Special Purpose Vehicle." Basically, the SPV invests in Facebook, and Goldman's hand-picked clients invest in the SPV. You don't have to disclose financials if you have less than 500 investors, and the SPV only counts as one.
Even if they controlled the entire online ad market, they wouldn't have nearly that value.
Google's market cap is $196B. And their 2009 revenue of $23.65 B is nearly all (97%) from advertising.
Where did you get your online advertising figure? If you're right (and Google's audited financial statement is too), that would imply that Google owns 91.6% of the market.
I don't understand this question in the context of your post and link. But to answer it, no, I recognize that our sensing devices (biological or technological) can give us input which our brains misinterpret.
What Penn is saying is that, from the moral point of view of a theist who believes in eternal life or damnation, evangelism is imperative. He doesn't respect the non-evangelist because they don't fully embrace their belief system. He still thinks their belief system is nutty. Basically what he's saying is that the non-evangelist is a hypocrite. And I'm not sure how that acts as a counterpoint to what I said. My position is that the evangelist who effects real change in the world can (and usually does) do harm by infringing on others' rights.
So in conclusion while I'm sure it'd be nice for Linux adoption if all people did at work was use a browser or make documents, but that is rarely the case. It is all those OTHER apps that are used every single day that bite you in the ass, NOT Windows and Office.
The SMB I work for migrated from Quickbooks to a full-fledged ERP software system that runs on Linux (though we all access it through a Windows client). Ironically, the company we bought it from was bought out by a larger software company that bought up a bunch of other software companies in our industry (food manufacturing/distribution). They are integrating all these disparate system into a single web-based SaaS product that runs on.NET.
System security is like viewed by non-techies like the admin. As long as there is no (known) breach, as long as the network is up, they don't care about it/him/her, and would rather do without.
Please cite the scientific study you have done to support this belief-based conclusion.
It's based on a myriad of anecdotal evidence. It's not based on faith. Is my positional assailable? Sure. But it's more defensible than that of a Creationist.
You do realize that Christianity makes no such claims, yes?
OK. Abortion then. It was an example. Plenty of Christians argue for prohibition (or against gay marriage, or for Creationism or prayer in schools, or for government funded welfare, or for/against gun rights, etc.) citing moral/religious grounds. See: Temperance Movement. Again, my issue isn't with the belief in God, but with the repercussions in the real world of people holding such a belief, and the baggage that comes with it.
but events like climategate have proven that the 'squabbles' actually suppress it.
I don't want to get sidetracked by this, but I fail to see how the actions of a handful of scientists "prove" that Truth is suppressed by the community at large.
I'll grant that not every scientist worships at this altar, but many if not most do. Certainly the ones dictating the consensus do.
What's your source for "most scientists worship at this altar"? Science is not perfect - it's done by people after all. Mistakes are made, and biases color the results. But overall, it does a much better job at revealing Truth than religion or Faith does.
Do you think we learned more about the universe since the Age of Enlightenment, or is all the time of history before then?
No, I'm not. I'm taking the position that imposing one's beliefs on others when those beliefs have no scientific, empirical, or provable basis, is wrong. Imposing a belief, such as a belief in the Theory of Evolution, which can be be supported by facts, tests, etc., is not wrong.
If more people "believed" in evolution, the world would be a better place. If more people believed in creationism (or ID), the world would be a worse place, because in practice, people's beliefs tend to affect how those people interact in meaningful ways with their neighbors (e.g. by voting on school board members).
You're determining that people should not be allowed to believe something that cannot be supported by empirical evidence.
Well, I'm actually in agreement with the GP I originally responded to. I don't really care if those beliefs aren't acted on vis-a-vis the rest of the world. But, as I've said, that's rarely, if ever, the case. If someone is going to tell me "Don't do X" or "Do Y" then they better have a good, rational argument for making such law, and relying on an invisible feller's proclamations from a burning bush doesn't cut it.
There's a significant difference between saying a drug should be illegal because of various costs it imposes on society (e.g. deaths, health care costs, unemployment, etc.) and saying the drug should be illegal because God said so.
That's religion, as opposed to faith, vis-a-vis the post above yours.
Are you saying that the "religion" of the Scientific Method is akin to the religion of Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, etc.)? If so, I disagree. Science doesn't start off assuming to know the Truth. It builds up to it. And academic blacklisting and political squabbles notwithstanding, the correct idea wins in the end. On the other hand, the various religions of the world all contain a variety of memes which are pretty ridiculous.
I see a lot more examples of people with unsupportable beliefs "doing harm" (i.e. imposing those beliefs on others) than not. It doesn't take a Senator to do so. I'm not supposed to care that Mormon's believe that Joseph Smith talked to God and wrote it down on plates of gold? OK, but thanks in part to them, my neighbors and friends here in California still don't have the same rights I do.
It's all well and good to say "believe whatever you want, just do no harm." But that's not how it works in practice.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to adhere to a faith, or to a religion, as long as you recognize that as a choice.
So, as long as I recognize it as a choice, there is nothing wrong with holding any belief without any empirical evidence whatsoever in support of such a belief? I beg to differ.
For private citizens, sure. Prosecutors have a lot of leeway in deciding who to prosecute. If it were the government though, it would certainly be inadmissible (unless they had a warrant to search the email, or called the wife a terrorist).
Slashdot Mirror
I'd disagree. One of the reasons the military uses drones is that they are more stealthy than helicopters or planes, so the "enemy" has less chance of detecting them.
So the police shouldn't use drones because they are more effective? Should they also stop using unmarked cars, or police cruisers with the lights mounted inside the cabin/grill instead of top of the car? Perhaps all cops should wear their uniform, and never go undercover.
I'm one for putting strict controls on police, especially vis-a-vis the use of force, and this new tactic does raise some important questions, but I think the argument that this is bad simply because its a more effective tool is pretty weak.
effects = affects... know the difference people...
'Effects' equals 'affects'? And all this time I thought they meant different things. Thanks for the heads up!
Sadly NOTHING has happened. No drive failures, nothing..
Where do you live? I can help with that.
1. Make an encrypted RAR.
2. Make a torrent of the RAR.
3. Name the torrent "underage girls peeing on teen lesbians".
4. Start seeding.
I'll echo those who are saying not to rule out online backup. I use Carbonite at home and Carbonite Pro at work. If you commit to three years, Carbonite is $43.33 per year (you can get an additional discount with offer code twit or twig IIRC). The initial backup will take several weeks for that much data if you have a standard broadband connections (i.e.
We have limited upstream bandwidth at work, and rolling it out on multiple machines did place a noticeable strain on our connection, but for a home user you should be fine.
Other than money, can anyone cite an upside to working in IT?
I'm the only one monitoring the network logs.
not as dramatic as you might think.
Only because of the scale of the y-axis.
Was I the only one who had to read the summary's first sentence about four or five times to get that 'unhappy' was being used as a noun and not an adjective? I think the problem was the hyperlink. Had it started with 'rousted' I think I would have been able to parse the sentence much easier.
They recently changed the MSSE license to allow you to use up to 10 instances of it in a business for free. http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/eula.aspx
When I was a kid, I always thought the line was, "Money for nothing, and checks for free."
I wanted to get an account as his bank so badly.
I agree with you about OpenID. It needs to be far more user friendly. And you do have a point about FB login - it works because it's so user-friendly (i.e. easy to set up). The danger is that it is not an open standard, and it puts too many eggs in one basket. If there were enough choices of ID providers, then maybe I wouldn't be so worried. But then the website has to enable all of them. Better to have some open standard like OpenID in which the authentication could be done by Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, Microsoft, yourself or whomever. Then each website could enable the single standard, and the user could choose which "host" to use for his/her ID authentication.
I will only allow comments from people with a social network account (twitter followers, facebook friends).
Thank you for promising to contribute to the death of the internet. How you got from OpenID to Facebook sign-in I have no idea.
Read Matt Taibbi's blog post over at Rolling Stone. They are using what's called a "Special Purpose Vehicle." Basically, the SPV invests in Facebook, and Goldman's hand-picked clients invest in the SPV. You don't have to disclose financials if you have less than 500 investors, and the SPV only counts as one.
How much of the third world would place Facebook ahead of not being raped or forced to starve to death?
Dude, have you seen Facebook's new profile page?
Even if they controlled the entire online ad market, they wouldn't have nearly that value.
Google's market cap is $196B. And their 2009 revenue of $23.65 B is nearly all (97%) from advertising.
Where did you get your online advertising figure? If you're right (and Google's audited financial statement is too), that would imply that Google owns 91.6% of the market.
Don't they also get a cut from game sales? I think X cents of every Zynga dollar goes to Facebook.
Do you believe everything you see?
I don't understand this question in the context of your post and link. But to answer it, no, I recognize that our sensing devices (biological or technological) can give us input which our brains misinterpret.
Even an intelligent master magician who is an atheist believes in evangelism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdvES4_MJ5Y
What Penn is saying is that, from the moral point of view of a theist who believes in eternal life or damnation, evangelism is imperative. He doesn't respect the non-evangelist because they don't fully embrace their belief system. He still thinks their belief system is nutty. Basically what he's saying is that the non-evangelist is a hypocrite. And I'm not sure how that acts as a counterpoint to what I said. My position is that the evangelist who effects real change in the world can (and usually does) do harm by infringing on others' rights.
So in conclusion while I'm sure it'd be nice for Linux adoption if all people did at work was use a browser or make documents, but that is rarely the case. It is all those OTHER apps that are used every single day that bite you in the ass, NOT Windows and Office.
The SMB I work for migrated from Quickbooks to a full-fledged ERP software system that runs on Linux (though we all access it through a Windows client). Ironically, the company we bought it from was bought out by a larger software company that bought up a bunch of other software companies in our industry (food manufacturing/distribution). They are integrating all these disparate system into a single web-based SaaS product that runs on .NET.
System security is like viewed by non-techies like the admin. As long as there is no (known) breach, as long as the network is up, they don't care about it/him/her, and would rather do without.
Please cite the scientific study you have done to support this belief-based conclusion.
It's based on a myriad of anecdotal evidence. It's not based on faith. Is my positional assailable? Sure. But it's more defensible than that of a Creationist.
You do realize that Christianity makes no such claims, yes?
OK. Abortion then. It was an example. Plenty of Christians argue for prohibition (or against gay marriage, or for Creationism or prayer in schools, or for government funded welfare, or for/against gun rights, etc.) citing moral/religious grounds. See: Temperance Movement. Again, my issue isn't with the belief in God, but with the repercussions in the real world of people holding such a belief, and the baggage that comes with it.
but events like climategate have proven that the 'squabbles' actually suppress it.
I don't want to get sidetracked by this, but I fail to see how the actions of a handful of scientists "prove" that Truth is suppressed by the community at large.
I'll grant that not every scientist worships at this altar, but many if not most do. Certainly the ones dictating the consensus do.
What's your source for "most scientists worship at this altar"? Science is not perfect - it's done by people after all. Mistakes are made, and biases color the results. But overall, it does a much better job at revealing Truth than religion or Faith does.
Do you think we learned more about the universe since the Age of Enlightenment, or is all the time of history before then?
You are exemplifying what you claim to oppose.
No, I'm not. I'm taking the position that imposing one's beliefs on others when those beliefs have no scientific, empirical, or provable basis, is wrong. Imposing a belief, such as a belief in the Theory of Evolution, which can be be supported by facts, tests, etc., is not wrong.
If more people "believed" in evolution, the world would be a better place. If more people believed in creationism (or ID), the world would be a worse place, because in practice, people's beliefs tend to affect how those people interact in meaningful ways with their neighbors (e.g. by voting on school board members).
You're determining that people should not be allowed to believe something that cannot be supported by empirical evidence.
Well, I'm actually in agreement with the GP I originally responded to. I don't really care if those beliefs aren't acted on vis-a-vis the rest of the world. But, as I've said, that's rarely, if ever, the case. If someone is going to tell me "Don't do X" or "Do Y" then they better have a good, rational argument for making such law, and relying on an invisible feller's proclamations from a burning bush doesn't cut it.
There's a significant difference between saying a drug should be illegal because of various costs it imposes on society (e.g. deaths, health care costs, unemployment, etc.) and saying the drug should be illegal because God said so.
That's religion, as opposed to faith, vis-a-vis the post above yours.
Are you saying that the "religion" of the Scientific Method is akin to the religion of Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, etc.)? If so, I disagree. Science doesn't start off assuming to know the Truth. It builds up to it. And academic blacklisting and political squabbles notwithstanding, the correct idea wins in the end. On the other hand, the various religions of the world all contain a variety of memes which are pretty ridiculous.
OK, so my point was inelegantly made.
I see a lot more examples of people with unsupportable beliefs "doing harm" (i.e. imposing those beliefs on others) than not. It doesn't take a Senator to do so. I'm not supposed to care that Mormon's believe that Joseph Smith talked to God and wrote it down on plates of gold? OK, but thanks in part to them, my neighbors and friends here in California still don't have the same rights I do.
It's all well and good to say "believe whatever you want, just do no harm." But that's not how it works in practice.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to adhere to a faith, or to a religion, as long as you recognize that as a choice.
So, as long as I recognize it as a choice, there is nothing wrong with holding any belief without any empirical evidence whatsoever in support of such a belief? I beg to differ.
For private citizens, sure. Prosecutors have a lot of leeway in deciding who to prosecute. If it were the government though, it would certainly be inadmissible (unless they had a warrant to search the email, or called the wife a terrorist).
he successfully used a computer, which makes him a nerd. The prosecutor is a chick, and chicks hate nerds.
Not my chick, thank Darwin.