The Heritage Provider Network wants to do for healthcare what technology in the film Minority Report did for police work. In other words,
They're going to have doctors using jetpacks to rush to medical crisis? They're going to have have huge data entry systems where you need massive upper body strength to work all day? They're going to have iris scanning all over the place so you're viagra ads are targetted directly to you?
Oh.. you mean the use of *human* pyschics to predict the future! That sure is a weird definition of technology.
And under the GPLv3, you can still do whatever YOU want. The exception comes when you redistribute, because at that point it's not YOU using it, it's SOMEONE ELSE.
If a developer in the forest offers to distribute 3rd party GPLv3 code, and no-one is there to see this, has a GPLv3 violation occured?
So it's quite different from speed traps. I personally think speed limits should be absolute and speed cameras should be covert. We shouldn't feel that it's only necessary to stick to the speed limit when there are overt cameras around. If people knew that 40MPH means 40MPH, and you could get caught anywhere, maybe speed limits could be increased in many places.
I have a problem with speed limits in the US because they aren't absolute. On the freeways you can easily do 75mph in a 65 zone and the police may not even bother to look up from their coffee and doughnuts. But get 15mph over the limit and you are into a whole different penalty scheme, so they start to pay attention a bit more then. So the effective speed limit is some arbitrary value between 65 and 80 that is enforced purely on the discretion of the officer on site, and has nothing to do with the posted limit. But of course if you do get booked, the fines in VA (for example) relate to how fast you were exceeding the posted limit. I'd love an the argument based on the difference between the written law and the enforced (and hence effective) law in this regard. Of course every now and again the cops will do a blitz and book everyone doing over the posted limit - but the weekends when they do that are well publicized.
I haven't read TFA, but the local sales guy in my company no longer drags around a laptop to his sales calls. He is much happier with his 1st gen 3G iPad and his BB.
And the refutation to the GPs generalization is: No True Scotsman!
Simply invoking the name of a well-known logical fallacy isn't much of an argument. Show how it applies.
No
Whoa cowboy, like the GP, thats a pretty big brush you are using there. So do you want to take up your areguments with any of these people (or are Nobel Laureates Not Real Scientists (tm) ?? )
I see no reference to creationism anywhere on that list. Did you actually read what I wrote?
I read what you wrote and the continued use of generalizations, assumptions and projections on your part continues continues to amaze me. And before you write me off as a right-wing conservative religious nut, I am actually a lefty, liberal, non-religious nut.
I can't believe that I am quoting this website.. but I think you should try telling your point of view to these scientists for a start.
(a) All of the scientists on that list are long dead. This is not a coincidence. Science... um... evolves, and what Bacon or Newton believed about a universe about which they knew far less than we do today is irrelevant to the modern practice of science. We take what is useful from their work -- which is a great deal, to be sure -- and discard that which time has shown not to be useful -- which is also a great deal.
And the refutation to the GPs generalization is: No True Scotsman!
(b) In the specific case of Einstein, religion's been trying to claim the guy for a long time, but he made it quite clear in a number of statements toward the end of his life that he wasn't having any. The fact that fundamentalist types have to twist his words and deliberately ignore most of what he said about the subject to make their point is a clear sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
I totally agree that Albert shouldn't be on this list. But I was too lazy to find any other list.
(c) Religion != creationism. There always have been, are, and most likely always will be a great many religious scientists doing good scientific work. In order to do this, they must be willing to accept the logical conclusions of the evidence available to them, and if those conclusions conflict with their beliefs, modify their beliefs accordingly. People who can't do this -- which, given the overwhelming evidence for evolution, means at this point pretty much all creationists -- are incapable of doing actual science.
Whoa cowboy, like the GP, thats a pretty big brush you are using there. So do you want to take up your areguments with any of these people (or are Nobel Laureates Not Real Scientists (tm) ?? )
Laugh at the old Ham guys all you want. When a real disaster hits and the infrastructure goes down, I bet you'll be going to them and asking for their help.
Yeah.. but when the world ends, that will result in sending submarines to San Diego to track down morse keys that are being randomly tapped by coke bottles hooked into window shades that are blowing in the breeze
I was at the bar of a casino with some friends, none of us who gambled. But a girl and I made up a great game - we would order a round of shots and then run over to the coin-in-the-slot breathalyzer and see who blew the highest BAC. That kept our semi drunken persons very amused for an hour or so.
A "security analyst" wanted to make the big time by writing a program that would help out the SCO case. He sold SCO on this idea, but due to the lameness of his program it never produced the expected results. As such, SCO paid him off and moved on
Everybody knows that backups are good, cloud or no cloud. Everybody knows that things go wrong, cloud or no cloud.
The trouble is, that while you are correct, that the general populous makes the assumption that because you are in the cloud that there are no problems and that backups are required. I have had this argument myself before that the cloud is not perfect. And while you are at it throw in the additional fact that if the company hosting your cloud decides it is no longer profitable, then you better have a backup for that reason as well.
but maple syrup on the bacon? n.please, what is wrong with these people? - gluttony and stupidity come to mind
Its not the maple syrup that bugs me, its that the bacon has to be cooked to the point that its is crispy and will shatter when you try and stick a fork in it.
Slashdot Mirror
And in 1973 a disappointed Sisqo sang "Let me see that Phong..."
Oh Cisco ..
Oh Pancho ...
The Cisco Kid
The Heritage Provider Network wants to do for healthcare what technology in the film Minority Report did for police work. In other words,
They're going to have doctors using jetpacks to rush to medical crisis? They're going to have have huge data entry systems where you need massive upper body strength to work all day? They're going to have iris scanning all over the place so you're viagra ads are targetted directly to you?
Oh .. you mean the use of *human* pyschics to predict the future! That sure is a weird definition of technology.
Alas, the most corrupt will communicate off the record anyway.
This is a key point, as various politicians in recent years have been caught using non official email accounts for their "official" duties.
And under the GPLv3, you can still do whatever YOU want. The exception comes when you redistribute, because at that point it's not YOU using it, it's SOMEONE ELSE.
If a developer in the forest offers to distribute 3rd party GPLv3 code, and no-one is there to see this, has a GPLv3 violation occured?
I love how the the _background_ of his video is in focus!
So it's quite different from speed traps. I personally think speed limits should be absolute and speed cameras should be covert. We shouldn't feel that it's only necessary to stick to the speed limit when there are overt cameras around. If people knew that 40MPH means 40MPH, and you could get caught anywhere, maybe speed limits could be increased in many places.
I have a problem with speed limits in the US because they aren't absolute. On the freeways you can easily do 75mph in a 65 zone and the police may not even bother to look up from their coffee and doughnuts. But get 15mph over the limit and you are into a whole different penalty scheme, so they start to pay attention a bit more then. So the effective speed limit is some arbitrary value between 65 and 80 that is enforced purely on the discretion of the officer on site, and has nothing to do with the posted limit. But of course if you do get booked, the fines in VA (for example) relate to how fast you were exceeding the posted limit. I'd love an the argument based on the difference between the written law and the enforced (and hence effective) law in this regard. Of course every now and again the cops will do a blitz and book everyone doing over the posted limit - but the weekends when they do that are well publicized.
Who thinks a tablet could replace a laptop?
I haven't read TFA, but the local sales guy in my company no longer drags around a laptop to his sales calls. He is much happier with his 1st gen 3G iPad and his BB.
Whoooooosh
And the refutation to the GPs generalization is: No True Scotsman!
Simply invoking the name of a well-known logical fallacy isn't much of an argument. Show how it applies.
No
Whoa cowboy, like the GP, thats a pretty big brush you are using there. So do you want to take up your areguments with any of these people (or are Nobel Laureates Not Real Scientists (tm) ?? )
I see no reference to creationism anywhere on that list. Did you actually read what I wrote?
I read what you wrote and the continued use of generalizations, assumptions and projections on your part continues continues to amaze me. And before you write me off as a right-wing conservative religious nut, I am actually a lefty, liberal, non-religious nut.
Replying to myself because I can't edit my typo. That should have been "The refutation to my statement that the GP was generalizing"
I can't believe that I am quoting this website .. but I think you should try telling your point of view to these scientists for a start.
(a) All of the scientists on that list are long dead. This is not a coincidence. Science ... um ... evolves, and what Bacon or Newton believed about a universe about which they knew far less than we do today is irrelevant to the modern practice of science. We take what is useful from their work -- which is a great deal, to be sure -- and discard that which time has shown not to be useful -- which is also a great deal.
And the refutation to the GPs generalization is: No True Scotsman!
(b) In the specific case of Einstein, religion's been trying to claim the guy for a long time, but he made it quite clear in a number of statements toward the end of his life that he wasn't having any. The fact that fundamentalist types have to twist his words and deliberately ignore most of what he said about the subject to make their point is a clear sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
I totally agree that Albert shouldn't be on this list. But I was too lazy to find any other list.
(c) Religion != creationism. There always have been, are, and most likely always will be a great many religious scientists doing good scientific work. In order to do this, they must be willing to accept the logical conclusions of the evidence available to them, and if those conclusions conflict with their beliefs, modify their beliefs accordingly. People who can't do this -- which, given the overwhelming evidence for evolution, means at this point pretty much all creationists -- are incapable of doing actual science.
Whoa cowboy, like the GP, thats a pretty big brush you are using there. So do you want to take up your areguments with any of these people (or are Nobel Laureates Not Real Scientists (tm) ?? )
Believing in creationism is a sure sign of a bad scientist.
I can't believe that I am quoting this website .. but I think you should try telling your point of view to these scientists for a start.
So who is this Higgs bozo and how in hell's name did he lose his singlet yesterday before he even got it?
Laugh at the old Ham guys all you want. When a real disaster hits and the infrastructure goes down, I bet you'll be going to them and asking for their help.
Yeah .. but when the world ends, that will result in sending submarines to San Diego to track down morse keys that are being randomly tapped by coke bottles hooked into window shades that are blowing in the breeze
The future is now!
I mean the future is now, Now!
Missed it again, so it's now Now.
Damn it .. will you all stop moving Now, so I can know that the future is here.
The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten!
I just tried that famous phrase via google and got ..
The flesh is weak but the spirit is willing. => Russian => the flesh is weak but the spirit is ready.
I'm sure a native Russian speaker could debate the choice of "ready" over "willing" (Especially if I could paste from translate to here!)
run it thru pretty print or some other formatter before sending it.
Nah .. run it twice though Google translate
Nah .. ejecutarlo dos veces a través de Google Translate
Nah .. twice run through Google Translate
Am I allowed to mark something as "Not like"???!?!??!?!
Enough to explore the idea of a sort of launch loop?
I'm curious to know where you are going to put this thing. Its not a case of NIMBY, but NIMC (Not in My Continent)
it was actually just self-aggrandizement, same as that prick Assange..
And you know this for certain how?
I was at the bar of a casino with some friends, none of us who gambled. But a girl and I made up a great game - we would order a round of shots and then run over to the coin-in-the-slot breathalyzer and see who blew the highest BAC. That kept our semi drunken persons very amused for an hour or so.
A "security analyst" wanted to make the big time by writing a program that would help out the SCO case. He sold SCO on this idea, but due to the lameness of his program it never produced the expected results. As such, SCO paid him off and moved on
There! No need for conspiracy theories at all.
Is this a relevant story because the fraud happened online, or because of some other reason that is not in TFA?
Everybody knows that backups are good, cloud or no cloud. Everybody knows that things go wrong, cloud or no cloud.
The trouble is, that while you are correct, that the general populous makes the assumption that because you are in the cloud that there are no problems and that backups are required. I have had this argument myself before that the cloud is not perfect. And while you are at it throw in the additional fact that if the company hosting your cloud decides it is no longer profitable, then you better have a backup for that reason as well.
but maple syrup on the bacon? n.please, what is wrong with these people? - gluttony and stupidity come to mind
Its not the maple syrup that bugs me, its that the bacon has to be cooked to the point that its is crispy and will shatter when you try and stick a fork in it.