It does, indeed, matter very much who you love (I'm taking love here as sexual companionship, not agape). For instance, if you have a wife and child and you choose to not love your wife and instead love some other woman (or man), and leave that person for the other, you have in fact displeased God and done great harm to your wife and (especially) child.
So it does matter who you love; I think most engineers would agree.
Tolerance is a relative thing. You probably consider yourself a tolerant person, maybe you tolerate abortion, for instance. To you, opposing abortion may be intolerant and unacceptible. But to be tolerating abortion is equivalent to tolerating murder. So no, I don't think in many cases God is tolerant. His followers may be tolerant, in that we don't stone the wicked, but we are not tolerant of the evil itself. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
I could just as well say you are guilty of hubris in thinking that the only true religion is no religion, or relative religion, or agnosticism, or whatever. It is no less hubris to claim there is one true God than it is to claim that declaring so is hubris itself (lots of self-reference in that sentence, sorry).
It's quite sad to be a human being, in that we ourselves our fallen sinners; I'll agree to that one. But we have a saviour, if we accept them, that's our way out.
Your view of marriage very much depends on your beliefs. For me, marriage is a type of Christ and the church (husband and wife), and is a temporary thing until one of the spouses die (divorce between Christians is not allowed). Some cultures think the main purpose is raising children, in fact in Islamic societies not producing children is a valid cause for divorce. On the other hand, I know many Christians who have been married for a long time and have no children, and that's okay.
The reason you don't see anything is because 1) the computer field tends to be quite liberal 2) any non-positive gay comments gets modded down to flamebait. Positive gay comments get modded up. Part of what you are seeing is the culture, but it's amplified by the bias of the moderators.
Try http://www.seejanewalk.com or http://www.lexus2.com;
There are many mirrors of safe surf sites that will let you bypass the filters. You just have to search around for the pages.
Why was this modded up? This is the usualy typical anti-GPL rant. Hardly worth a five. Worth more like a -1. Please don't mod up this junk and ruin my slashdot morning.
It's not just in national labs and defense work; key financial networks also use a similar strategy. Take Fedwire, for example, the network that transmits enormous quantities of money electronically every day. The network connections have special nodes with plastic coverings that are designed to corrode the chips if you ever try to open them. The nodes are accessed through sneakernet at banks.
Fortunately, (The Matrix aside), it's still harder for crackers to break the electronic barrier than the physical barrier.
I'm not sure if it's GPL'd, but it may have to be. UT Austin did some work on distributed memory allocation that blew the current Solaris implementation out of the water. Fortunately, that work was GPL'd. Go Blum-Foe!;-)
The GPL Virus at Work.
These rants against computers all generally take the same bent, that computers should be as easy as insert choice of well-known technology here. Automobiles, telephones, televisions, airplanes, all these things require various degrees of training before one can use them. I realize it's not very hard to use a TV, but then again it doesn't do much but just spit content at you. An automobile is much more difficult and requires significant training, learning the correct speeds, traffic manuvers, and especially parallel parking. I won't even mention flying an airplane, which is in many respects far more difficult than being a kernel hacker.
What is infrequently realized is that as a techology becomes more embedded into society and has been around for generations, it becomes 'easy' because it's ubiquitous. But it's not inherently easy, just put a New Guinea tribesman who's never seen a telephone next to one and ask him to call the nearest flint salesman. To misquote Einstein, technology should be as easy to use as possible, but no easier.
Very good men still have flaws. One of these is sometimes writing insecure code. It happens to the best of us.
If finding a root exploit in a single piece of software takes down a vital part of your country's infrastructure, it's not the software that's at fault. It's the fault of the engineers that did poor infrastructure design. There's a well-known engineering term for this: single point-of-failure. I'm sorry to say that the internet does not deal as well with this as it should; but we'll either change that or learn the hard way.
Single point-of-failure is bad. That's the problem: using one point of software failure. Using different DNS BIND implementations, redundant roll-over networks, multiple roots will help aleviate this. Writing more secure code from the get-go will also make sure each point of failure is less likely to be exploited. Everyone wins, except maybe doom-and-gloom do what I say now or the internet will die tonight false prophets.
RUN the internet on an insecure single point-of-failure, and you've already shot yourself in the foot. Paul's proposal is using a band-aid for a gunshot wound.
If you have a very important piece of software,
and you're worried about bugs and exploits,
keeping an NDA list of security problems isn't going to help. Anyone who knows about cracking knows that breakin techniques pass as much by word-of-mouth as they do by an email list or web site. What you need is not to hide the bugs; you need to eliminate them in the first place.
I'm sure most readers are familiar with TeX, and its virtually bug-free state. It got that way through a well thought-out design, extremely well documented code, and verification proofs.
So what we need is for people to use the same techniques as Knuth used in TeX to write replacements for vital internet functions. It will take longer and offer less features than hack-and-go code, but if it's really that important you can afford the extra time and cost.
Remember: software can be fast, cheap, or correct. Pick two of three.
Slashdot Mirror
So it does matter who you love; I think most engineers would agree.
I could just as well say you are guilty of hubris in thinking that the only true religion is no religion, or relative religion, or agnosticism, or whatever. It is no less hubris to claim there is one true God than it is to claim that declaring so is hubris itself (lots of self-reference in that sentence, sorry).
It's quite sad to be a human being, in that we ourselves our fallen sinners; I'll agree to that one. But we have a saviour, if we accept them, that's our way out.
Your view of marriage very much depends on your beliefs. For me, marriage is a type of Christ and the church (husband and wife), and is a temporary thing until one of the spouses die (divorce between Christians is not allowed). Some cultures think the main purpose is raising children, in fact in Islamic societies not producing children is a valid cause for divorce. On the other hand, I know many Christians who have been married for a long time and have no children, and that's okay.
The reason you don't see anything is because 1) the computer field tends to be quite liberal 2) any non-positive gay comments gets modded down to flamebait. Positive gay comments get modded up. Part of what you are seeing is the culture, but it's amplified by the bias of the moderators.
Try http://www.seejanewalk.com or http://www.lexus2.com;
There are many mirrors of safe surf sites that will let you bypass the filters. You just have to search around for the pages.
Why was this modded up? This is the usualy typical anti-GPL rant. Hardly worth a five. Worth more like a -1. Please don't mod up this junk and ruin my slashdot morning.
Fortunately, (The Matrix aside), it's still harder for crackers to break the electronic barrier than the physical barrier.
I'm not sure if it's GPL'd, but it may have to be. UT Austin did some work on distributed memory allocation that blew the current Solaris implementation out of the water. Fortunately, that work was GPL'd. Go Blum-Foe! ;-)
The GPL Virus at Work.
What is infrequently realized is that as a techology becomes more embedded into society and has been around for generations, it becomes 'easy' because it's ubiquitous. But it's not inherently easy, just put a New Guinea tribesman who's never seen a telephone next to one and ask him to call the nearest flint salesman. To misquote Einstein, technology should be as easy to use as possible, but no easier.
If finding a root exploit in a single piece of software takes down a vital part of your country's infrastructure, it's not the software that's at fault. It's the fault of the engineers that did poor infrastructure design. There's a well-known engineering term for this: single point-of-failure. I'm sorry to say that the internet does not deal as well with this as it should; but we'll either change that or learn the hard way.
Single point-of-failure is bad. That's the problem: using one point of software failure. Using different DNS BIND implementations, redundant roll-over networks, multiple roots will help aleviate this. Writing more secure code from the get-go will also make sure each point of failure is less likely to be exploited. Everyone wins, except maybe doom-and-gloom do what I say now or the internet will die tonight false prophets.
RUN the internet on an insecure single point-of-failure, and you've already shot yourself in the foot. Paul's proposal is using a band-aid for a gunshot wound.
If you have a very important piece of software, and you're worried about bugs and exploits, keeping an NDA list of security problems isn't going to help. Anyone who knows about cracking knows that breakin techniques pass as much by word-of-mouth as they do by an email list or web site. What you need is not to hide the bugs; you need to eliminate them in the first place. I'm sure most readers are familiar with TeX, and its virtually bug-free state. It got that way through a well thought-out design, extremely well documented code, and verification proofs. So what we need is for people to use the same techniques as Knuth used in TeX to write replacements for vital internet functions. It will take longer and offer less features than hack-and-go code, but if it's really that important you can afford the extra time and cost. Remember: software can be fast, cheap, or correct. Pick two of three.