I would be extremely surprised if this was anything other than a viral marketing campaign by the makers of the 'nerf' guns they where using. tbh, I just find it more cringe worthy than anything else - having a bit of spontaneous fun in the office is all good well and good, but 'organised chaos' is just a bit muuhuhhh.
Also, "I reboot my computer... why should I have to reboot my computer?" I find it hard to realize that he wouldn't know the technical difficulties in replacing a dll while the system is running, and possible ways around this, and the current state of affairs. However, maybe I'm giving too much credit here.
I think you are missing the point. Of course he knows the ins and outs of why a reboot may be requested - it is lazy programming - rather than work out what needs stopped/brought down and in what order, then brought up again, it is easier just to do a reboot and let the bootup process handle it all. The point he is making is not 'why is it technically required to reboot the system', but 'why are you making things more awkward for the users when there is no technical reason why this is required'. It is a rhetorical question bemoaning his developers/designers laziness, not a technical query.
Whenever I have listen to Gates talk or talked to him (many, many years ago now, in the late 90's) he seems more than aware of problems with his product, and I always get this vibe "I'm doing it because I can and it is really, really, really good for business and nobody is stopping me."
I think differently. I get the impression that it is not so much because he can and no-one is stopping him, it is because he _needs_ to. He is a driven guy and needs to excel at what he does, and be at the top. I understand that, and am driven the same way in a lot of what I do. But where he gets it wrong, and the frequent criticism placed at him, is what works for the underdog does not work for the overdog(?). To take a trivial example, I'm pretty hot at tekken, and enjoy competing with equally and better skilled players, and put a lot of effort into improving and being better than others. However, when I play against more casual players, I scale back and relax a bit, give them a bit of space to experiment. Microsoft does not do this, and continues to fight with all its muscle against the biggest and smallest of competitors, which is bad for Microsoft, bad for the competitors, but for the consumers, and bad for IT in general.
To take it back to the tekken matches - If I was to play at my full level against a beginner, I can thrash them without letting them get a hit, game after game. Tedious for me, and ultimately unsatisfying. Extremely tedious for the opponent, and completely unsatisfying. Their ability to learn anything about the game and improve is severely limited, and the likelihood is that they will quickly give up, never to return.
On the other hand, if I scale down, relax a bit, then we all benefit. If I add to that advice on how to improve in the game, then I am at once improving my understanding of the game, by looking at it through the eyes of a beginner again. My opponent is enjoying the challenge, and benefiting from learning from someone playing to his standard rather than button bashing with another beginner, or getting thrashed by a less thoughtful pro, and may decide they like the game enough to get more seriously into it, thereby adding more competition and potentially someone who I could learn much from (who in turn with hopefully use this attitude to encourage others). We all benefit.
You might argue the scenarios donâ(TM)t match â" In a game you want more competition, in a business you want less, thereby increasing your profits. This is only the case if money is the ultimate goal, which I donâ(TM)t think in the case of Microsoft (or any other) is true. Money is useful only as a means to an end, or as a score marker to rate your success. What does motive a company could be a number of things â" power, idealism etc. but in the case of Bill Gates I believe it is to compete. Unfortunately his hunger to win blinds him to the fact that he is playing in a very empty playground.
On the statistics side - You bring up best sellers and the lottery. Statistics can prove that people can and do win the lottery, but as you say it does not demonstrate that one individual will win/not win. I am not suggesting that statistics will demonstrate a particular individual should or should not benefit from praying, what I am saying is that if there is a beneficial affect from praying, then over a large sample it will differentiate between the praying and non-praying. If it does not, then over a large sample there will be no difference, and therefore demonstrate that the people who pray have not been given any benefit by it. To compare the two, buying two lottery tickets should double your chances, so analysing winners of a lottery should show that people who buy two or more tickets are more likely to win, but again buying two tickets is still a small chance of winning and therefore will not affect the individuals chance by much.
On the explaintation side, I have had a lengthy discussion with a pastor (whether this was a true title or self awarded I do not know) whos premise was 'god was love' and although he used as much ambiguity as he could, the general premise seemed to be that he did not believe in a god as an entity, but worshiped the human emotion love, while he claimed to be a christian. There have been plenty others who have their own 'core' belief (for example, you do not need to love or even acknowledge god, so long as you lead a good life) and still call themselves christian. They all claim that they are right.
But anyway, yes I'm happy to carry on the discussion, but I think we have exhausted the relevence to this this topic, so it is not the best place to do so:)
So are all these people with their different believes right? Are they all wrong? Is one particular view right? Are they prepared to define it without eventually trying to redefine it under scrutiny?
1: "beliefs" 2: No, Maybe, yes, more than you'd think. 3: Gospel time!
1: Excellent, I feel myself improving already. 2: Indeed so? How so?
God exists. He created everything, and commanded us to behave justly and rightly. We all failed, and for this we deserve to burn in hell. But -- Good news! -- He loves us. So, he sent Jesus Christ to show us a better way, and Jesus died a rather painful death in the effort. If you do your best to live as Jesus showed you, and most importantly love Him and God, He'll keep you out of Hell and you'll live forever with Him (and, by extension, everyone else who loves Him.)
Skipping the unprovable or mystic variations, that's Christianity.
No, that's your take on it.
It cannot be disproven by Science, nor are there any internal fallicies within it. There is, however, ample room for crap thrown on top of it. And I'll agree that the crap is crap.
But the crap is not my religion.
The explaination you give is crap. If there was some sort of god being with that amount of power, who creates beings to fail, tortures his son/himself for this and says thats all ok then, all I ask is that you love me or I will send you to be tortured forever. What sort of immoral weirdo would consider this a being worthy of worship?
So basically praying is of no benefit, and you are just as statiscally likely to benefit (because god wants to fuck up any statistical analysis) from not praying as you will by praying? Really?????
Statistically speaking? Sure. But statistics are for measuring what thousands of people do. They mean shit when it comes to your personal life.
If you buy a lottery ticket, you might win a crazy amount of money. Statistically you won't -- but every few weeks, someone does.
I don't think you really understand statistics.
(I never said prayer has no benefit. I said that prayer has no statistical benefit, because God apparently answers the prayers of non-Christians or just grants random miracles to fuck up statistical studies about prayer.)
Again, so praying is of no benefit - by what you say you are just as likely to benefit without praying.
The same bible you say is wrong?... You quote a book you say is wrong to prove your assertion?
I never said the Bible was wrong. I said that not all Christians believe it to be the completely inerrant and entirely factual testimony of God. My personal belief is that the Bible contains enough of the Truth to be beneficial in the balance, and that it contains enough intentional errors and contradictions to keep dogma from overshadowing gospel.
So you like to pick-n-mix approach, and feel you have the knowledge to know which bits are supposed to be listened to, and which are 'wrong'?
And, in the part you were replying to, I was referencing the Bible as a generally container of faith. And it is. Some Christians believe that it's distorted truth, others perfect allegory, but all hold it in reverence as a message of some kind from their/our God.
No, that is not funny nor true. Science places a theory forward that stands until it is disproven, at which point is is happily put aside for the new theory. Religion (or the religious) will say a thing until it gets too painfully obvious that is it bogus, then wriggle to a new definition.
Hold on for a minute, I need to stop laughing.
Scientists are every bit as stubborn and half-witted as the religious. They say that they really want to see change, and wou
Hi, I'm a Christian, and you're wrong.
The Christian religion believes that the bible in the inerrant word of their god Some scientists believe JFK was assassinated and the USAF covers up aliens. Does this mean disproving either one disproves Science? No.
No Christian denomination believes that the bible we have today is a literal testimony of God without error. Some believe that the Bible was this as originally written, and has since been mistranslated. Others believe that the Bible is exactly what God wants it to be, errors and all. And still others give no special credence to the Bible, aside from being a unifying body of books without significant errors when it comes to matters of faith. So are all these people with their different believes right? Are they all wrong? Is one particular view right? Are they prepared to define it without eventually trying to redefine it under scrutiny?
Do you believe praying can have a positive outcome in medical cases? Then there should be a statistical difference between the mortality of praying Christians and non-praying. Wrong again. Christian doctrine holds that God loves all of man, not just the Christians. And I don't think Christians have a monopoly on wanting to get better when they are ill, or wishing for their loved ones to recover when their loved ones are so afflicted.
Even if you suppose that Christians are given special dispensation, it's well within God's stated powers to grant enough additional people health so as to confound the study, while still granting his prayers. So basically praying is of no benefit, and you are just as statiscally likely to benefit (because god wants to fuck up any statistical analysis) from not praying as you will by praying? Really?????
What science cannot disprove is a story that is redefined every time it is questioned, and fobs most stuff of to 'the mystery'.
Funny. If you switch "science" and "religion" in your thesis, you get the exact same result. Science is, by definition, "a story that is redefined every time it is [successfully] questioned." No, that is not funny nor true. Science places a theory forward that stands until it is disproven, at which point is is happily put aside for the new theory. Religion (or the religious) will say a thing until it gets too painfully obvious that is it bogus, then wriggle to a new definition.
Considering that the Chistian Bible contains an injunction against anything more than simple statements of Gospel The same bible you say is wrong?
.., and a prediction that future events of God will not be known by man, you can't disprove Christianity by testing a supposed secondary belief. You quote a book you say is wrong to prove your assertion?
Either you say that christianity has no impact on the physical world we can measure and test, or it does not.
That'd be like trying to disprove gravity by seeking to establish that it's not related to mass -- if you succeeded, you wouldn't somehow make this force that pulls us to the center of the Earth and keeps the earth spinning around the Sun go away. No It is not.
Science can easily disprove a Christian-style religion, it is a trivial task to be done. The Christian religion believes that the bible in the inerrant word of their god. The bible is full of in-factualities and inconstancies, therefore the Christian religion is proved wrong. Now, many of the slightly more enlightened followers realise this, but then get scared, so they redefine their religion to cater for it, picking and choosing what passages are what god meant, and which are merely popped in for the fun of it. But again, many claims can be tested. Do you believe praying can have a positive outcome in medical cases? Then there should be a statistical difference between the mortality of praying Christians and non-praying. There isn't*, so again, it is proved wrong.
What science cannot disprove is a story that is redefined every time it is questioned, and fobs most stuff of to 'the mystery'. But anyone who can conduct some honest self questioning does not need science to prove/disprove it.
*I saw a study of it somewhere previously, but can't find the link, so don't take my word for it, check it out if you want to repeat it:)
I don't disagree with you there is nothing complex in setting up some sort of automated system, and most developers should be able to set it up without much fuss, but what I am getting at (and I find this attitude prevalent on slashdot) is that a simple task is still a task, and still takes time, will generally will take longer than expected, and once you take ownership of a task, then it is something that will require ongoing attention.
I'm willing to bet you could setup a sourceforge account, add a brief blurb and upload your first release in less time than it would take you to find a hosting provider and get the details (payment method etc.) sorted. After that you still have to put a page up, write a script to upload, test the script, and then run it. Simple tasks, but time consuming, and adds an extra aspect to your project that you have to maintain.
On the topic of creating a directory - yes it is trivial but it is still a task - you need to decide how it will be structured (requiring either time spent planning or latter changing it). Then how do you use this with the script? Perhaps you have an entry in the makefile to do a release i.e. make release VERSION=1.0. You want to place it in a folder, perhaps you update it to go 'make VERSION=1.1 DIR=RELEASE1' - already you have added an extra manual task to your supposed automated script. Or you could spend more time on the script to parse the major version number from the version, but that is more time away from your project and adds more parts to the script that may go wrong.
And what you are talking in your last paragraph is accessing the site as a user, not a project manager, and I'm not sure how that differs with the proposed auto script to upload a tarball, which can (and has) been done equally poorly.
Its possible, but for your average situation for your average code monkey it is not a trivial task -
1- Consider how you will show the release - mod_dir, a generated html page, a dymaic htmlpage etc.
2- Consider what you will need (ssh/ftp/web/php/mysql or whatever).
3- a find hosting provider - if you don't know one of hand trwal google for the features you need at a good price that seems reputible.
4- create the html/php whatever for the site (its going to need a few help pages at least), create the server side engine you will need (if needed)
5. Write a shell script to upload
6. Maintain - even the most basic of systems needs some loving - making sure the bills are paid, it isn't hacked, it displays what is is supposed to. May be a very quick task to do so, but it is still an extra task.
Remembering as well that the less work you put into 4, the crappier it will work - mod_dir will work fine but doesn't give any extras - all the details will need to be in the filename and if you release often will become a big list - probably the first in a long series of upgrades will be adding directories. As time goes by you will probably want to add extras, such as release notes, documentation etc. all adding tasks to the initial project.
Alternatively, you go to sourceforge, create your project, add a few blurbs and you are ready to roll. The structure is there for documentation, help, forums etc. to scale as you need (you will probably want to expand to your own site at some point if it grows aqnyway, but at least this can be put of for some time).
I have never hosted a project on sourceforge, so fair point you caught me out:)
Disagree that creating your own site is easier (you may build a site so it becomes easier, but you are going to have to maintain that project for a long time before the time spent setting it up pays off).
Many people do not have a static IP or the knowledge of how to get a domain/sever space/ write the cgi etc to do this, or want to
Free of course does not mean free of critism, but you put it across like it is a bad thing to use - but so far you have not given anything that is better.
uploading your file is hardly a hardship. Pray tell, how else do you offer an app without somesort of uploading, and ftp may have its faults, but for a (usually) small file, it can be done in a few strokes/clicks.
The selecting from a long list is a different issue, one for the downloader, so not immediately relevent, but anyhow, if you spend a small amount of time, then this is a simple and straight foward task for the user (if you are lazy and spend no time mamaging it, then yes, you _COULD_ make it more complicated for the user).
But as the parent posters point was, this is a site that offers _free_ hosting and mangement software for your project. For a small amount of effort on your part, you get a/free/ base to launch your app with. Pretty fair in my book.
Are you making money out of the universitity deal - if so then it is a different question, you want to know how to make money out of goodwill.
If not then the universitity deal is irrelevent - you write OS software because you want to, who uses it or what they do with it should only ever be of secondary concern, and if it because more worrying than enjoying working on it, drop it.
If you are looking for like minded people to share your interest and help you, then that is a matter of going out to find them - go to chat rooms and forums etc that you find interesting - you are more likely to find people of the same interests there (much like you are doing in posting here, so well done in that:))
So, good luck, enjoy the code and disconcern yourself with all else:)
I have done both, and yes one of the points he is making is that there is no tolerance for ID in may scientific establishments. He does however bring in a lot of erroneous examples to make this point.
Secondly, the reason science teachers teaching ID is not tolerated, is because it is not science. Quite simple - someone teaching ID in a science class is not doing their job.
Stein does reject Darwinism for the evolution species. Evolution has nothing to do with where life comes from - it answers why life is like it is now. The beginnings of life is another question, which has many interesting conjectures and experiments, but nothing to do with evolution.
He also blames Darwin for the holocaust (always a nice move) and is patently and obviously dishonest in word and action (he used sound tracks without permission, copied animations without permission, got interviews based on false premises etc.)
The fact is, ID is complete and utter nonsense. Try reading anything advancing ID. The idea itslef is so fool of logical falicies it would not fool a open minded six year old. Google some of their 'proofs' - either they are extremely lazy, or they provide proofs they know are false. No serious honest person, whether Christian or otherwise takes ID seriously, it is just extremists attempt to muddy the waters because they fear people have too much knowledge and more and more are coming to realise the ludicrousness of religion.
I certainly wouldn't want to get into a religious war about what languages are better for a given situation. Undoubtedly there are better languages and frameworks for particular situations than C. However, C has a lot going for it - it has been around for eons in computing timeframes, has a huge amount of knowledge and experience around it, huge amounts of libraries etc. Also, the very fact it can be 'dangerous' can be seen as a benefit - I know that having learnt C early in my programming developed greatly helped make me a better programmer, and I find I am constantly explaining concepts such as stacks, pointers, garbage collection etc. to programmers who have just learnt a higher level language, where the concepts are still important but not directly needed to use them (why would someone understand garbage collection if they have never had experience of programming without it?).
My real issue with the parent poster is the reactionary use of the term 'ban' - I would allow, and probably agree with, use of low level languages should be discouraged when a higher level language could do the same or better job, but really that situation pretty much already exists anyway. If he made the point that flash itself would be better off being written in a different language, and backed it up with some evidence, that could have been informative, However he does not even know what language flash was written, then calls his assumption a 'vivid example of why these languages should be banned'. This, in my mind, is pure sillyness.
"The only things which need precise control of underlaying hardware are the parts of device drivers which actually control the hardware (as opposed to sanitizing input or talking to the rest of the system). Flash isn't a device driver, it is an utility program."
As mentioned, my knowledge of Flash internals is close to zero, so I have no comment to make on that, my comment was that there are plenty of occassions when it is needed - expecially when you get out the the PC centric idea that all computers have a keyboard mouse and nice GUI.
"Absurd analogies aside, doesn't this bug - and thousands upon thousands just like it - prove that your average programmer needs to be babysat ?"
No, its proves that programming is still a art/practise/whatever you want to call it in its infancy, with still plenty of leassons to learn. People have been building structures for thousands of years, yet mistakes are still made (leading to direct loss of life). That does not mean tools such as hammer and nails should be banned.
"Besides, just why are you so hostile towards the of having the computer automatically make correctness checks that stop this kind of thing from happening, and as a side effect lessen the burden of the programmer considerably ? Is it some form of geek machismo - "Real Men manage their own memory" ?"
I'm not at all, and don't think any was applied. I currently program a lot in.NET, and am really impressed by the language. However I do (in OS development) have plenty of need to use a low level language, such as assembly or C. My hostility is towards reactionary comments from someone who obviously does not understand what he is talking about.
That is just silly, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of programming. High level langauges with built in checks and safties are very useful in a lot of situations, but they do not meet the needs when precision and control of the underlaying hardware is required. Whether flash needs this level of control I do not know, but plenty of applications do.
And, oh yes, WTF!!OMG!! - '...should be banned...'. Yeah, ban the filthy programming languages that don't babysit the programmer. While we are at it lets ban corners, very dangerous.
"If you find that there's no reason left to read slashdot, don't read it. "
Where did you get "no reason left to read slashdot" from? Perhaps my comment "...and slashdot generally hits the nail on the head" might have given you a clue that I usually am quite happy with slashdot? Or perhaps you are answering a point other than the one I made?
"Personally, I couldn't care less about the latest hissy fit between RMS and Theo, the latest Ballmer antics, or most of the other crap you listed. "
Fair enough, you have your own reasons for coming here, I am sure they are valid, not exactly sure what point that is making though.
"I know my personal threshold for when I'll stop reading it. I've seen a few stories that make me question what editors were smoking. But I take serious offense when people try to pretend that their view of geekdom is the only valid one, and that slashdot should only cater to their exact view of it."
Nobody is trying to pretend that. There are plenty of stories on slashdot that don't interest me, and don't hit my 'geek' buttons, but I do recognize them as valid topics and gently pass over them to the next. I do think the 'everyone has a different view so you can't make that call' argument a tad weak. People do have their differences, there are overlaps and the boundaries are fuzzy, but anyone who can take a step back and make a reasoned argument should not cause anyone 'serious offence'. Perhaps a little on the sensitive side?
"And btw, there's no confusion about Family Guy being geek. If you would have watched more than one or two episodes, you'd know that it is chock-full of geek humor, geek issues and geek cred."
So pop-culture making references to geek culture makes it geek? I don't buy it. As mentioned, I do enjoy family guy, have have watched a fair few more than one or two episodes. Just as pretty much all other pop-culture, it certainly does have plenty of references to geek culture. I recall an episode where Luis learned kung-fu, should this article also be in a kung-fu journal?
Expecting a site with a defined topic 'News for nerds', and more importantly an inferred audience type to stick to its agenda is hardly an unreasonable request. Slashdot is made by the audience, so I don't see how an audience member (me) taking some time to voice my opinion on how I would rather not see it move further in this direction should cause 'serious offence'. I did not say 'wtf is this doing on slashdot, what are the editors smoking, slashdot suxs' I briefly laid out my reasons without getting too bogged down.
"In short, hand in your geek card, sign up for a frat, and stand in line for initiation paddling."
I'm interested in how you get 'This topic shouldn't be on the agenda' to 'inference of no valid reason to consider yourself a geek, frat boy'.Particularly with someone who takes 'serious offense when people try to pretend that their view of geekdom is the only valid one'.
Perhaps you should consider tightening your argument skills before mounting ill advices ad hominem attacks.
There is a lot of overlap between geek culture and pop culture, and slashdot generally hits the nail on the head. In this case however, I have to throw my lot in with the '!news' ground and say this is not a topic slashdot should be covering, and it is not a direction I want to see it go in. I like family guy, and am mildly interested in a spin-off. In fact, i have a few opinions on the matter I might be inclined to share on a comment site - but not slashdot. Slashdot is my haven of geekhood, where I read about the latest hizzy fit between RMS and theo de raadt, SCO zanyness, steve balmars latest dance moves etc. It is not where I go for the latest goings on in the realm of 'generation X', pop culture, my-face-bebo-boy land. It does overlap, but that doesn't mean there aren't boundries.
Sure, there was a few articles about futurama - futurama = sci-fi = geek. No problem. Perhaps somehow a confusion arrived thinking futurama = animated, family guy = animated, therefore it is geek! Family guy has no geek crediential. No reason to be on slashdot. This is not fox-watch, not 'animation-maniac-fans.com'. They are not using some highly clever bit of software automate production of the two shows. It is news for pop-culture, not news for nerd.
Where is it going to end - a sidebar with the top ten funniest you-tube clips? 50 different smiley characters and RTF entry text box to spice up the comments (not fogetting flashing text)?
Lets try to keep slashdot geek, and let the pop-culture sites do pop culture.
I'm afraid I'm not going to take your word for that. While I have no doubt that there are nuclear experts out (russian and elsewhere) who would sell these abilities to the highest bidding, I doubt there are many starving (neclear expert means well educated, which usually means middle to upper class, which means they rarely feel the full force of a down turn in economics). There are however armies of government agents who would regard anyone with detailed knowledge of nuclear reactions as someone worth keeping an eye on. They also keep a good eye on possible terrorist, particularly possible terrorist who have enough money to finance such an operation. You don't just put an ad in the local paper looking for a nuclear expert and material - you shift money around and make contacts, and those sorts of circles are the circles a lot of attention is spent on.
On the other hand, the general populous spends their time looking at Britney spears, and so long as the government is telling them they are in danger, they are quite happy to give up any freedom so long as they can still shop in walmart and watched Britney spears fuck herself up.
And your idea that this will not happen based on some sort of bluff that the guns will be turned on the government if need be (but it won't happen so it doesn't matter) seems a little short sighted. Consider Bush's re-election. Whether _you_ beleive it was rigged or not, many people do. Consider that, many people in America believed that Bush was not the legal President, that the person living in the White house was a fraud. But what did they do? Did they get their guns out, march to washington and demand that their legally elected president be immediately instated? Or did they complain for a while then accept the status quo? So what makes you think that at some point the population would realise that perhaps they have given up a freedom to many, and it is time for a change, whatever it takes?
"I would say that the war on drugs has done far more damage to the constitution than has the war on terror."
Perhaps, perhaps not, not really relevent to the point though.
"I see the rampant fear of the government getting some sort of despotic control out of effort to protect the country to be more far-fetched than my fear of a nuke on Wall Street."
We have seen examples of democratic governments turning into or being replaced by dictatorships. We see examples of freedoms and rights being removed. We have never seen any example of a small group executing a single mass destruction event, the only example of an atomic bomb being used in history having been done by a certain western government. Why would you see a situation we know as possible as more far fetched than one we only consider possible?
"As for what makes the USA more immune to the idea of the government getting total control, I believe it is the 2nd amendment and the presence of over 250 million guns in American society. Yes, most gun owners won't get involved, but that simply clears the way for the few million that will. A government cannot defeat its own people when they are determined and they are armed."
Basically what you are saying is 'It's ok, if they screw up we can have a civil war and sort it all out'.
Well, again you are using an imagined scenario to justify an action. I can also imagine a scenario where 20 years down the line the american government controls how many kids you have and when, what school they go to and what they learn there, where you have to work, what you eat, and oppressing and critism. And the people saying 'why did we let it get this way'. And I can imagine lots of other scenarios, none of which justify taking a position - it is useful to point us to what to consider and what information to gather, but not on settling on a position, as you have done.
We already know that many of the liberties and freedoms are being erroded in this 'war against terror', we also know that the fear spread about terrorists by western governments has far more impact on the changing of our socity than any actions by terrorists. We know that many of the threats are greatly exaggerated (dirty bombs, liquid exposives etc.). We know that many government agencies are not above using new 'anti-terrorist' laws in ways that they where not intended. There is no evidence of any terrorist group getting anywhere near a nuke.
You seem to think the idea that the government could take more control from the people as not worth considering, yet that very idea was the foundation of America, and the American government has been doing just that under the excuse of protecting from terrorists. History has plenty of examples of democrasies erroding, what do you know which makes America so special that it could not heppen there?
Consider this - what is better, freedom to chose or freedom from harm? Lion in the zoo, or Lion in the jungle. Me? I'm a jungle creature, you sound very much like you belong in the zoo.
"We have to start thinking like we're a society under attack, because we are."
Society is always under attack, both from within and from without. The first thing you have to decide before doing something to protect 'society', is establish whether the method will in itself change (therefore 'attack') the very society you are trying to protect. Constantly adding a means to 'look over your shoulder' will change a society from a free and relaxed society to a paranoid and controlled society.
"Just because the bastards haven't been able to mount a serious threat within the US borders since 9/11 doesn't mean they wouldn't like to"
Gifted with our imagination, we can come up with an infinite amount of ways we can be harmed, but simply saying it is possible is not justification for any level of measure against it. Careful consideration has to be given to the risk of the threat against the negative aspects of the protective measures.
"Its probably just a matter of time until these yahoos do get their hands on a nuke. This would be just the thing to stop them in their tracks."
Speculation. And if this system was put into place, would it be fool proof. If a group was organised enough to get a nuke, manage to smuggle it to the country of destination, I would suspect they would be organised enough to come up with a way to hide it (lead casing perhaps?)
"Try imagining the alternative, such as maybe your own neighbourhood looking like the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki all the way out to the horizon. If not your own neighbourhood, how about your friend's neighbourhood, or your relatives neighbourhood? Is that OK? I say it is not."
Again, just because you imagine an awful thing, does not justify any level of preventive measures. I can imagine a mass alien invasion, but I don't think that warrants issuing all citizens with rocket launchers. I do not have enough information to properly evaluate the cost/risks for either of these events, and I see no evidence that you do either.
"I'm sitting in Kuwait on the way out of Iraq after working a science and tech advisor job to the US military in counter-IED work. Take my word, the enemy is smart, capable, and desireous of wiping us off the face of the earth if they can. They take the most innocuous materials and figure out ways to kill you with it. If they get their hands on a nuke, and we don't have proper countermeasures, a whale of a lot of Americans will die, and if not you, at least several people you know and some you care about."
We cannot verify your position, so better to stick to the facts. SO far, the evidence has been that the 'enemy' is generally badly organised and stupid, and most of the 'smart' attack vectors have been thought up by western security 'experts' and generally are argued to be implausible (liquid bombs on planes for example).
By the way - I am neither for or against this idea (it 'feels' wrong to me, but like I say, I don't have enough info to make a sound judgement), but I am against the whole 'this is good because terrorism is bad' line of argument. Yes, it can be argued the other side 'this is bad because freedom is good' is just as bad, but would you rather your default position was one of paranoia or one of freedom?
BoomerSooner - Very true, but I would only be using a small amount of its potential. Personally, I think a modern OS should _make use_ of modern hardware, not _use up_ modern hardware.
*And the Dot-matrix would require a parellel port, so no go there.
Slashdot Mirror
I would be extremely surprised if this was anything other than a viral marketing campaign by the makers of the 'nerf' guns they where using. tbh, I just find it more cringe worthy than anything else - having a bit of spontaneous fun in the office is all good well and good, but 'organised chaos' is just a bit muuhuhhh.
Also, "I reboot my computer ... why should I have to reboot my computer?" I find it hard to realize that he wouldn't know the technical difficulties in replacing a dll while the system is running, and possible ways around this, and the current state of affairs. However, maybe I'm giving too much credit here.
I think you are missing the point. Of course he knows the ins and outs of why a reboot may be requested - it is lazy programming - rather than work out what needs stopped/brought down and in what order, then brought up again, it is easier just to do a reboot and let the bootup process handle it all. The point he is making is not 'why is it technically required to reboot the system', but 'why are you making things more awkward for the users when there is no technical reason why this is required'. It is a rhetorical question bemoaning his developers/designers laziness, not a technical query.Whenever I have listen to Gates talk or talked to him (many, many years ago now, in the late 90's) he seems more than aware of problems with his product, and I always get this vibe "I'm doing it because I can and it is really, really, really good for business and nobody is stopping me."
I think differently. I get the impression that it is not so much because he can and no-one is stopping him, it is because he _needs_ to. He is a driven guy and needs to excel at what he does, and be at the top. I understand that, and am driven the same way in a lot of what I do. But where he gets it wrong, and the frequent criticism placed at him, is what works for the underdog does not work for the overdog(?). To take a trivial example, I'm pretty hot at tekken, and enjoy competing with equally and better skilled players, and put a lot of effort into improving and being better than others. However, when I play against more casual players, I scale back and relax a bit, give them a bit of space to experiment. Microsoft does not do this, and continues to fight with all its muscle against the biggest and smallest of competitors, which is bad for Microsoft, bad for the competitors, but for the consumers, and bad for IT in general.To take it back to the tekken matches - If I was to play at my full level against a beginner, I can thrash them without letting them get a hit, game after game. Tedious for me, and ultimately unsatisfying. Extremely tedious for the opponent, and completely unsatisfying. Their ability to learn anything about the game and improve is severely limited, and the likelihood is that they will quickly give up, never to return.
On the other hand, if I scale down, relax a bit, then we all benefit. If I add to that advice on how to improve in the game, then I am at once improving my understanding of the game, by looking at it through the eyes of a beginner again. My opponent is enjoying the challenge, and benefiting from learning from someone playing to his standard rather than button bashing with another beginner, or getting thrashed by a less thoughtful pro, and may decide they like the game enough to get more seriously into it, thereby adding more competition and potentially someone who I could learn much from (who in turn with hopefully use this attitude to encourage others). We all benefit.
You might argue the scenarios donâ(TM)t match â" In a game you want more competition, in a business you want less, thereby increasing your profits. This is only the case if money is the ultimate goal, which I donâ(TM)t think in the case of Microsoft (or any other) is true. Money is useful only as a means to an end, or as a score marker to rate your success. What does motive a company could be a number of things â" power, idealism etc. but in the case of Bill Gates I believe it is to compete. Unfortunately his hunger to win blinds him to the fact that he is playing in a very empty playground.
On the statistics side - You bring up best sellers and the lottery. Statistics can prove that people can and do win the lottery, but as you say it does not demonstrate that one individual will win/not win. I am not suggesting that statistics will demonstrate a particular individual should or should not benefit from praying, what I am saying is that if there is a beneficial affect from praying, then over a large sample it will differentiate between the praying and non-praying. If it does not, then over a large sample there will be no difference, and therefore demonstrate that the people who pray have not been given any benefit by it. To compare the two, buying two lottery tickets should double your chances, so analysing winners of a lottery should show that people who buy two or more tickets are more likely to win, but again buying two tickets is still a small chance of winning and therefore will not affect the individuals chance by much.
:)
On the explaintation side, I have had a lengthy discussion with a pastor (whether this was a true title or self awarded I do not know) whos premise was 'god was love' and although he used as much ambiguity as he could, the general premise seemed to be that he did not believe in a god as an entity, but worshiped the human emotion love, while he claimed to be a christian. There have been plenty others who have their own 'core' belief (for example, you do not need to love or even acknowledge god, so long as you lead a good life) and still call themselves christian. They all claim that they are right.
But anyway, yes I'm happy to carry on the discussion, but I think we have exhausted the relevence to this this topic, so it is not the best place to do so
Sheesh. Learn to quote. Anyway.
Sheesh. I will place it on my to-do list.
So are all these people with their different believes right? Are they all wrong? Is one particular view right? Are they prepared to define it without eventually trying to redefine it under scrutiny?
1: "beliefs"
2: No, Maybe, yes, more than you'd think.
3: Gospel time!
1: Excellent, I feel myself improving already.
2: Indeed so? How so?
God exists. He created everything, and commanded us to behave justly and rightly. We all failed, and for this we deserve to burn in hell. But -- Good news! -- He loves us. So, he sent Jesus Christ to show us a better way, and Jesus died a rather painful death in the effort. If you do your best to live as Jesus showed you, and most importantly love Him and God, He'll keep you out of Hell and you'll live forever with Him (and, by extension, everyone else who loves Him.)
Skipping the unprovable or mystic variations, that's Christianity.
No, that's your take on it.
It cannot be disproven by Science, nor are there any internal fallicies within it. There is, however, ample room for crap thrown on top of it. And I'll agree that the crap is crap.
But the crap is not my religion.
The explaination you give is crap. If there was some sort of god being with that amount of power, who creates beings to fail, tortures his son/himself for this and says thats all ok then, all I ask is that you love me or I will send you to be tortured forever. What sort of immoral weirdo would consider this a being worthy of worship?
So basically praying is of no benefit, and you are just as statiscally likely to benefit (because god wants to fuck up any statistical analysis) from not praying as you will by praying? Really?????
Statistically speaking? Sure. But statistics are for measuring what thousands of people do. They mean shit when it comes to your personal life.
If you buy a lottery ticket, you might win a crazy amount of money. Statistically you won't -- but every few weeks, someone does.
I don't think you really understand statistics.
(I never said prayer has no benefit. I said that prayer has no statistical benefit, because God apparently answers the prayers of non-Christians or just grants random miracles to fuck up statistical studies about prayer.)
Again, so praying is of no benefit - by what you say you are just as likely to benefit without praying.
The same bible you say is wrong? ... You quote a book you say is wrong to prove your assertion?
I never said the Bible was wrong. I said that not all Christians believe it to be the completely inerrant and entirely factual testimony of God. My personal belief is that the Bible contains enough of the Truth to be beneficial in the balance, and that it contains enough intentional errors and contradictions to keep dogma from overshadowing gospel.
So you like to pick-n-mix approach, and feel you have the knowledge to know which bits are supposed to be listened to, and which are 'wrong'?
And, in the part you were replying to, I was referencing the Bible as a generally container of faith. And it is. Some Christians believe that it's distorted truth, others perfect allegory, but all hold it in reverence as a message of some kind from their/our God.
No, that is not funny nor true. Science places a theory forward that stands until it is disproven, at which point is is happily put aside for the new theory. Religion (or the religious) will say a thing until it gets too painfully obvious that is it bogus, then wriggle to a new definition.
Hold on for a minute, I need to stop laughing.
Scientists are every bit as stubborn and half-witted as the religious. They say that they really want to see change, and wou
Absolutely not. Bollocks.
Even if you suppose that Christians are given special dispensation, it's well within God's stated powers to grant enough additional people health so as to confound the study, while still granting his prayers. So basically praying is of no benefit, and you are just as statiscally likely to benefit (because god wants to fuck up any statistical analysis) from not praying as you will by praying? Really????? What science cannot disprove is a story that is redefined every time it is questioned, and fobs most stuff of to 'the mystery'. Funny. If you switch "science" and "religion" in your thesis, you get the exact same result. Science is, by definition, "a story that is redefined every time it is [successfully] questioned." No, that is not funny nor true. Science places a theory forward that stands until it is disproven, at which point is is happily put aside for the new theory. Religion (or the religious) will say a thing until it gets too painfully obvious that is it bogus, then wriggle to a new definition. Considering that the Chistian Bible contains an injunction against anything more than simple statements of Gospel The same bible you say is wrong?
.., and a prediction that future events of God will not be known by man, you can't disprove Christianity by testing a supposed secondary belief. You quote a book you say is wrong to prove your assertion? Either you say that christianity has no impact on the physical world we can measure and test, or it does not. That'd be like trying to disprove gravity by seeking to establish that it's not related to mass -- if you succeeded, you wouldn't somehow make this force that pulls us to the center of the Earth and keeps the earth spinning around the Sun go away. No It is not.Science can easily disprove a Christian-style religion, it is a trivial task to be done. The Christian religion believes that the bible in the inerrant word of their god. The bible is full of in-factualities and inconstancies, therefore the Christian religion is proved wrong. Now, many of the slightly more enlightened followers realise this, but then get scared, so they redefine their religion to cater for it, picking and choosing what passages are what god meant, and which are merely popped in for the fun of it. But again, many claims can be tested. Do you believe praying can have a positive outcome in medical cases? Then there should be a statistical difference between the mortality of praying Christians and non-praying. There isn't*, so again, it is proved wrong.
:)
What science cannot disprove is a story that is redefined every time it is questioned, and fobs most stuff of to 'the mystery'. But anyone who can conduct some honest self questioning does not need science to prove/disprove it.
*I saw a study of it somewhere previously, but can't find the link, so don't take my word for it, check it out if you want to repeat it
I don't disagree with you there is nothing complex in setting up some sort of automated system, and most developers should be able to set it up without much fuss, but what I am getting at (and I find this attitude prevalent on slashdot) is that a simple task is still a task, and still takes time, will generally will take longer than expected, and once you take ownership of a task, then it is something that will require ongoing attention.
I'm willing to bet you could setup a sourceforge account, add a brief blurb and upload your first release in less time than it would take you to find a hosting provider and get the details (payment method etc.) sorted. After that you still have to put a page up, write a script to upload, test the script, and then run it. Simple tasks, but time consuming, and adds an extra aspect to your project that you have to maintain.
On the topic of creating a directory - yes it is trivial but it is still a task - you need to decide how it will be structured (requiring either time spent planning or latter changing it). Then how do you use this with the script? Perhaps you have an entry in the makefile to do a release i.e. make release VERSION=1.0. You want to place it in a folder, perhaps you update it to go 'make VERSION=1.1 DIR=RELEASE1' - already you have added an extra manual task to your supposed automated script. Or you could spend more time on the script to parse the major version number from the version, but that is more time away from your project and adds more parts to the script that may go wrong.
And what you are talking in your last paragraph is accessing the site as a user, not a project manager, and I'm not sure how that differs with the proposed auto script to upload a tarball, which can (and has) been done equally poorly.
Its possible, but for your average situation for your average code monkey it is not a trivial task -
1- Consider how you will show the release - mod_dir, a generated html page, a dymaic htmlpage etc.
2- Consider what you will need (ssh/ftp/web/php/mysql or whatever).
3- a find hosting provider - if you don't know one of hand trwal google for the features you need at a good price that seems reputible.
4- create the html/php whatever for the site (its going to need a few help pages at least), create the server side engine you will need (if needed)
5. Write a shell script to upload
6. Maintain - even the most basic of systems needs some loving - making sure the bills are paid, it isn't hacked, it displays what is is supposed to. May be a very quick task to do so, but it is still an extra task.
Remembering as well that the less work you put into 4, the crappier it will work - mod_dir will work fine but doesn't give any extras - all the details will need to be in the filename and if you release often will become a big list - probably the first in a long series of upgrades will be adding directories. As time goes by you will probably want to add extras, such as release notes, documentation etc. all adding tasks to the initial project.
Alternatively, you go to sourceforge, create your project, add a few blurbs and you are ready to roll. The structure is there for documentation, help, forums etc. to scale as you need (you will probably want to expand to your own site at some point if it grows aqnyway, but at least this can be put of for some time).
I have never hosted a project on sourceforge, so fair point you caught me out :)
Disagree that creating your own site is easier (you may build a site so it becomes easier, but you are going to have to maintain that project for a long time before the time spent setting it up pays off).
Many people do not have a static IP or the knowledge of how to get a domain/sever space/ write the cgi etc to do this, or want to
Free of course does not mean free of critism, but you put it across like it is a bad thing to use - but so far you have not given anything that is better.
uploading your file is hardly a hardship. Pray tell, how else do you offer an app without somesort of uploading, and ftp may have its faults, but for a (usually) small file, it can be done in a few strokes/clicks.
/free/ base to launch your app with. Pretty fair in my book.
The selecting from a long list is a different issue, one for the downloader, so not immediately relevent, but anyhow, if you spend a small amount of time, then this is a simple and straight foward task for the user (if you are lazy and spend no time mamaging it, then yes, you _COULD_ make it more complicated for the user).
But as the parent posters point was, this is a site that offers _free_ hosting and mangement software for your project. For a small amount of effort on your part, you get a
Are you making money out of the universitity deal - if so then it is a different question, you want to know how to make money out of goodwill.
If not then the universitity deal is irrelevent - you write OS software because you want to, who uses it or what they do with it should only ever be of secondary concern, and if it because more worrying than enjoying working on it, drop it.
If you are looking for like minded people to share your interest and help you, then that is a matter of going out to find them - go to chat rooms and forums etc that you find interesting - you are more likely to find people of the same interests there (much like you are doing in posting here, so well done in that
So, good luck, enjoy the code and disconcern yourself with all else
I have done both, and yes one of the points he is making is that there is no tolerance for ID in may scientific establishments. He does however bring in a lot of erroneous examples to make this point.
Secondly, the reason science teachers teaching ID is not tolerated, is because it is not science. Quite simple - someone teaching ID in a science class is not doing their job.
Stein does reject Darwinism for the evolution species. Evolution has nothing to do with where life comes from - it answers why life is like it is now. The beginnings of life is another question, which has many interesting conjectures and experiments, but nothing to do with evolution.
He also blames Darwin for the holocaust (always a nice move) and is patently and obviously dishonest in word and action (he used sound tracks without permission, copied animations without permission, got interviews based on false premises etc.)
The fact is, ID is complete and utter nonsense. Try reading anything advancing ID. The idea itslef is so fool of logical falicies it would not fool a open minded six year old. Google some of their 'proofs' - either they are extremely lazy, or they provide proofs they know are false. No serious honest person, whether Christian or otherwise takes ID seriously, it is just extremists attempt to muddy the waters because they fear people have too much knowledge and more and more are coming to realise the ludicrousness of religion.
I certainly wouldn't want to get into a religious war about what languages are better for a given situation. Undoubtedly there are better languages and frameworks for particular situations than C. However, C has a lot going for it - it has been around for eons in computing timeframes, has a huge amount of knowledge and experience around it, huge amounts of libraries etc. Also, the very fact it can be 'dangerous' can be seen as a benefit - I know that having learnt C early in my programming developed greatly helped make me a better programmer, and I find I am constantly explaining concepts such as stacks, pointers, garbage collection etc. to programmers who have just learnt a higher level language, where the concepts are still important but not directly needed to use them (why would someone understand garbage collection if they have never had experience of programming without it?).
My real issue with the parent poster is the reactionary use of the term 'ban' - I would allow, and probably agree with, use of low level languages should be discouraged when a higher level language could do the same or better job, but really that situation pretty much already exists anyway. If he made the point that flash itself would be better off being written in a different language, and backed it up with some evidence, that could have been informative, However he does not even know what language flash was written, then calls his assumption a 'vivid example of why these languages should be banned'. This, in my mind, is pure sillyness.
"The only things which need precise control of underlaying hardware are the parts of device drivers which actually control the hardware (as opposed to sanitizing input or talking to the rest of the system). Flash isn't a device driver, it is an utility program."
.NET, and am really impressed by the language. However I do (in OS development) have plenty of need to use a low level language, such as assembly or C. My hostility is towards reactionary comments from someone who obviously does not understand what he is talking about.
As mentioned, my knowledge of Flash internals is close to zero, so I have no comment to make on that, my comment was that there are plenty of occassions when it is needed - expecially when you get out the the PC centric idea that all computers have a keyboard mouse and nice GUI.
"Absurd analogies aside, doesn't this bug - and thousands upon thousands just like it - prove that your average programmer needs to be babysat ?"
No, its proves that programming is still a art/practise/whatever you want to call it in its infancy, with still plenty of leassons to learn. People have been building structures for thousands of years, yet mistakes are still made (leading to direct loss of life). That does not mean tools such as hammer and nails should be banned.
"Besides, just why are you so hostile towards the of having the computer automatically make correctness checks that stop this kind of thing from happening, and as a side effect lessen the burden of the programmer considerably ? Is it some form of geek machismo - "Real Men manage their own memory" ?"
I'm not at all, and don't think any was applied. I currently program a lot in
That is just silly, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of programming. High level langauges with built in checks and safties are very useful in a lot of situations, but they do not meet the needs when precision and control of the underlaying hardware is required. Whether flash needs this level of control I do not know, but plenty of applications do.
And, oh yes, WTF!!OMG!! - '...should be banned...'. Yeah, ban the filthy programming languages that don't babysit the programmer. While we are at it lets ban corners, very dangerous.
"Don't read the stories that don't interest you"
...and slashdot generally hits the nail on the head" might have given you a clue that I usually am quite happy with slashdot? Or perhaps you are answering a point other than the one I made?
Yep, that's a novel one, might try that.
"If you find that there's no reason left to read slashdot, don't read it. "
Where did you get "no reason left to read slashdot" from? Perhaps my comment "
"Personally, I couldn't care less about the latest hissy fit between RMS and Theo, the latest Ballmer antics, or most of the other crap you listed. "
Fair enough, you have your own reasons for coming here, I am sure they are valid, not exactly sure what point that is making though.
"I know my personal threshold for when I'll stop reading it. I've seen a few stories that make me question what editors were smoking. But I take serious offense when people try to pretend that their view of geekdom is the only valid one, and that slashdot should only cater to their exact view of it."
Nobody is trying to pretend that. There are plenty of stories on slashdot that don't interest me, and don't hit my 'geek' buttons, but I do recognize them as valid topics and gently pass over them to the next. I do think the 'everyone has a different view so you can't make that call' argument a tad weak. People do have their differences, there are overlaps and the boundaries are fuzzy, but anyone who can take a step back and make a reasoned argument should not cause anyone 'serious offence'. Perhaps a little on the sensitive side?
"And btw, there's no confusion about Family Guy being geek. If you would have watched more than one or two episodes, you'd know that it is chock-full of geek humor, geek issues and geek cred."
So pop-culture making references to geek culture makes it geek? I don't buy it. As mentioned, I do enjoy family guy, have have watched a fair few more than one or two episodes. Just as pretty much all other pop-culture, it certainly does have plenty of references to geek culture. I recall an episode where Luis learned kung-fu, should this article also be in a kung-fu journal?
Expecting a site with a defined topic 'News for nerds', and more importantly an inferred audience type to stick to its agenda is hardly an unreasonable request. Slashdot is made by the audience, so I don't see how an audience member (me) taking some time to voice my opinion on how I would rather not see it move further in this direction should cause 'serious offence'. I did not say 'wtf is this doing on slashdot, what are the editors smoking, slashdot suxs' I briefly laid out my reasons without getting too bogged down.
"In short, hand in your geek card, sign up for a frat, and stand in line for initiation paddling."
I'm interested in how you get 'This topic shouldn't be on the agenda' to 'inference of no valid reason to consider yourself a geek, frat boy'.Particularly with someone who takes 'serious offense when people try to pretend that their view of geekdom is the only valid one'.
Perhaps you should consider tightening your argument skills before mounting ill advices ad hominem attacks.
There is a lot of overlap between geek culture and pop culture, and slashdot generally hits the nail on the head. In this case however, I have to throw my lot in with the '!news' ground and say this is not a topic slashdot should be covering, and it is not a direction I want to see it go in. I like family guy, and am mildly interested in a spin-off. In fact, i have a few opinions on the matter I might be inclined to share on a comment site - but not slashdot. Slashdot is my haven of geekhood, where I read about the latest hizzy fit between RMS and theo de raadt, SCO zanyness, steve balmars latest dance moves etc. It is not where I go for the latest goings on in the realm of 'generation X', pop culture, my-face-bebo-boy land. It does overlap, but that doesn't mean there aren't boundries.
Sure, there was a few articles about futurama - futurama = sci-fi = geek. No problem. Perhaps somehow a confusion arrived thinking futurama = animated, family guy = animated, therefore it is geek! Family guy has no geek crediential. No reason to be on slashdot. This is not fox-watch, not 'animation-maniac-fans.com'. They are not using some highly clever bit of software automate production of the two shows. It is news for pop-culture, not news for nerd.
Where is it going to end - a sidebar with the top ten funniest you-tube clips? 50 different smiley characters and RTF entry text box to spice up the comments (not fogetting flashing text)?
Lets try to keep slashdot geek, and let the pop-culture sites do pop culture.
"army of starving russian nuke experts"
I'm afraid I'm not going to take your word for that. While I have no doubt that there are nuclear experts out (russian and elsewhere) who would sell these abilities to the highest bidding, I doubt there are many starving (neclear expert means well educated, which usually means middle to upper class, which means they rarely feel the full force of a down turn in economics). There are however armies of government agents who would regard anyone with detailed knowledge of nuclear reactions as someone worth keeping an eye on. They also keep a good eye on possible terrorist, particularly possible terrorist who have enough money to finance such an operation. You don't just put an ad in the local paper looking for a nuclear expert and material - you shift money around and make contacts, and those sorts of circles are the circles a lot of attention is spent on.
On the other hand, the general populous spends their time looking at Britney spears, and so long as the government is telling them they are in danger, they are quite happy to give up any freedom so long as they can still shop in walmart and watched Britney spears fuck herself up.
And your idea that this will not happen based on some sort of bluff that the guns will be turned on the government if need be (but it won't happen so it doesn't matter) seems a little short sighted. Consider Bush's re-election. Whether _you_ beleive it was rigged or not, many people do. Consider that, many people in America believed that Bush was not the legal President, that the person living in the White house was a fraud. But what did they do? Did they get their guns out, march to washington and demand that their legally elected president be immediately instated? Or did they complain for a while then accept the status quo? So what makes you think that at some point the population would realise that perhaps they have given up a freedom to many, and it is time for a change, whatever it takes?
I wouldn't be going to any black hat conventions if I was him.
"I would say that the war on drugs has done far more damage to the constitution than has the war on terror."
Perhaps, perhaps not, not really relevent to the point though.
"I see the rampant fear of the government getting some sort of despotic control out of effort to protect the country to be more far-fetched than my fear of a nuke on Wall Street."
We have seen examples of democratic governments turning into or being replaced by dictatorships. We see examples of freedoms and rights being removed. We have never seen any example of a small group executing a single mass destruction event, the only example of an atomic bomb being used in history having been done by a certain western government. Why would you see a situation we know as possible as more far fetched than one we only consider possible?
"As for what makes the USA more immune to the idea of the government getting total control, I believe it is the 2nd amendment and the presence of over 250 million guns in American society. Yes, most gun owners won't get involved, but that simply clears the way for the few million that will. A government cannot defeat its own people when they are determined and they are armed."
Basically what you are saying is 'It's ok, if they screw up we can have a civil war and sort it all out'.
Well, again you are using an imagined scenario to justify an action. I can also imagine a scenario where 20 years down the line the american government controls how many kids you have and when, what school they go to and what they learn there, where you have to work, what you eat, and oppressing and critism. And the people saying 'why did we let it get this way'. And I can imagine lots of other scenarios, none of which justify taking a position - it is useful to point us to what to consider and what information to gather, but not on settling on a position, as you have done.
We already know that many of the liberties and freedoms are being erroded in this 'war against terror', we also know that the fear spread about terrorists by western governments has far more impact on the changing of our socity than any actions by terrorists. We know that many of the threats are greatly exaggerated (dirty bombs, liquid exposives etc.). We know that many government agencies are not above using new 'anti-terrorist' laws in ways that they where not intended. There is no evidence of any terrorist group getting anywhere near a nuke.
You seem to think the idea that the government could take more control from the people as not worth considering, yet that very idea was the foundation of America, and the American government has been doing just that under the excuse of protecting from terrorists. History has plenty of examples of democrasies erroding, what do you know which makes America so special that it could not heppen there?
Consider this - what is better, freedom to chose or freedom from harm? Lion in the zoo, or Lion in the jungle. Me? I'm a jungle creature, you sound very much like you belong in the zoo.
"We have to start thinking like we're a society under attack, because we are."
Society is always under attack, both from within and from without. The first thing you have to decide before doing something to protect 'society', is establish whether the method will in itself change (therefore 'attack') the very society you are trying to protect. Constantly adding a means to 'look over your shoulder' will change a society from a free and relaxed society to a paranoid and controlled society.
"Just because the bastards haven't been able to mount a serious threat within the US borders since 9/11 doesn't mean they wouldn't like to"
Gifted with our imagination, we can come up with an infinite amount of ways we can be harmed, but simply saying it is possible is not justification for any level of measure against it. Careful consideration has to be given to the risk of the threat against the negative aspects of the protective measures.
"Its probably just a matter of time until these yahoos do get their hands on a nuke. This would be just the thing to stop them in their tracks."
Speculation. And if this system was put into place, would it be fool proof. If a group was organised enough to get a nuke, manage to smuggle it to the country of destination, I would suspect they would be organised enough to come up with a way to hide it (lead casing perhaps?)
"Try imagining the alternative, such as maybe your own neighbourhood looking like the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki all the way out to the horizon. If not your own neighbourhood, how about your friend's neighbourhood, or your relatives neighbourhood? Is that OK? I say it is not."
Again, just because you imagine an awful thing, does not justify any level of preventive measures. I can imagine a mass alien invasion, but I don't think that warrants issuing all citizens with rocket launchers. I do not have enough information to properly evaluate the cost/risks for either of these events, and I see no evidence that you do either.
"I'm sitting in Kuwait on the way out of Iraq after working a science and tech advisor job to the US military in counter-IED work. Take my word, the enemy is smart, capable, and desireous of wiping us off the face of the earth if they can. They take the most innocuous materials and figure out ways to kill you with it. If they get their hands on a nuke, and we don't have proper countermeasures, a whale of a lot of Americans will die, and if not you, at least several people you know and some you care about."
We cannot verify your position, so better to stick to the facts. SO far, the evidence has been that the 'enemy' is generally badly organised and stupid, and most of the 'smart' attack vectors have been thought up by western security 'experts' and generally are argued to be implausible (liquid bombs on planes for example).
By the way - I am neither for or against this idea (it 'feels' wrong to me, but like I say, I don't have enough info to make a sound judgement), but I am against the whole 'this is good because terrorism is bad' line of argument. Yes, it can be argued the other side 'this is bad because freedom is good' is just as bad, but would you rather your default position was one of paranoia or one of freedom?
Go right ahead :)
BoomerSooner - Very true, but I would only be using a small amount of its potential. Personally, I think a modern OS should _make use_ of modern hardware, not _use up_ modern hardware.
*And the Dot-matrix would require a parellel port, so no go there.