Honeymoon got killed by the choice of a crappy Xandros install on the eee. I'm a full-blown Linux freak^H^H^H^H^Hentusiast, haven't used windows in over ten years, but when I bought the Asus eee and tried using the pre-installed Linux version, it was just nauseating.
Crappy interface, broken functionality (impossible to get the very sleek wifi configuration to actually save its settings) and generally just not superior to a windows install in any conceivable way.
After a week of trying to live with it, I gave up an went through the, at the time, painstaking process of getting Ubuntu onto the machine.
You mean they can't patent something that already exists? How about Microsoft's patent on double-click, granted in 2004 ( Microsoft Receives Patent For Double-Click ) ? Patent clerk probably double-clicked the patent application document, it still got passed through.
..or maybe it is the result of a woman and two children being buried alive, dying in the most comforting position they could find under the circumstances? Archeologists really do need to widen their repertoir of explanations.
It's not as extremist anywhere near as 9/11, that's how extremist it isn't.
I'd say it's rather extremist to take the actions of someone quite obviously seen as an extremist, even by the standards of most people even within the same religion, and use as an illustration of how screwed up religous people are.
As for the atheist-jihadic, the meaning of that is that someone taking a purist rationalistic stand, such as Dawkings does, that then spends so much effort as to even get in the 9/11-debate (that have nothing to do with the evolutionist-creationalist, which is what Dawkings normally meddles in) and get all bug-eyed about how this is what happens when religion poisons people, he has, by far, left the realm of rationalism.
Dawkins is the atheist analogy of a religous nut. His argumentation when it comes to religion is just as fanatically against religion as an american TV-preacher is for...donations. Seriously, after 9/11 he went out in british media and used the terror acts as a springboard for his anti-religous campaigning, how extremist isn't that? I have no problem with people questioning faith or being agnostics, atheists or whatever, but claiming to be a rationalist and then going all atheist-jihadic like Dawkings has does not add up. When is someone going to see through this man, he obviously has some profound issues to take care of.
Well, having passangers in the car is a distraction. Listening to the radio is a distraction. Should that be forbidden, too?
What the study shows is that response time is affected as much as when driving under a mild-to-medium influence. That is not to say that talking on the phone while driving is as bad as driving with 0.08 alcohol in your bloodstream, because the poor judgement that comes with driving under the influence is the biggest contributor to accidents.
> They pay you, not the other way around. True, but not true. They make money on you, so the dependency goes both ways, though not in equal shares. I expect people I work for, and with, to be professional. If someone judges me professionally by what I wear, he simply isn't professional enough for me to want to work for him ( or her ).
Are you kidding? Or is your definition for quality of life reciprocial to economic proliferation? Everyone I've heard that have any real insight into everyday life of the Chinese people agree that poverty has constantly deepend during the last 10-15 years in China. There's a lot of money flowing into the country, but the majority of the people never gets to benefit from it.
Seriously, who in their right mind even creates a system with separate ratings for 17 and 18 years of age? Maturity levels at those ages differs vastly between individuals of the same age, so while a game can be unsuitable even for one kid of 18, another 17 year old kid could quite readily handle it. Of course parents lose respect for a rating that is obviously disconnected from reality. And people, please, kill the "Violent games make violent people" mantra. It simply isn't true!
The fact that two genetically identical specimens differ never seems to stop baffling the scientific community in spite of the fact that it's been a known fact for as long as we've known about genes. For instance: how identical are identical twins, really? If you look at dandelions in a field, are they all the same? Both are examples of multiple, genetically identical, specimens (assuming the dandelions are all of the same species, they are effectively clones, since they reproduce asexually). In both cases there are great similarities, but also some differences in both physical appearance and, in the human example above, behaviour. My biology teacher told me many years ago: You don't inherit properties, you inherit predispositions./Avajadi
It is, in a general way. What the expression 'security through obscurity' describes, though, is not quite the fact that you make something secure by keeping secrets, but more a point of what you keep secret and how.
Applying the security through obscurity to my appartment door would be by, for instance, making it hard to find the door handle instead of equipping the door with a lock. While it is true that in both cases the security lies in keeping something secret (the form of the key or the placement of the door handle) the solution that is based on a specific security technology is, quite obviously, the safest, by far.
Before dismissing a mantra, make sure you understand what it really says.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the act of putting a document on a webserver inside the publicly accessible part of the file tree is an active measure.
An analogy to the physical world:
Let's say you run a library. It doesn't work like a normal library that lets people browse the shelves themselves, but they can go to a librarian and ask for books. Some books can only be given to people with certain credentials while others are available to the public. Would anyone find it acceptable to get sued for reading a book given to you by the librarian in this context? Probably not.
The only situation in such a context where I as a reader could find it reasonable to accept any liability for accessing any book would be if I had given false credentials for a book with limited access. If I haven't done that, the fault lies with the librarian or his/her manager for not fulfilling their task properly.
Reading this, I was first unsure of what the wisest handling of this would be: Should I keep my head down and let this blow over or stick my neck out and admit to being a swede?
My conclusion was that the only thing I could do was to come out, expose myself as being related, if only by nationality, to these... let's say 'common-sense-challenged' people.
My deepest apologies on behalf of the rest of us swedes who do actually have some of our braincells intact and active.
"Dressing neatly shows you have respect for others."
I'll probably get a negative score for this, but the above statement is nothing but pure bull! See, I left the '****' out, so I am capable of showing respect for others:D
Seriously, what you wear reveals nothing about you other than, possibly, your taste in clothes and how much you care about clothes.
"Wearing a suit for a suits sake isn't good"
Oh, so true! Problem is that if you try and argue with suitheads using this they will claim that it's for the benefit of your working environment even if they've got you kooked up in a subterrain bunker with no windows, doors or colleagues. They will never admit that it's just because they prefer to see suits around them out of personal preference. /Eddie
Your approach seems reasonable enough, but where on earth is the connection between wearing a suit on one side and maturity and communication skills on the other side?
On the note of common courtesy, I'd say that not forcing a dress code on people unless there is a real reason to do so (customer contacts) is uncorteus and shows an inability to focus on the actual tasks that are needed to keep the company running.
If a company demands that I wear a uniform (which a suit in this context definitely qualifies as) they'd better be prepared to pay for it! Why would I pay for something I would never, ever use outside of work just because my employer is stuck in arcane superficial thinking? /Eddie
The point is rather that employers taking the approach of strict dress-codes would be better off focusing on the work at hand instead. If the way I dress is crucial to me getting a job that doesn't invlolve any customer contact, my conclusion about the employer can only be that they aren't focused on the work, but rather on some arcane cultural remnant that should have died with the dinosaurs, if not sooner. /Eddie
'A tie is really the anti-uniform' ???
A tie is very much a uniform, if not in form but in function.
The function of a tie, in this context, is exactly the same as the function of a uniform ie to artificially signal group 'belongedness'. I don't subscribe to such artificial flocking and hence, I object to wearing a tie unless there is some kind of actual need to comply with that uniform ie direct customer contact (can't think of any other reason, actually).
NB I don't object to people choosing to wear a suit and tie, just employers forcing them to do so.
If male employees are forced into a suit, why aren't the female employees forced into skirts? /Eddie
We need new flu shots every year due to the practice in parts of Asia to have ducks and pigs share the same water, thus creating an environment where viruses frequently cross-contaminate the same host cells and get their genes mixed up in the process. As much as that could be seen as part of an evolutionary process, claiming that we're actually seeing evolution there is like claiming that we see people going into orbit everytime someone manages to jump longer than a few feet. It is no different than the variations we see occuring in sexually reproducing species, but viruses, not being sexually reproductive, have to be exposed to specific circumstances for this mechanism to be visible.
Evolution, defined as the change in allele frequencies over time, is a fact.
OK, let me refrase my statement: There is no conclusive evidence for evolution as the process behind the development of life as we know it today from inanimate matter. Evolutionism is a belief and as any belief, it has an inner logic that makes it very hard for followers of the belief to see beyond that logic even when it fails to align itself with reality. I think it would be benificiary for evolutionism itself if the facts that contradict evolution (such as the lack of a reasonable mechanism for the first transition from inanimate matter to living organism) as the life-forming process would be properly addressed in debates such as this.
First of all, we don't see evolution going on around us. In the context of evolutionary theory, we interpret the
structural similarities between different organisms, extinct and existing, as lines of evolution, but they can just as
well be seen as signs of a consistent principle of design. I'm not saying it is, I'm just pointing out that there is no conclusive evidence for evolution just as there is no such proof for creation. If evolution is to be a credible, however, it has to give resonable account for the entire process from dead matter to living organisms, somthing that it is quite far from doing. The argument that evolution is a fact because evolution is a fact is a reasoning so badly flawed that I find it pathetic that otherwise brilliant scientific minds can't spot the circular reasoning here./Eddie
What is the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution? One is small random changes to DNA over time, the other is big random changes to DNA over time.
Not quite. The difference is that Microevolution is within the same species and thus mostly reversible whereas macroevolution crosses species-bondaries so that mating between speciments of the two new species would result, at best, in infertile offspring (which is, btw, one of the core definitions for the boundaries of a species with sexual reproduction).
Despite all the fossil evidence of common ancestry
Fossils don't prove common ancestry, it points at, or possibly proves, common structural principles. That can be due to common ancestry, but just as well due to common design. You wouldn't take the apparent similarities between different makes of cars as proof of lack of design, would you? The fossil record can leave us anywhere on the scale of possibilities between a totally random source of new features matched with a consistent mechanism for proliferation of benificiary features to a totally controlled and designed set of features in each existing and extinct species.
Then there's still the question of the first steps...not even the most faithful evolutionists have a believable explanation to suggest for the step from inanimate materia to living organisms. Let's face it, evolutionism is every bit as much a faith as creationism.
Oh, please. To claim that it's a proven fact that evolution is the mechanism behind the existence of complex, or any, lifeforms is simply untrue.
First of all, there is no conclusive evidence for a possible chain of events leading from inanimate matter to living organisms. Sure Dawkins and others have suggested possible, rather far fetched, candidates for that bit of the process, but those suggestions are very 'iffy'.
Even if there was a possible chain of events described, that is still far from what would be actual proof for evolution, because that would involve not only laying out a possible chain of events, but also proving that that chain of events is the actual chain of events.
An illustration of that particular dilemma can be made by comparing the possible chain of events that could take me from Madrid to Tokyo to the actual chain of events describing my journey.
To claim that evolution is a proven fact is as unscientific as claiming that creation is a proven fact.
If you're such a Tolkien nut, you should know that Lord of the Rings is no trilogy. It's one story, written in six books, published in three volumes. Sorry to be picky about this, but I just get tired of listening to, or reading, people who claim to be really into Tolkien and not even get such a basic fact right.
What's the flaw of leislating that if you want a lock on your front door, you have to deposit a copy of the key at your local FBI office?
What's the flaw of legislating against envelopoes that can't be invisibly resealed in case your local police wants to see what's in it?
It's a good question, but it really shouldn't need asking. It seems we've been freed from opression for too long to realise what that freedom means in real life, and what loosing it would do to us...
/Eddie
Fingerprint: 2778 87FA 6708 58C0 8261 DFEB C8FA 4591 6E36 FCCB
Key ID: 6E36FCCB
Slashdot Mirror
Honeymoon got killed by the choice of a crappy Xandros install on the eee. I'm a full-blown Linux freak^H^H^H^H^Hentusiast, haven't used windows in over ten years, but when I bought the Asus eee and tried using the pre-installed Linux version, it was just nauseating.
Crappy interface, broken functionality (impossible to get the very sleek wifi configuration to actually save its settings) and generally just not superior to a windows install in any conceivable way.
After a week of trying to live with it, I gave up an went through the, at the time, painstaking process of getting Ubuntu onto the machine.
You mean they can't patent something that already exists? How about Microsoft's patent on double-click, granted in 2004 ( Microsoft Receives Patent For Double-Click ) ? Patent clerk probably double-clicked the patent application document, it still got passed through.
..or maybe it is the result of a woman and two children being buried alive, dying in the most comforting position they could find under the circumstances? Archeologists really do need to widen their repertoir of explanations.
It's not as extremist anywhere near as 9/11, that's how extremist it isn't.
I'd say it's rather extremist to take the actions of someone quite obviously seen as an extremist, even by the standards of most people even within the same religion, and use as an illustration of how screwed up religous people are.
As for the atheist-jihadic, the meaning of that is that someone taking a purist rationalistic stand, such as Dawkings does, that then spends so much effort as to even get in the 9/11-debate (that have nothing to do with the evolutionist-creationalist, which is what Dawkings normally meddles in) and get all bug-eyed about how this is what happens when religion poisons people, he has, by far, left the realm of rationalism.
Dawkins is the atheist analogy of a religous nut. His argumentation when it comes to religion is just as fanatically against religion as an american TV-preacher is for...donations.
Seriously, after 9/11 he went out in british media and used the terror acts as a springboard for his anti-religous campaigning, how extremist isn't that? I have no problem with people questioning faith or being agnostics, atheists or whatever, but claiming to be a rationalist and then going all atheist-jihadic like Dawkings has does not add up.
When is someone going to see through this man, he obviously has some profound issues to take care of.
Well, having passangers in the car is a distraction. Listening to the radio is a distraction. Should that be forbidden, too?
What the study shows is that response time is affected as much as when driving under a mild-to-medium influence. That is not to say that talking on the phone while driving is as bad as driving with 0.08 alcohol in your bloodstream, because the poor judgement that comes with driving under the influence is the biggest contributor to accidents.
Dear chief: If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you close the door when you go to the toilet?
> They pay you, not the other way around.
True, but not true. They make money on you, so the dependency goes both ways, though not in equal shares.
I expect people I work for, and with, to be professional. If someone judges me professionally by what I wear, he simply isn't professional enough for me to want to work for him ( or her ).
Are you kidding? Or is your definition for quality of life reciprocial to economic proliferation? Everyone I've heard that have any real insight into everyday life of the Chinese people agree that poverty has constantly deepend during the last 10-15 years in China. There's a lot of money flowing into the country, but the majority of the people never gets to benefit from it.
Seriously, who in their right mind even creates a system with separate ratings for 17 and 18 years of age? Maturity levels at those ages differs vastly between individuals of the same age, so while a game can be unsuitable even for one kid of 18, another 17 year old kid could quite readily handle it. Of course parents lose respect for a rating that is obviously disconnected from reality.
And people, please, kill the "Violent games make violent people" mantra. It simply isn't true!
The fact that two genetically identical specimens differ never seems to stop baffling the scientific community in spite of the fact that it's been a known fact for as long as we've known about genes. /Avajadi
For instance: how identical are identical twins, really? If you look at dandelions in a field, are they all the same? Both are examples of multiple, genetically identical, specimens (assuming the dandelions are all of the same species, they are effectively clones, since they reproduce asexually).
In both cases there are great similarities, but also some differences in both physical appearance and, in the human example above, behaviour.
My biology teacher told me many years ago: You don't inherit properties, you inherit predispositions.
So why not just 'pre-flash' the devices with the drivers. No reengineering needed there...
/Eddie
BTW, what on earth is a FlashROM? Flashable memory that can only be read, never written???
"Fact is, all security is obscurity."
It is, in a general way. What the expression 'security through obscurity' describes, though, is not quite the fact that you make something secure by keeping secrets, but more a point of what you keep secret and how.
Applying the security through obscurity to my appartment door would be by, for instance, making it hard to find the door handle instead of equipping the door with a lock. While it is true that in both cases the security lies in keeping something secret (the form of the key or the placement of the door handle) the solution that is based on a specific security technology is, quite obviously, the safest, by far.
Before dismissing a mantra, make sure you understand what it really says.
/Eddie
A very good way of describing the situation
/Eddie
Furthermore, it should be noted that the act of putting a document on a webserver inside the publicly accessible part of the file tree is an active measure.
An analogy to the physical world:
Let's say you run a library. It doesn't work like a normal library that lets people browse the shelves themselves, but they can go to a librarian and ask for books. Some books can only be given to people with certain credentials while others are available to the public. Would anyone find it acceptable to get sued for reading a book given to you by the librarian in this context? Probably not.
The only situation in such a context where I as a reader could find it reasonable to accept any liability for accessing any book would be if I had given false credentials for a book with limited access.
If I haven't done that, the fault lies with the librarian or his/her manager for not fulfilling their task properly.
Reading this, I was first unsure of what the wisest handling of this would be: Should I keep my head down and let this blow over or stick my neck out and admit to being a swede?
... let's say 'common-sense-challenged' people.
My conclusion was that the only thing I could do was to come out, expose myself as being related, if only by nationality, to these
My deepest apologies on behalf of the rest of us swedes who do actually have some of our braincells intact and active.
/Eddie
"Dressing neatly shows you have respect for others."
:D
/Eddie
I'll probably get a negative score for this, but the above statement is nothing but pure bull! See, I left the '****' out, so I am capable of showing respect for others
Seriously, what you wear reveals nothing about you other than, possibly, your taste in clothes and how much you care about clothes.
"Wearing a suit for a suits sake isn't good"
Oh, so true! Problem is that if you try and argue with suitheads using this they will claim that it's for the benefit of your working environment even if they've got you kooked up in a subterrain bunker with no windows, doors or colleagues. They will never admit that it's just because they prefer to see suits around them out of personal preference.
Your approach seems reasonable enough, but where on earth is the connection between wearing a suit on one side and maturity and communication skills on the other side?
/Eddie
On the note of common courtesy, I'd say that not forcing a dress code on people unless there is a real reason to do so (customer contacts) is uncorteus and shows an inability to focus on the actual tasks that are needed to keep the company running.
If a company demands that I wear a uniform (which a suit in this context definitely qualifies as) they'd better be prepared to pay for it! Why would I pay for something I would never, ever use outside of work just because my employer is stuck in arcane superficial thinking?
The point is rather that employers taking the approach of strict dress-codes would be better off focusing on the work at hand instead. If the way I dress is crucial to me getting a job that doesn't invlolve any customer contact, my conclusion about the employer can only be that they aren't focused on the work, but rather on some arcane cultural remnant that should have died with the dinosaurs, if not sooner.
/Eddie
'A tie is really the anti-uniform' ???
/Eddie
A tie is very much a uniform, if not in form but in function. The function of a tie, in this context, is exactly the same as the function of a uniform ie to artificially signal group 'belongedness'. I don't subscribe to such artificial flocking and hence, I object to wearing a tie unless there is some kind of actual need to comply with that uniform ie direct customer contact (can't think of any other reason, actually).
NB I don't object to people choosing to wear a suit and tie, just employers forcing them to do so. If male employees are forced into a suit, why aren't the female employees forced into skirts?
We need new flu shots every year due to the practice in parts of Asia to have ducks and pigs share the same water, thus creating an environment where viruses frequently cross-contaminate the same host cells and get their genes mixed up in the process. As much as that could be seen as part of an evolutionary process, claiming that we're actually seeing evolution there is like claiming that we see people going into orbit everytime someone manages to jump longer than a few feet. It is no different than the variations we see occuring in sexually reproducing species, but viruses, not being sexually reproductive, have to be exposed to specific circumstances for this mechanism to be visible.
Evolution, defined as the change in allele frequencies over time, is a fact.
OK, let me refrase my statement: There is no conclusive evidence for evolution as the process behind the development of life as we know it today from inanimate matter. Evolutionism is a belief and as any belief, it has an inner logic that makes it very hard for followers of the belief to see beyond that logic even when it fails to align itself with reality. I think it would be benificiary for evolutionism itself if the facts that contradict evolution (such as the lack of a reasonable mechanism for the first transition from inanimate matter to living organism) as the life-forming process would be properly addressed in debates such as this.
First of all, we don't see evolution going on around us. In the context of evolutionary theory, we interpret the /Eddie
structural similarities between different organisms, extinct and existing, as lines of evolution, but they can just as
well be seen as signs of a consistent principle of design. I'm not saying it is, I'm just pointing out that there is no conclusive evidence for evolution just as there is no such proof for creation.
If evolution is to be a credible, however, it has to give resonable account for the entire process from dead matter to living organisms, somthing that it is quite far from doing.
The argument that evolution is a fact because evolution is a fact is a reasoning so badly flawed that I find it pathetic that otherwise brilliant scientific minds can't spot the circular reasoning here.
Not quite. The difference is that Microevolution is within the same species and thus mostly reversible whereas macroevolution crosses species-bondaries so that mating between speciments of the two new species would result, at best, in infertile offspring (which is, btw, one of the core definitions for the boundaries of a species with sexual reproduction).
Despite all the fossil evidence of common ancestry
Fossils don't prove common ancestry, it points at, or possibly proves, common structural principles. That can be due to common ancestry, but just as well due to common design. You wouldn't take the apparent similarities between different makes of cars as proof of lack of design, would you? The fossil record can leave us anywhere on the scale of possibilities between a totally random source of new features matched with a consistent mechanism for proliferation of benificiary features to a totally controlled and designed set of features in each existing and extinct species.
Then there's still the question of the first steps...not even the most faithful evolutionists have a believable explanation to suggest for the step from inanimate materia to living organisms. Let's face it, evolutionism is every bit as much a faith as creationism.
Eddie
First of all, there is no conclusive evidence for a possible chain of events leading from inanimate matter to living organisms. Sure Dawkins and others have suggested possible, rather far fetched, candidates for that bit of the process, but those suggestions are very 'iffy'.
Even if there was a possible chain of events described, that is still far from what would be actual proof for evolution, because that would involve not only laying out a possible chain of events, but also proving that that chain of events is the actual chain of events.
An illustration of that particular dilemma can be made by comparing the possible chain of events that could take me from Madrid to Tokyo to the actual chain of events describing my journey.
To claim that evolution is a proven fact is as unscientific as claiming that creation is a proven fact.
If you're such a Tolkien nut, you should know that Lord of the Rings is no trilogy. It's one story, written in six books, published in three volumes. Sorry to be picky about this, but I just get tired of listening to, or reading, people who claim to be really into Tolkien and not even get such a basic fact right.
What's the flaw of leislating that if you want a lock on your front door, you have to deposit a copy of the key at your local FBI office?
What's the flaw of legislating against envelopoes that can't be invisibly resealed in case your local police wants to see what's in it?
It's a good question, but it really shouldn't need asking. It seems we've been freed from opression for too long to realise what that freedom means in real life, and what loosing it would do to us...
/Eddie
Fingerprint: 2778 87FA 6708 58C0 8261 DFEB C8FA 4591 6E36 FCCB
Key ID: 6E36FCCB