its probably been said already a dozen times but the level of security required depends on the application. for the average home user it doesnt matter too much, for a business its getting more important, for certain government applications its essential, and for critical life-saving systems it's life-or-death. personally i dont care too much about someone hacking my home box, but if they can hack my ECU and set the throttle to idle at 6000 rpm when im driving through a schoolzone, im gonna be pretty pissed. (so, never hook up an ECU to any kind of wireless network)
Something I was taught early on by my best teacher ever, was that it doesn't matter who is making the argument, as long as it is sound. I don't care if it's usama, bush, the kid next door, a researcher, or a "concerned mother", I _try_ to listen to what they're saying, and try to expand on their ideas and/or think up counterpoints. That being said, no one is perfect, and often when I'm listening to something my own biases will creep in (or dominate), although often when I think of something later on, in isolation, I will be less biased and honestly evaluate what was said to the best of my ability. (Which is why it's best not to assume an argument is over after a single debate, but revisit it many times and hear from many people before making any important conclusion)
About the circus media, I'd say that although from time to time some insight into an issue is shown on TV and some idea I haven't discovered is brought to light, much of the time what is being said can be obvious, misleading, alarmist, ridiculously biased, and so on. I've never seen a news anchor or anyone on TV showing any actual thought, with the possible exception of Bill Maher and some of his guests on politically incorrect, which was of course not perfect, but sometimes brought out interesting points on issues that one would rarely see on TV normally. I don't mean to say that TV news has no value, it does, it's just that whenever any story requires analysis (or doesn't but it is given) it seems like good interesting points rarely come up. The people who are giving their opinions are so often simply assume they are correct, and people almost never admit they are wrong, or even could be wrong. Which reminds me of Dennis Miller of course, who always mentions "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." Often (always?) it seemed like a very sarcastic statement, but the idea that it is shameful to be mistaken, and then admit you're wrong, is one that has always really bothered me.
Anyway to conclude, from my point of view, the best arguments I've ever had weren't so much arguments as discussions where neither "side" assumed they were right and argued from that point of view but brought out as many important ideas as possible, to try and acheive the best understand of an issue as possible. There is of course more to it than that and some of what I've said needs clarification, but it's an idea.
sure but the chances of that are somewhere better than 1 in 26.000 (roughly just based on the number of years the guy lived and how many days there are in that period, obviously it's not very accurate but it is certainly far from 1 in 1 million)
Nope, but Gore did have lots of big names with lots of money on his side too. Also, Gore did lose the election, based on your electoral system. If you want to change the system so that it's a "majority rules" system then go for it, but that's not how it works now. Finally, even with the recount done by the newspapers in florida (which was far from "official"), Bush would have won anyway, albeit by the slimmest of margins.
So if I'm bored some day I go pick up some hydrogen peroxide, mix it with kerosene, and make some sort of remote detonation device and head over to the other side of the beach?
I imagine that at this point it's not so much the programming that is going to take the most time, it's the content... (Maybe I'm wrong, I have nothing to base this comment on, or any comment on this for that matter. It's just something I recall from somewhere. Maybe a dream?)
Because here the other manufacturers are linux, sun, apple, and anyone else who makes an OS. None of 'em would probably win in court, regardless of whether or not they were right.
well, I got my opinion from dictionary.com's definitions and it included things outside of natural phenomena. I'm not sure which is "correct", I've heard people who think science means either, and people who restrict it to natural phenomena. I guess it's just one of the many words that have different meanings for different people. (sigh)
Interestingly enough when I first went to write my original post I was going to say the exact same thing as your topic. I myself do consider math to be a science, although some may consider an art. I'd say that at least applied math should be considered science. The pure end of things is a bit more difficult to say, because at some point in the future it may end up with applications so, I dunno.
Go to www.dictionary.com and look up the word science. I'm pretty sure that CS is a science. (Maybe it's not a natural philosophy in the same way physics is but it is a science)
prices dropping? what about that ibm assembly line that cost 2.5 billion?
Re:How capitalism can indeed serve social interest
on
Reclaiming the Commons
·
· Score: 1
Wait, what if the child has no money? Isn't the citizen being altruistic then, something Ayn Rand was dead set against? (I honestly don't know much about this. It's a serious question, not a troll.)
I don't really understand this either. I think dumbing linux down is a bad idea, but building an easy to use windows-like distribution (are there any at that level or near it yet?) wouldn't be a bad idea. The problem is selling it. I wouldn't use it because I like things the way I have them set up, not someone else's way.
Slashdot Mirror
how can something be too good to be fake? if it's too good, wouldn't that indicate it IS fake?
its probably been said already a dozen times but the level of security required depends on the application. for the average home user it doesnt matter too much, for a business its getting more important, for certain government applications its essential, and for critical life-saving systems it's life-or-death. personally i dont care too much about someone hacking my home box, but if they can hack my ECU and set the throttle to idle at 6000 rpm when im driving through a schoolzone, im gonna be pretty pissed. (so, never hook up an ECU to any kind of wireless network)
Wow. This has got the be the most insightful comment I've seen in a while, maybe even ever.
and evidently for some of us, even the brain is no more complex. :)
that's normally used for measurement of pressure...
And, even if they could, your memories and who you "are" will be lost.
Something I was taught early on by my best teacher ever, was that it doesn't matter who is making the argument, as long as it is sound. I don't care if it's usama, bush, the kid next door, a researcher, or a "concerned mother", I _try_ to listen to what they're saying, and try to expand on their ideas and/or think up counterpoints. That being said, no one is perfect, and often when I'm listening to something my own biases will creep in (or dominate), although often when I think of something later on, in isolation, I will be less biased and honestly evaluate what was said to the best of my ability. (Which is why it's best not to assume an argument is over after a single debate, but revisit it many times and hear from many people before making any important conclusion)
About the circus media, I'd say that although from time to time some insight into an issue is shown on TV and some idea I haven't discovered is brought to light, much of the time what is being said can be obvious, misleading, alarmist, ridiculously biased, and so on. I've never seen a news anchor or anyone on TV showing any actual thought, with the possible exception of Bill Maher and some of his guests on politically incorrect, which was of course not perfect, but sometimes brought out interesting points on issues that one would rarely see on TV normally. I don't mean to say that TV news has no value, it does, it's just that whenever any story requires analysis (or doesn't but it is given) it seems like good interesting points rarely come up. The people who are giving their opinions are so often simply assume they are correct, and people almost never admit they are wrong, or even could be wrong. Which reminds me of Dennis Miller of course, who always mentions "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." Often (always?) it seemed like a very sarcastic statement, but the idea that it is shameful to be mistaken, and then admit you're wrong, is one that has always really bothered me.
Anyway to conclude, from my point of view, the best arguments I've ever had weren't so much arguments as discussions where neither "side" assumed they were right and argued from that point of view but brought out as many important ideas as possible, to try and acheive the best understand of an issue as possible. There is of course more to it than that and some of what I've said needs clarification, but it's an idea.
I saw those ballots, and if they are confusing, you shouldn't be voting.
sure but the chances of that are somewhere better than 1 in 26.000 (roughly just based on the number of years the guy lived and how many days there are in that period, obviously it's not very accurate but it is certainly far from 1 in 1 million)
Nope, but Gore did have lots of big names with lots of money on his side too. Also, Gore did lose the election, based on your electoral system. If you want to change the system so that it's a "majority rules" system then go for it, but that's not how it works now. Finally, even with the recount done by the newspapers in florida (which was far from "official"), Bush would have won anyway, albeit by the slimmest of margins.
Okay that's the answer I was looking for. Essentially, no, unless I want to lose my eyebrows. (Or worse)
So if I'm bored some day I go pick up some hydrogen peroxide, mix it with kerosene, and make some sort of remote detonation device and head over to the other side of the beach?
Maybe this explains the appeal of religion?
nope, use the random registration generator. (search for it on google im too lazy to find it right now)
The jury is still out on democracy. Three hundred years is a rather short time.
I imagine that at this point it's not so much the programming that is going to take the most time, it's the content... (Maybe I'm wrong, I have nothing to base this comment on, or any comment on this for that matter. It's just something I recall from somewhere. Maybe a dream?)
Because here the other manufacturers are linux, sun, apple, and anyone else who makes an OS. None of 'em would probably win in court, regardless of whether or not they were right.
Anyone else immediately hear Moff Tarkin's voice saying "we will then crush the rebellion with one swift stroke" after reading this?
The problem is that 12 seconds turns into many many hours after watching enough movies. (And lord knows I do...)
well, I got my opinion from dictionary.com's definitions and it included things outside of natural phenomena. I'm not sure which is "correct", I've heard people who think science means either, and people who restrict it to natural phenomena. I guess it's just one of the many words that have different meanings for different people. (sigh)
Interestingly enough when I first went to write my original post I was going to say the exact same thing as your topic. I myself do consider math to be a science, although some may consider an art. I'd say that at least applied math should be considered science. The pure end of things is a bit more difficult to say, because at some point in the future it may end up with applications so, I dunno.
Go to www.dictionary.com and look up the word science. I'm pretty sure that CS is a science. (Maybe it's not a natural philosophy in the same way physics is but it is a science)
prices dropping? what about that ibm assembly line that cost 2.5 billion?
Wait, what if the child has no money? Isn't the citizen being altruistic then, something Ayn Rand was dead set against? (I honestly don't know much about this. It's a serious question, not a troll.)
I don't really understand this either. I think dumbing linux down is a bad idea, but building an easy to use windows-like distribution (are there any at that level or near it yet?) wouldn't be a bad idea. The problem is selling it. I wouldn't use it because I like things the way I have them set up, not someone else's way.