Let me rephrase what you said, except with "God" instead of aliens.
Besides, I would agree with you that the hypothesis "God created life on earth" is something that could, in principle, be tested scientifically (eg, by searching for the God and trying to communicate with him, or trying to find some artifacts he left behind, or testing the rate of genetic change to see if it matches what biology/chemistry/physics would predict), but the same cannot be said for creationism.
And as to this point: I've never heard of anyone (except perhaps for some fringe nutjob cults) trying to use the SETI project to communicate with god.
Except, you know...nearly everyone who believes in God. They all try to communicate with God.
You can't have it both ways. If it works out with aliens, then it works out with God. We can call 'em both extraterrestrials, and treat them the same way. That's the whole IDEA behind ID.
Problem is that there's not much to go on to come up with that. Of course, the real problem is that there's not much to go on...period.
These things you said are only true if the barrier to entry is also high and the demand is flexible.
There are very few industries where the barrier to entry is naturally high enough to be a problem.
I'm very convinced that it's true of utility companies, and it definitely used to be true of radio stations (I'm not sure that it is anymore; technology may make that affordable, though government regulation surely keeps it artificially high).
This is certainly one of the the ones where the government has shaped the structure. I bet that if we didn't have government regulation at this point we'd grow a giant, worldwide mesh network, because the barrier to send data 10 miles is pretty low, and there are many creative protocols that can handle lots of people doing it.
But that's never going to happen. To much money not made. For the sake of free market, perhaps cell phone companies should start being required to sell bandwidth+QoS rather than cell plans, and the plans can come from VOIP companies.
Seems a lot more fair, and easier to regulate.
Of course, easier to regulate and more fair means thousands, or maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs go away.
doesn't it then become relatively simple to create your own RFID device that broadcasts all the same things as the original chip, and responds in all the same ways to input?
This is provably false. You can communicate over a public channel to prove that you're you in such a way that you do not reveal how to do this to anyone else.
AFAIK, though, I don't think there's any way to keep *you* from knowing what your private key is without a third party in the exchange, though...which is a real pain.
Don't say it's only a matter of time until it is cracked. Only poorly designed systems have been cracked the good ones have stood up for decades.
Decades? Really? I suppose you're also going to tell me that you've been writing java for the past thirty years? Have we really had any unbreakable DRM schemes that are that old? I don't think so.
As Steve Jobs said, "To achieve this, a DRM system employs secrets. There is no theory of protecting content other than keeping secrets. In other words, even if one uses the most sophisticated cryptographic locks to protect the actual music, one must still 'hide' the keys which unlock the music on the userâ(TM)s computer or portable music player. No one has ever implemented a DRM system that does not depend on such secrets for its operation."
If you look at the definition of positional notation, there's not really anything in there that precludes the use of non-natural number bases (though by the Cancel Reply
Parent Post Anotraditional definition, not all numbers can be represented in all bases).
The point is, though, that there is a mapping between almost every number and almost every representation (obviously, it must consist of more than one digit to work, and there may be no solution if the base is too small).
I could represent the number twenty-six as 11 in the base, b that is the solution to (1+1*b^1)=26 (in base ten), or: 25 = b
How about a slightly harder one? Twenty-six as 27:
(7+2*b^1)=26 b = 19/2
Hopefully you can see that I could pick pretty much anything.
You're just imagining things. The real Emily undoubtedly sometimes opens her mouth a little too wide...probably moves centered around her nose.
If you pay attention to the video, you'll notice that they flat-out said that it isn't computer generated imagery. They're just doing face tracking without using markers and mapping that to a mesh.
Big deal. People do that now and get extremely realistic (perfect) results. All you need is two cameras.
It would be interesting if they were actually generating models from this that could work independently (i.e., get CGI-Emily to move in a way that real Emily hasn't been recorded as moving), but they aren't claiming that they can do that...so they probably aren't.
Would it be easy to film somebody with a 3d camera setup and shove them into a video game? Well, I suppose there are a few technical challenges in the sense that there aren't any 3d-movie inside-videogame codecs, but its nowhere near as impressive as the headline makes it out to be.
Women do it = bad Yes. It's the real man's Olympics. They could totally make a site like this for women, too. I will agree that it's definitely sexist. But for argument, I think that they're getting at the idea that women have totally different athletic abilities. If you're in a sport that women do as well, then chances are higher that the sport isn't actually testing any sort of athletic ability (since such abilities arguably don't overlap much). I think that's the idea, anyway. I don't really think its true, personally, but I'm not going to discount it entirely.
Teamwork = bad Only if there's already another event that's the same, except single. Idea there is that it's really an individual thing, and there just throwing in a team mode...to have a team mode. So team mode is event pollution. Baseball and basketball, which are actually team sports, both got pretty high scores.
Metric system = bad You're just saying that because everything is listed in yards. No scores are marked down because of that, though. Just because you wish that he'd listed everything in meters doesn't mean that listing everything in yards is invalid.
Being born not the largest man in the world = bad A lot of physical skills are greatly aided by sheer physical size. What they're getting at is they only want to see the best at anything. If sheer physical size is what it takes to be the best, then they only want to see that. On that note, why do we have weight classes for boxing but not height classes for basketball? Why is it not exactly the same?
Some kinds of judging (as of going out of bounds in track) = good, judging of other kinds (as of going out of bounds in gymnastics) = bad
I'm pretty sure both of those fall into the category of "simple rules," and would be acceptable in that list. Looks like subjective scoring is the thing he doesn't like - i.e., most of the judging you get in almost all of the gymnastics events, but what doesn't occur at all in track.
Using muscles for brute force = good, using muscles for optimized technique = bad
And yet archery, which requires technique, and can be done by small guys, is one of the highest scoring events, and decathlon, the highest scoring event, absolutely cannot be won by someone with too much muscle mass (they would tire too quickly).
I repeat: what a stupid site. The fact that this is the second time I've seen this crap modded up to +4 or better in two days does not speak well of Slashdot.
Your arguments, as a whole as to the authors arguments, are invalid. I put it to you that you are biased against the idea that people disagree with the way the Olympics works, rather than that the site itself is inherently stupid. I consider that there is some insight to be gained looking at this. Especially in regard to the concept of event pollution.
You probably can't get the raw audio from your modem. Hardly any modems do full-duplex audio.
The early 1990s called. They want their modems back.
Nearly all modems today are just cheap soundcards with a relay attached (i.e., softmodems). They can almost all do full duplex audio. I know, because I did a bunch of research into the subject when setting up vgetty in linux.
You'd even be hard pressed to find a hard modem that doesn't do full duplex. Since it doesn't cost them any, they usually include that feature just so that they can advertise that it can do soft phone stuff.
They started printing passports on commemorative plates. What if they get chipped? Then they lose all value.
Its also a well known fact that ceramic chips easily, and can often be cloned using just chips. I have to hand it to the British dudes, though. Usually takes me longer to make plates than minutes.
Think they might be making them using that Shrinky Dink stuff? I guess that would make sense.
I don't think *you* understand here. 1.44MB is *huge*, and that's zipped up so that it'll fit.
The OS needs to be an order of magnitude or more smaller than that here (and yes, a word processor can fit on something that small).
We're talking more in the batch-process, single-threaded based OSes here. None of those fancy "drivers", or "threads" here....at least, none the way that they work in Linux.
If you're storing the website *only* on a hosting provider that won't give you a shell, and don't have a complete copy of the entire site in your hands at all times, you've got a much bigger problem.
That is a very good sign that you're at a fly-by-night hosting company that's going to lose all your data. If you're worried about backup, you should pony up and get a decent hosting provider.
But that is probably something worth addressing anyway. Fortunately, there are many things similar to rsync that will work over http or ftp on freshmeat, though I've never used them.
Or...use subversion to actually store your data. If you use FSFS format (the filesystem version of SVN, which IMHO is better than the embedded database format because it doesn't occasionally get corrupted), all data is actually *stored* as diffs anyway.
You can actually do an rsync of the live data, and it'll work perfectly, and never overwrite things you need.
If you're worried about past versions, you should be using source control, so IMHO, this is a better option than an almost-source control one like rdiff-backup.
3) Okay...now you're not even trying. Real ACLs are actually built into the main trac interface (i.e., roles, users, and linking permissions). They work right of the box.
Not that there are no (more or less dirty) workarounds
Look, these plugins just work. I don't know what the problem you have with them is. They're not workarounds - they're the main thing.
The only thing missing from Trac that I wish I could get easily is integration with active directory for permissions management.
Anthropomorphizing robots, cute as they are in Wall*e, is insulting to the beauty of that which is life.
That's only when the robots look like robots. When the robots look like hot chicks that are anatomically correct (if well-endowed), then it's a complement to the beauty that is life.
And by a complement, I mean that I want two of them. One to complement each arm.
I don't think you understand the beauty of this thing.
One hand for keyboard, and one hand for trackball (or to hold the device). No flat surface required. Heck, if you put a stylus on the finger, you could use it as the *only* input device for internet tablets.
It's the perfect interface for a plane, or when standing in line/close quarters. Data entry for small devices can become fast. Not as fast as an actual keyboard, but approaching 30WPM instead of the wimpy 10 we get with thumbpads.
can have a ported version of OOo or Office to them with a customized interface to work well with each device while the web-based app doesn't cut it because it is too small
Will all these bugs be ironed out in the next 5-10 years
Seriously? That long? They can make a version of OOo and Office for each new small device in less than a year, but making a customized version of web clients takes 5-10 years?
This is a trivial problem. The thing that web clients are made to do is work well at different resolutions. All they really have to do is devote a week or two to the problem. They just aren't really intending it for what you're using it for yet.
The bigger problem is that the standard GUI tools and events available to the desktop aren't available for the web. Web forms are basically a small subset of what you can easily do with desktop apps...which is why we have all these javascript libraries now. Once those deficiencies are gone from HTML, things will likely be extremely different. All of a sudden, web programming will be as versitle as desktop programming.
Re:Why not apply spam filters on outgoing messages
on
Spammers Choose GMail
·
· Score: 1
They do. And its a pain in the butt if you want to send a newsletter to people in your org/company/group.
Maybe I just look like a spammer for some reason.
Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 1
Big thing that a debugger generally gives you isn't the trace through the code.
Its look at the state of the system when you know there's a problem.
Now you can probably get there by using logs...assuming that someone has written all of the state information you need into the logs for that particular instance.
If they haven't, though, frequently that'll save a lot of time - ESPECIALLY when you're debugging other people's code.
When there is no need for either, because you hunt what you need and there's not anyone but your people for miles and miles, why bother with the baggage of numbers? There is no need to count. Is there enough for all of us, or is there not, that's all that matters.
The best example is the omnipresent claim that Inuit have dozens of words for snow.
Actually, that's not a very good example at all. The main reason people say that is because Inuit is a polysynthetic language, which blurs the line between word and sentence.
You also have to consider that the guy who made the claim actually used as his examples any reference to frozen water in the language...even if it really didn't refer to the powdery white stuff. If he didn't know English, and were making a similar claim, he'd say that at least ice, sleet, hail, snow, blizzard, and glacier are all words for snow.
Sometimes, even if you interact with it a lot, one word is enough. Sometimes, also, context plays a big part in defining the language, so you don't need as many words to convey the message (and this is *absolutely true* of a polysynthetic language).
Quite frankly, I have seen no conclusive evidence that quantity or quality of words are directly tied to the cultures from which they come. Sometimes a word will come into existence when there is little need (example: defenestration), and sometimes people will *badly* adapt an existing word to mean something new rather than creating a new, better word to fill the gap (example: usages of the word "perfect" in different domains). This tribe may be different, but that might make them the exception, rather than the rule.
Anyone from North, Central, and South America are also called simply "Americans." Calling people from the US Americans and considering everyone else *not* is about the same. Someone with the limited perspective of only knowing US citizens could reach the view that "American"=from US, just as someone with only a limited perspective of Christians could reach the view that "Born Again" is some sort of specific Christian group (because the people that use the phrase a lot are a specific group).
But in both cases, there's a much broader classification.
In my experience the title "Born Again" is in most cases, self applied.
As I said, you would be hard-pressed to find a Christian who would not describe themselves as born again. The difference is only that there have some who have not read the verse that talks about that subject, and those that do. Your personal experience is no replacement for facts. It's about like saying that Canadians aren't Americans because they don't come from the US.
I think you mean "Christians who claim to have had a transformative religious experience" (which is often cited as being "Born Again" within the evangelical movement).
In my experience, this is often accompanied with a less critical assessment of the Word
That would *sort of* be an aspect of the evangelical movement. To put it nicer, there's more focus on interpersonal relationships, and less upon biblical knowledge. The side effect is often what you said.
and a tendency toward more literal translation of spiritual readings. That would be the literalist movement.
You can be part of one without being part of the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me rephrase what you said, except with "God" instead of aliens.
Besides, I would agree with you that the hypothesis "God created life on earth" is something that could, in principle, be tested scientifically (eg, by searching for the God and trying to communicate with him, or trying to find some artifacts he left behind, or testing the rate of genetic change to see if it matches what biology/chemistry/physics would predict), but the same cannot be said for creationism.
And as to this point:
I've never heard of anyone (except perhaps for some fringe nutjob cults) trying to use the SETI project to communicate with god.
Except, you know...nearly everyone who believes in God. They all try to communicate with God.
You can't have it both ways. If it works out with aliens, then it works out with God. We can call 'em both extraterrestrials, and treat them the same way. That's the whole IDEA behind ID.
Problem is that there's not much to go on to come up with that. Of course, the real problem is that there's not much to go on...period.
These things you said are only true if the barrier to entry is also high and the demand is flexible.
There are very few industries where the barrier to entry is naturally high enough to be a problem.
I'm very convinced that it's true of utility companies, and it definitely used to be true of radio stations (I'm not sure that it is anymore; technology may make that affordable, though government regulation surely keeps it artificially high).
This is certainly one of the the ones where the government has shaped the structure. I bet that if we didn't have government regulation at this point we'd grow a giant, worldwide mesh network, because the barrier to send data 10 miles is pretty low, and there are many creative protocols that can handle lots of people doing it.
But that's never going to happen. To much money not made. For the sake of free market, perhaps cell phone companies should start being required to sell bandwidth+QoS rather than cell plans, and the plans can come from VOIP companies.
Seems a lot more fair, and easier to regulate.
Of course, easier to regulate and more fair means thousands, or maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs go away.
doesn't it then become relatively simple to create your own RFID device that broadcasts all the same things as the original chip, and responds in all the same ways to input?
This is provably false. You can communicate over a public channel to prove that you're you in such a way that you do not reveal how to do this to anyone else.
AFAIK, though, I don't think there's any way to keep *you* from knowing what your private key is without a third party in the exchange, though...which is a real pain.
Don't say it's only a matter of time until it is cracked. Only poorly designed systems have been cracked the good ones have stood up for decades.
Decades? Really? I suppose you're also going to tell me that you've been writing java for the past thirty years? Have we really had any unbreakable DRM schemes that are that old? I don't think so.
As Steve Jobs said, "To achieve this, a DRM system employs secrets. There is no theory of protecting content other than keeping secrets. In other words, even if one uses the most sophisticated cryptographic locks to protect the actual music, one must still 'hide' the keys which unlock the music on the userâ(TM)s computer or portable music player. No one has ever implemented a DRM system that does not depend on such secrets for its operation."
No, you forget: this is Slashdot.
She doesn't want anything.
You'll want something that has very low change of causing a puncture.
Wait a few years and you can maybe replace her with a robot, so you'll probably want something that looks good on Mechanoflesh (tm).
So we've got two very simple proofs so far.
If you look at the definition of positional notation, there's not really anything in there that precludes the use of non-natural number bases (though by the Cancel Reply
Parent
Post Anotraditional definition, not all numbers can be represented in all bases).
The point is, though, that there is a mapping between almost every number and almost every representation (obviously, it must consist of more than one digit to work, and there may be no solution if the base is too small).
I could represent the number twenty-six as 11 in the base, b that is the solution to
(1+1*b^1)=26 (in base ten), or:
25 = b
How about a slightly harder one? Twenty-six as 27:
(7+2*b^1)=26
b = 19/2
Hopefully you can see that I could pick pretty much anything.
No, it's the Oort cloud. It'd be an Oort.
Everything in an Oort cloud is an Oort.
Personally, I think they should have called it the "Rocks 'N Stuff Cloud."
You're just imagining things. The real Emily undoubtedly sometimes opens her mouth a little too wide...probably moves centered around her nose.
If you pay attention to the video, you'll notice that they flat-out said that it isn't computer generated imagery. They're just doing face tracking without using markers and mapping that to a mesh.
Big deal. People do that now and get extremely realistic (perfect) results. All you need is two cameras.
It would be interesting if they were actually generating models from this that could work independently (i.e., get CGI-Emily to move in a way that real Emily hasn't been recorded as moving), but they aren't claiming that they can do that...so they probably aren't.
Would it be easy to film somebody with a 3d camera setup and shove them into a video game? Well, I suppose there are a few technical challenges in the sense that there aren't any 3d-movie inside-videogame codecs, but its nowhere near as impressive as the headline makes it out to be.
Yes. It's the real man's Olympics. They could totally make a site like this for women, too. I will agree that it's definitely sexist. But for argument, I think that they're getting at the idea that women have totally different athletic abilities. If you're in a sport that women do as well, then chances are higher that the sport isn't actually testing any sort of athletic ability (since such abilities arguably don't overlap much). I think that's the idea, anyway. I don't really think its true, personally, but I'm not going to discount it entirely.
Only if there's already another event that's the same, except single. Idea there is that it's really an individual thing, and there just throwing in a team mode...to have a team mode. So team mode is event pollution. Baseball and basketball, which are actually team sports, both got pretty high scores.
You're just saying that because everything is listed in yards. No scores are marked down because of that, though. Just because you wish that he'd listed everything in meters doesn't mean that listing everything in yards is invalid.
A lot of physical skills are greatly aided by sheer physical size. What they're getting at is they only want to see the best at anything. If sheer physical size is what it takes to be the best, then they only want to see that. On that note, why do we have weight classes for boxing but not height classes for basketball? Why is it not exactly the same?
Some kinds of judging (as of going out of bounds in track) = good, judging of other kinds (as of going out of bounds in gymnastics) = bad
I'm pretty sure both of those fall into the category of "simple rules," and would be acceptable in that list. Looks like subjective scoring is the thing he doesn't like - i.e., most of the judging you get in almost all of the gymnastics events, but what doesn't occur at all in track.
And yet archery, which requires technique, and can be done by small guys, is one of the highest scoring events, and decathlon, the highest scoring event, absolutely cannot be won by someone with too much muscle mass (they would tire too quickly).
I repeat: what a stupid site. The fact that this is the second time I've seen this crap modded up to +4 or better in two days does not speak well of Slashdot.
Your arguments, as a whole as to the authors arguments, are invalid. I put it to you that you are biased against the idea that people disagree with the way the Olympics works, rather than that the site itself is inherently stupid. I consider that there is some insight to be gained looking at this. Especially in regard to the concept of event pollution.
You probably can't get the raw audio from your modem. Hardly any modems do full-duplex audio.
The early 1990s called. They want their modems back.
Nearly all modems today are just cheap soundcards with a relay attached (i.e., softmodems). They can almost all do full duplex audio. I know, because I did a bunch of research into the subject when setting up vgetty in linux.
You'd even be hard pressed to find a hard modem that doesn't do full duplex. Since it doesn't cost them any, they usually include that feature just so that they can advertise that it can do soft phone stuff.
They started printing passports on commemorative plates. What if they get chipped? Then they lose all value.
Its also a well known fact that ceramic chips easily, and can often be cloned using just chips. I have to hand it to the British dudes, though. Usually takes me longer to make plates than minutes.
Think they might be making them using that Shrinky Dink stuff? I guess that would make sense.
I don't think *you* understand here. 1.44MB is *huge*, and that's zipped up so that it'll fit.
The OS needs to be an order of magnitude or more smaller than that here (and yes, a word processor can fit on something that small).
We're talking more in the batch-process, single-threaded based OSes here. None of those fancy "drivers", or "threads" here....at least, none the way that they work in Linux.
If you're storing the website *only* on a hosting provider that won't give you a shell, and don't have a complete copy of the entire site in your hands at all times, you've got a much bigger problem.
That is a very good sign that you're at a fly-by-night hosting company that's going to lose all your data. If you're worried about backup, you should pony up and get a decent hosting provider.
But that is probably something worth addressing anyway. Fortunately, there are many things similar to rsync that will work over http or ftp on freshmeat, though I've never used them.
Or...use subversion to actually store your data. If you use FSFS format (the filesystem version of SVN, which IMHO is better than the embedded database format because it doesn't occasionally get corrupted), all data is actually *stored* as diffs anyway.
You can actually do an rsync of the live data, and it'll work perfectly, and never overwrite things you need.
If you're worried about past versions, you should be using source control, so IMHO, this is a better option than an almost-source control one like rdiff-backup.
1) wrong
2) wrong
3) Okay...now you're not even trying. Real ACLs are actually built into the main trac interface (i.e., roles, users, and linking permissions). They work right of the box.
Not that there are no (more or less dirty) workarounds
Look, these plugins just work. I don't know what the problem you have with them is. They're not workarounds - they're the main thing.
The only thing missing from Trac that I wish I could get easily is integration with active directory for permissions management.
And after its installed, do you use it?
Do you use it a lot? Do you generate, oh, for example, PDFs, PS, and HTML documents?
Do you ever use esoteric latex libraries that don't come from your distribution?
If the answer is "yes" to any of these questions, then you *should* know the pain of installing new latex libraries.
But given your answer, I suspect the answer is no.
- 6 year user of Gentoo Linux (switched to because of the ease of use of installing custom libraries like Latex's)
Anthropomorphizing robots, cute as they are in Wall*e, is insulting to the beauty of that which is life.
That's only when the robots look like robots. When the robots look like hot chicks that are anatomically correct (if well-endowed), then it's a complement to the beauty that is life.
And by a complement, I mean that I want two of them. One to complement each arm.
I don't think you understand the beauty of this thing.
One hand for keyboard, and one hand for trackball (or to hold the device). No flat surface required. Heck, if you put a stylus on the finger, you could use it as the *only* input device for internet tablets.
It's the perfect interface for a plane, or when standing in line/close quarters. Data entry for small devices can become fast. Not as fast as an actual keyboard, but approaching 30WPM instead of the wimpy 10 we get with thumbpads.
can have a ported version of OOo or Office to them with a customized interface to work well with each device while the web-based app doesn't cut it because it is too small
Will all these bugs be ironed out in the next 5-10 years
Seriously? That long? They can make a version of OOo and Office for each new small device in less than a year, but making a customized version of web clients takes 5-10 years?
This is a trivial problem. The thing that web clients are made to do is work well at different resolutions. All they really have to do is devote a week or two to the problem. They just aren't really intending it for what you're using it for yet.
The bigger problem is that the standard GUI tools and events available to the desktop aren't available for the web. Web forms are basically a small subset of what you can easily do with desktop apps...which is why we have all these javascript libraries now. Once those deficiencies are gone from HTML, things will likely be extremely different. All of a sudden, web programming will be as versitle as desktop programming.
They do. And its a pain in the butt if you want to send a newsletter to people in your org/company/group.
Maybe I just look like a spammer for some reason.
Big thing that a debugger generally gives you isn't the trace through the code.
Its look at the state of the system when you know there's a problem.
Now you can probably get there by using logs...assuming that someone has written all of the state information you need into the logs for that particular instance.
If they haven't, though, frequently that'll save a lot of time - ESPECIALLY when you're debugging other people's code.
When there is no need for either, because you hunt what you need and there's not anyone but your people for miles and miles, why bother with the baggage of numbers? There is no need to count. Is there enough for all of us, or is there not, that's all that matters.
While that's true, it's a reason after the fact.
The best example is the omnipresent claim that Inuit have dozens of words for snow.
Actually, that's not a very good example at all. The main reason people say that is because Inuit is a polysynthetic language, which blurs the line between word and sentence.
You also have to consider that the guy who made the claim actually used as his examples any reference to frozen water in the language...even if it really didn't refer to the powdery white stuff. If he didn't know English, and were making a similar claim, he'd say that at least ice, sleet, hail, snow, blizzard, and glacier are all words for snow.
Sometimes, even if you interact with it a lot, one word is enough. Sometimes, also, context plays a big part in defining the language, so you don't need as many words to convey the message (and this is *absolutely true* of a polysynthetic language).
Quite frankly, I have seen no conclusive evidence that quantity or quality of words are directly tied to the cultures from which they come. Sometimes a word will come into existence when there is little need (example: defenestration), and sometimes people will *badly* adapt an existing word to mean something new rather than creating a new, better word to fill the gap (example: usages of the word "perfect" in different domains). This tribe may be different, but that might make them the exception, rather than the rule.
Anyone from North, Central, and South America are also called simply "Americans." Calling people from the US Americans and considering everyone else *not* is about the same. Someone with the limited perspective of only knowing US citizens could reach the view that "American"=from US, just as someone with only a limited perspective of Christians could reach the view that "Born Again" is some sort of specific Christian group (because the people that use the phrase a lot are a specific group).
But in both cases, there's a much broader classification.
In my experience the title "Born Again" is in most cases, self applied.
As I said, you would be hard-pressed to find a Christian who would not describe themselves as born again. The difference is only that there have some who have not read the verse that talks about that subject, and those that do. Your personal experience is no replacement for facts. It's about like saying that Canadians aren't Americans because they don't come from the US.
I think you mean "Christians who claim to have had a transformative religious experience" (which is often cited as being "Born Again" within the evangelical movement).
In my experience, this is often accompanied with a less critical assessment of the Word
That would *sort of* be an aspect of the evangelical movement. To put it nicer, there's more focus on interpersonal relationships, and less upon biblical knowledge. The side effect is often what you said.
and a tendency toward more literal translation of spiritual readings.
That would be the literalist movement.
You can be part of one without being part of the other.