If you design a mechanical device, is it not your place as the designer to define what ways use of the device is destructive to the device, and what ways are non-destructive?
I would say that I would probably be the most likely person to be able to, but that I might not think of things that someone else might later point out, but then again, I'm human, and I make mistakes. But, initially, yes.
If there is a God who created people, is it not His place to define acceptable and unacceptable norms?
Ok, IF there is a God who... then sure.
If that is true, then is it not also acceptable for Him to determine what to do about people who are in the area of unacceptable norms?
Ok, once again, IF... sure.
The problem is that what if that isn't the case, but it is only the case that you (and others like you) BELIEVE this to be the case. What if there is no God, then how do you determine what to do?
forrestt: I have this book that was written by the creator of the Universe. It says that anybody with the name of Anomaly is obviously an immoral person, and should be stoned to death.
anomaly: That is silly, who ever heard of such crap. Why do you belive such nonesense?
forrestt: I believe it cause it was written by the creator of the Universe. He knows everything, and never makes mistakes.
Does this really sound like a good way to have an argument about morality? You don't have to convince yourself and other Christians how to act, you have to convince OTHERS how to act. If they don't buy the tenant of God, then everything else you are saying falls apart.
Personally, I'm an Athiest, but I would be the first in line to fight for your right to hold your beliefs, pass them on to your children, and to speak with anyone who was interrested in the teachings of your religion. Ironically, I tend to follow the teachings of Christ despite the fact that I do not believe in God. If more Christians were actually Christlike, there might actually be world peace. Unfortuanately, most Christians hold onto the Old Testament and forget that most of that was thrown out by Christ as being wrong. According to the Bible, he walked on earth, and taught people how to behave. Unfortunately, most Christians are too concerned with the splinter in their neighbor's eye to see that.
Oh, and one more thing (not to you, but Christians at large): If you pray in such a way as to let other people know you are praying, you are NOT following Christ's teachings. Walking around with a WWJD bracelet or driving a car with a license plate that reads PR4ZHIM falls into this same category.
Here is my proof:
Matthew 6 1 Take heed that you do not do your merciful deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward with your Father in Heaven. 2 Therefore when you do your merciful deeds, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may have glory from men. Truly I say to you, They have their reward. 3 But when you do merciful deeds, do not let your left hand know what your right hand does, 4 so that your merciful deeds may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret Himself shall reward you openly. 5 And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, They have their reward. 6 But you, when you pray, enter into your room. And shutting your door, pray to your Father in secret; and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly. 7 But when you pray, do not babble vain words, as the nations. For they think that in their much speaking they shall be heard. 8 Therefore do not be like them, for your Father knows what things you have need of, before you ask Him.
In other words, if anything you are doing to follow God could be interpreted as being prideful toward men, you will get no reward. Read the rest of Matthew 6 if you need more insight into this topic (as 95% of the Christians I meet do).
Why are the phone companies concerned w/ the phone being locked or not. If I bought a one cent phone, and had to sign up for a two year contract to get it, then I am stuck in a two year contract. If I mod the phone, I am still stuck in a two year contract. If I jump up and down on the phone, I am still stuck in a two year contract. If I play some skeet shooting w/ the phone as the pigeon, I am still stuck in a two year contract. If I sign up for service with another provider in another country w/ the same phone, how is this hurting the first company? In other words, they are still getting the money from me according to the contract, so why do they care?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Consider this sentence:
A well working automobile, being necessary for you to get to work, your right to drive shall not be infringed. (and please, I know that driving is a privilege not a right)
Did I just say you can ONLY drive to work? NO! I only stated a good reason not to infringe your rights, and that your rights would not be infringed. The first sentence does the same thing.
It says that a well regulated militia is needed in order to maintain a free state AND the government will not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
IT IN NO WAY says that you must be part of the militia in order to have said right.
Remember, this sentence was written by a group of men who just faught a war with an oppressive government. A government that attempted to take away their firearms. NONE of them were part of a militia UNTIL they decided to fight in said war to overthrow their government, and they knew that if their government had been successful in taking away their firearms, they would have had NO chance of victory. This sentence was an attempt to make sure that would NEVER happen in their new country. In other words, "We know that we needed guns to fight and stay free, and that at some point down the road, men may once again need to fight for their freedoms. We need to put something into our Constitution to make sure that men will always be able to fight the government if it becomes as oppressive as King George was to us."
Now, consider this. If the government can take away this right, which right can they NOT take away. An attack on your freedoms is not all at once, but rather like a cancer, slowly eating them away while you aren't watching, until it is too late and they are entirely gone.
Yes, I was TRYING to be funny. I typically use English the way it is intended to be used, and "would of" is one of my biggest pet peeves. Along with your as in, "Your the dumbest person I know." or its, "Its your fault that I'm this pissed off."
Note the the ignorant, the above are examples of the way you are NOT supposed to speak/write.
I love good sarcasm. (and I wasn't being sarcastic w/ that statement). I agree, it will take something very powerful from the consumer's perspective to get advertisers to quit. This is the reason I have cut back to only watching 1 to 2 movies per year in the Theatre. I don't feel I should pay $9+ per ticket, $15+ for popcorn and drinks, and be forced to watch crappy ads for Fanta before I see the show. I also bought a TiVo several years ago, and don't watch commercials much at all. Advertisers will put ads wherever they can, I know this. But, it is becomming easier and easier to block the current ad schemas. Hopefully, these new technologies will help strike a balance (not that I think this will actually happen). But, I also wasn't trying to imply "give them a chance", I was trying to imply "force them to rethink things."
You're right, I would much rather watch ads for crap I am totally NOT interested in. If they could do better advertisment targeting, they might actually be able to show LESS ads and make the same amount of money (not that they will show less ads, but you never know. If they show 2 ads, and find out I have changed the chanel, they might figure it out.) Besides, I have predicted for years that once the PVR's get more widestream, ads will be IN the show, not between segments (example, someone picks up a Coke and drinks it instead of a 30sec commercial on how good Coke is).
Q. You have a five gallon bucket and a three gallon bucket. How do you fill the five gallon bucket with EXACTLY four gallons.
A. Fill the three gallon bucket, and pour the contents into the five gallon bucket. Now, fill the three gallon bucket again, and slowly pour the contents into the five gallon bucket until the five gallon bucket is full. You have five gallons in the five gallon bucket, and one gallon in the three gallon bucket. Empty the five gallon bucket. Pour the one gallon from the three gallon bucket into the five gallon bucket (the five gallon bucket now only has one gallon in it). Fill the three gallon bucket again, and pour it into the five gallon bucket. It now has four gallons in it.
Or
Fill the five gallon bucket. Pour the contents into the three gallon bucket until the three gallon bucket is full. Now empty the three gallon bucket, and then pour the two remaining gallons from the five gallon bucket into the three gallon bucket. Fill the five gallon bucket and pour the water from the five gallon bucket into the three gallon bucket until it is full. You now have four gallons left in the five gallon bucket.
I'm running a webserver on my box for development, and I use 127.0.0.1. However, I did a cp/dev/null missing.html so a not found just gives a blank page.
You still haven't gotten my point. Forget everything you know about the way ads are currently implemented. They WILL NOT WORK. I agree with you on that. But that doesn't mean nothing will work. Eventually, someone will stumble across an ad mechinism that will be both effective and unobtrusive. At that point (and this may be many years in the future), businesses will start using them. And nothing you have currently done to block ads will block them, because they are not the type of ads you are currently blocking. They will be a part of the page, blending in like ads in a paper newspaper (probably something LIKE google ads). Since they won't be annoying, people aren't going to go through the trouble to block them (people are lazy, and will put up with a lot of annoyance before they do something to fix the problem). And, it wasn't the ad industry that was the problem. It was the same type of people that send spam. Products or services that are worth purchasing rarely have "in your face" advertising tactics. It is the cheap crap and scams that use this type of advertisment. Since putting an ad online is very cheap, this it the prefered place for fly-by-night operations.
The online advertisement industry is still young (compared to the centuries of print advertisement). I don't think we have seen even one example of where or what a successful online ad will look like. I think what google ads do is probably close. Eventually advertisers will figure out what works (which is what I've been trying to say all along). There is too much monitary incentive for them not to persue it. No, popups/unders will NOT work, and will probably always be blocked. Graphical ads from an ad server are also too easy to block. But eventually, advertisers will figure out something that will work. And it won't be obtrusive so people wont go through the trouble to get around it.
If online ads weren't annoying, would you have gone through the trouble to block them? I didn't start blocking them until they started w/ the flashing and fake error messages (I did that because my girlfriend wasn't very technically savvy, and I didn't want her to think something was wrong with the computer and try to fix it). I do agree with you in that the advertisers did it to themselves. But if you think about it those advertisements were from small or startup companies. I don't recal ever seeing an annoying online ad from someone like Sears or WalMart. They were usually from some software company trying to sell spam blocking software or the like.
Out of curiousity, why do you think MS cares if we see online ads or not?
Because other corporations would try to persuade them (ie Time Warner, Wal Mart, etc) to make it so their advertisments aren't blocked, the same way the recording industry has tried to persuade them to install DRM. That is my reasoning. It might be flawed, but I wasn't trying to make a dig on Microsoft. They are just another company who, like all companies, is looking out to maximize profits, and as long as they obey the law, more power to them. But revenue from advertisments makes Microsofts income look like mine in comparison to Microsoft's. That is a lot of pressure for Microsoft to ignore.
The rest of your post goes along with what I was saying. The online advertisement industry is in its infancy. It has to learn what works, and what doesn't. The main thing I think they have learned in the past 10 years is that online ads can't be anoying.
I'm not overlooking it. Yes, people CAN block online ads, but do they. Microsoft surely isn't going to want this, so they will probably put in things to prevent IE from showing pages with blocked ads (possibly at a kernel level to other browsers won't be able to either). As more and more less technical savy individuals get online, more and more ads will be seen. Also, if the ads aren't intrusive they won't get blocked as much. People block ads because they are anoying, not because they have any desire to get something for nothing. My point was (and maybe I didn't make it clearly), the online advertising industry is still in its infancy. As it matures, and the advertisers figure out what works and what doesn't, they will be able to charge more. At this point in time (and I would say for the next 5-10 years) it is too early to say that the news industry is going to die.
Actually, there isn't a problem. Some bean counters at the newspaper are looking at their books and seeing an increase in the amount of people reading their newspaper online, and a reduction in the amount of "paper" sales. The newspapers don't make as much money from online ads and are saying the sky is falling. These are "old school" newspaper folk who don't realize that what they are selling on the street isn't the news, it is the medium it is being deliverd on. They are too short sighted to realize that as more people read the news online, the prices of ad-space will increase. I cannot believe that the $.50 a paper costs (less if you have a subscription) is in any way paying for more than the paper, ink, and delivery costs associated with bringing a paper to the reader. The costs almost entirely disappear with online papers (yes, I know the bandwith and server charges are there, but those are really nothing in comparison to the amount of money a newspaper spends on paper and ink). The real money a newspaper makes is in selling ads. Currently online advertisements aren't as profitable. But that is because industry isn't used to this type of advertisement, and isn't sure it is worth spending money on. So, the newspapers are selling online ad space for less money. But as online ads catch on, companies will feel more comfortable with them, and they will be just as profitable as "traditional" ad space.
Slashdot Mirror
If you design a mechanical device, is it not your place as the designer to define what ways use of the device is destructive to the device, and what ways are non-destructive?
... then sure.
... sure.
I would say that I would probably be the most likely person to be able to, but that I might not think of things that someone else might later point out, but then again, I'm human, and I make mistakes. But, initially, yes.
If there is a God who created people, is it not His place to define acceptable and unacceptable norms?
Ok, IF there is a God who
If that is true, then is it not also acceptable for Him to determine what to do about people who are in the area of unacceptable norms?
Ok, once again, IF
The problem is that what if that isn't the case, but it is only the case that you (and others like you) BELIEVE this to be the case. What if there is no God, then how do you determine what to do?
forrestt: I have this book that was written by the creator of the Universe. It says that anybody with the name of Anomaly is obviously an immoral person, and should be stoned to death.
anomaly: That is silly, who ever heard of such crap. Why do you belive such nonesense?
forrestt: I believe it cause it was written by the creator of the Universe. He knows everything, and never makes mistakes.
Does this really sound like a good way to have an argument about morality? You don't have to convince yourself and other Christians how to act, you have to convince OTHERS how to act. If they don't buy the tenant of God, then everything else you are saying falls apart.
Personally, I'm an Athiest, but I would be the first in line to fight for your right to hold your beliefs, pass them on to your children, and to speak with anyone who was interrested in the teachings of your religion. Ironically, I tend to follow the teachings of Christ despite the fact that I do not believe in God. If more Christians were actually Christlike, there might actually be world peace. Unfortuanately, most Christians hold onto the Old Testament and forget that most of that was thrown out by Christ as being wrong. According to the Bible, he walked on earth, and taught people how to behave. Unfortunately, most Christians are too concerned with the splinter in their neighbor's eye to see that.
Oh, and one more thing (not to you, but Christians at large): If you pray in such a way as to let other people know you are praying, you are NOT following Christ's teachings. Walking around with a WWJD bracelet or driving a car with a license plate that reads PR4ZHIM falls into this same category.
Here is my proof:
Matthew 6
1 Take heed that you do not do your merciful deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward with your Father in Heaven.
2 Therefore when you do your merciful deeds, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may have glory from men. Truly I say to you, They have their reward.
3 But when you do merciful deeds, do not let your left hand know what your right hand does,
4 so that your merciful deeds may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret Himself shall reward you openly.
5 And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, They have their reward.
6 But you, when you pray, enter into your room. And shutting your door, pray to your Father in secret; and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly.
7 But when you pray, do not babble vain words, as the nations. For they think that in their much speaking they shall be heard.
8 Therefore do not be like them, for your Father knows what things you have need of, before you ask Him.
In other words, if anything you are doing to follow God could be interpreted as being prideful toward men, you will get no reward. Read the rest of Matthew 6 if you need more insight into this topic (as 95% of the Christians I meet do).
Why are the phone companies concerned w/ the phone being locked or not. If I bought a one cent phone, and had to sign up for a two year contract to get it, then I am stuck in a two year contract. If I mod the phone, I am still stuck in a two year contract. If I jump up and down on the phone, I am still stuck in a two year contract. If I play some skeet shooting w/ the phone as the pigeon, I am still stuck in a two year contract. If I sign up for service with another provider in another country w/ the same phone, how is this hurting the first company? In other words, they are still getting the money from me according to the contract, so why do they care?
Gosh... I'm really trying hard to make this a funny bittorrent joke, but I find that I've just described actual commerce. How depressing.
Actually, it sounds like you are describing a pyramid scheme
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Consider this sentence:
A well working automobile, being necessary for you to get to work, your right to drive shall not be infringed. (and please, I know that driving is a privilege not a right)
Did I just say you can ONLY drive to work? NO! I only stated a good reason not to infringe your rights, and that your rights would not be infringed. The first sentence does the same thing.
It says that a well regulated militia is needed in order to maintain a free state AND the government will not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
IT IN NO WAY says that you must be part of the militia in order to have said right.
Remember, this sentence was written by a group of men who just faught a war with an oppressive government. A government that attempted to take away their firearms. NONE of them were part of a militia UNTIL they decided to fight in said war to overthrow their government, and they knew that if their government had been successful in taking away their firearms, they would have had NO chance of victory. This sentence was an attempt to make sure that would NEVER happen in their new country. In other words, "We know that we needed guns to fight and stay free, and that at some point down the road, men may once again need to fight for their freedoms. We need to put something into our Constitution to make sure that men will always be able to fight the government if it becomes as oppressive as King George was to us."
Now, consider this. If the government can take away this right, which right can they NOT take away. An attack on your freedoms is not all at once, but rather like a cancer, slowly eating them away while you aren't watching, until it is too late and they are entirely gone.
Yes, I was TRYING to be funny. I typically use English the way it is intended to be used, and "would of" is one of my biggest pet peeves. Along with your as in, "Your the dumbest person I know." or its, "Its your fault that I'm this pissed off."
Note the the ignorant, the above are examples of the way you are NOT supposed to speak/write.
He would of been right if he wouldn't of been wrong.
Man that was hard to type.
Seven, but the last one doesn't count.
I love good sarcasm. (and I wasn't being sarcastic w/ that statement). I agree, it will take something very powerful from the consumer's perspective to get advertisers to quit. This is the reason I have cut back to only watching 1 to 2 movies per year in the Theatre. I don't feel I should pay $9+ per ticket, $15+ for popcorn and drinks, and be forced to watch crappy ads for Fanta before I see the show. I also bought a TiVo several years ago, and don't watch commercials much at all. Advertisers will put ads wherever they can, I know this. But, it is becomming easier and easier to block the current ad schemas. Hopefully, these new technologies will help strike a balance (not that I think this will actually happen). But, I also wasn't trying to imply "give them a chance", I was trying to imply "force them to rethink things."
ICMPTV and UDPTV
(Note to moderators, this is supposed to be FUNNY).
You're right, I would much rather watch ads for crap I am totally NOT interested in. If they could do better advertisment targeting, they might actually be able to show LESS ads and make the same amount of money (not that they will show less ads, but you never know. If they show 2 ads, and find out I have changed the chanel, they might figure it out.) Besides, I have predicted for years that once the PVR's get more widestream, ads will be IN the show, not between segments (example, someone picks up a Coke and drinks it instead of a 30sec commercial on how good Coke is).
OK, I haven't seen Die Hard 3 in a long time, but I don't get it.
I believe it is:
Q. You have a five gallon bucket and a three gallon bucket. How do you fill the five gallon bucket with EXACTLY four gallons.
A. Fill the three gallon bucket, and pour the contents into the five gallon bucket. Now, fill the three gallon bucket again, and slowly pour the contents into the five gallon bucket until the five gallon bucket is full. You have five gallons in the five gallon bucket, and one gallon in the three gallon bucket. Empty the five gallon bucket. Pour the one gallon from the three gallon bucket into the five gallon bucket (the five gallon bucket now only has one gallon in it). Fill the three gallon bucket again, and pour it into the five gallon bucket. It now has four gallons in it.
Or
Fill the five gallon bucket. Pour the contents into the three gallon bucket until the three gallon bucket is full. Now empty the three gallon bucket, and then pour the two remaining gallons from the five gallon bucket into the three gallon bucket. Fill the five gallon bucket and pour the water from the five gallon bucket into the three gallon bucket until it is full. You now have four gallons left in the five gallon bucket.
That wouldn't get them all. Try this:
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, chown -R you `find ~ -name base`.
It's some sort of cross between python and perl...
You mean it's PHP?
I don't use bash. It doesn't work in tcsh:
% > test.test
Invalid null command.
actually, I think I did the cp because the file already existed, and touch would just update the timestamp.
Actually, now that I think about it, that is probably what I did (shouldn't post before my first pot of coffee).
I'm running a webserver on my box for development, and I use 127.0.0.1. However, I did a cp /dev/null missing.html so a not found just gives a blank page.
However, your method seems less of a hack.
Yeah, but I typically get up at 9:00 a.m. This might be the one chance I get to wake up at the crack of dawn.
I can see how important this issue is. Now, which one has the better login screen?
You still haven't gotten my point. Forget everything you know about the way ads are currently implemented. They WILL NOT WORK. I agree with you on that. But that doesn't mean nothing will work. Eventually, someone will stumble across an ad mechinism that will be both effective and unobtrusive. At that point (and this may be many years in the future), businesses will start using them. And nothing you have currently done to block ads will block them, because they are not the type of ads you are currently blocking. They will be a part of the page, blending in like ads in a paper newspaper (probably something LIKE google ads). Since they won't be annoying, people aren't going to go through the trouble to block them (people are lazy, and will put up with a lot of annoyance before they do something to fix the problem). And, it wasn't the ad industry that was the problem. It was the same type of people that send spam. Products or services that are worth purchasing rarely have "in your face" advertising tactics. It is the cheap crap and scams that use this type of advertisment. Since putting an ad online is very cheap, this it the prefered place for fly-by-night operations.
The online advertisement industry is still young (compared to the centuries of print advertisement). I don't think we have seen even one example of where or what a successful online ad will look like. I think what google ads do is probably close. Eventually advertisers will figure out what works (which is what I've been trying to say all along). There is too much monitary incentive for them not to persue it. No, popups/unders will NOT work, and will probably always be blocked. Graphical ads from an ad server are also too easy to block. But eventually, advertisers will figure out something that will work. And it won't be obtrusive so people wont go through the trouble to get around it.
If online ads weren't annoying, would you have gone through the trouble to block them? I didn't start blocking them until they started w/ the flashing and fake error messages (I did that because my girlfriend wasn't very technically savvy, and I didn't want her to think something was wrong with the computer and try to fix it). I do agree with you in that the advertisers did it to themselves. But if you think about it those advertisements were from small or startup companies. I don't recal ever seeing an annoying online ad from someone like Sears or WalMart. They were usually from some software company trying to sell spam blocking software or the like.
Out of curiousity, why do you think MS cares if we see online ads or not?
Because other corporations would try to persuade them (ie Time Warner, Wal Mart, etc) to make it so their advertisments aren't blocked, the same way the recording industry has tried to persuade them to install DRM. That is my reasoning. It might be flawed, but I wasn't trying to make a dig on Microsoft. They are just another company who, like all companies, is looking out to maximize profits, and as long as they obey the law, more power to them. But revenue from advertisments makes Microsofts income look like mine in comparison to Microsoft's. That is a lot of pressure for Microsoft to ignore.
The rest of your post goes along with what I was saying. The online advertisement industry is in its infancy. It has to learn what works, and what doesn't. The main thing I think they have learned in the past 10 years is that online ads can't be anoying.
I'm not overlooking it. Yes, people CAN block online ads, but do they. Microsoft surely isn't going to want this, so they will probably put in things to prevent IE from showing pages with blocked ads (possibly at a kernel level to other browsers won't be able to either). As more and more less technical savy individuals get online, more and more ads will be seen. Also, if the ads aren't intrusive they won't get blocked as much. People block ads because they are anoying, not because they have any desire to get something for nothing. My point was (and maybe I didn't make it clearly), the online advertising industry is still in its infancy. As it matures, and the advertisers figure out what works and what doesn't, they will be able to charge more. At this point in time (and I would say for the next 5-10 years) it is too early to say that the news industry is going to die.
Actually, there isn't a problem. Some bean counters at the newspaper are looking at their books and seeing an increase in the amount of people reading their newspaper online, and a reduction in the amount of "paper" sales. The newspapers don't make as much money from online ads and are saying the sky is falling. These are "old school" newspaper folk who don't realize that what they are selling on the street isn't the news, it is the medium it is being deliverd on. They are too short sighted to realize that as more people read the news online, the prices of ad-space will increase. I cannot believe that the $.50 a paper costs (less if you have a subscription) is in any way paying for more than the paper, ink, and delivery costs associated with bringing a paper to the reader. The costs almost entirely disappear with online papers (yes, I know the bandwith and server charges are there, but those are really nothing in comparison to the amount of money a newspaper spends on paper and ink). The real money a newspaper makes is in selling ads. Currently online advertisements aren't as profitable. But that is because industry isn't used to this type of advertisement, and isn't sure it is worth spending money on. So, the newspapers are selling online ad space for less money. But as online ads catch on, companies will feel more comfortable with them, and they will be just as profitable as "traditional" ad space.