> religious conservatives who are employing censorship to "protect public morals" (or whatever they imagine themselves doing)
Are you by chance stoned out of your mind right now? The great firewall of China is there to block international religious text ideas and other ideas which are at odds with the dictum of the ATHEIST Communist party of China. Exactly the opposite of what you seem to think.
Preaching in China can get you a jail sentence, though in recent decades they've started allowing Buddhist and Taoist centers under government control.
The words Linus used at the time to clarify the debugging process were: "Somebody finds the problem, and somebody else understands it."
Here's my own personal example. I discovered that there was a bug in the storage stack, which caused writes to eventually fail under certain conditions. I had no idea where in the code the problem might be; didn't know which source file to start looking in. I posted the problem to the appropriate mailing list (LVM-DEVEL). Somebody on that list immediately recognised that a different group, a different mailing list actually owned the problem, md-devel.
I posted the problem on md-devel. Somebody quickly replied that the problem would most likely to be found in a certain source file, and told me how to start debugging it. I did as he suggested and an hour later got to the end of my ability again, so I posted the results. Neil Brown, Linux RAID maintainer, looked at my results and knew exactly what must have caused it. He emailed me a fix for the within a few minutes. After I tested the fix, Neil committed it to the kernel repo.
It would have been impossible for me to fully characterise the problem myself, much less fix it. Neil Brown knew the code inside and out but never saw the bug until I pointed it out. With three or four sets of eyes on it from different perspectives, we found and fixed a tricly bug without any of us spending days trying to figure things out. What I found made the issue transparent to Neil, though it was totally opaque to me.
My phone wants to say "syntax" everywhere. That should be "sentence". As I recall, in the original text one had to quote just the first four words of the sentence in order to pretend it's not about what happens after a bug is discovered. And ignore the first two words "all bugs" (clearly saying there ARE bugs), plus ignore "are shallow" (the bugs are shallow to fix, not non-existent). So you'd have to a) pull four words out of context and b) ignore the plain meaning of those four words.
The original had it as one sentence with a semicolon or comma as I recall. So you just had to read the entire syntax to understand he was talking about the process after a bug is discovered. The current version has a period, dividing it into two sentences.
That's the biggest and possibly stupidest straw man on the internet. Read the syntax before after to have a clue about context, or even look up the difference between deep and shallow problems. He didn't say "given enough eyeballs, there are no bugs". In fact, he said there ARE bugs, and he talked about methods of fixing the bugs that are found. Again, he didn't say "given enough eyeballs, there are no bugs". He said the bug would be shallow to someone.
Traditionally the proprietary model is that one programmer owns a module. The same same programmer who wrote the module (and the bug) is supposed to find and fix his own mistake. That model assumes that the person who misunderstood the effects of the ode when he wrote it will magically understand it correctly later. The person who didn't get it right the first time is expected to find their own mistake and magically know the best thing to do instead, the best way to fix it.
Which *is* kinda stupid.
The difference with Linux development model was, Linus said "Somebody finds the problem, and somebody else understands it". Nobody needs to bang their head against the wall for two days trying to figure out a deep bug, to understand why it's wrong, then how it should be rewritten to make it right.
Instead, when shellshock was discovered hundreds of developers looked at the code. Some saw part of the problem, and suggested partial solutions. Florian Mueller's eyes were also on it and he immediately saw what needed to be done. Within 24 hours the community had discussed it and agreed on Florian's solution. Compare Microsoft IE bugs like the vary header bug which was known for 10 years before it was fixed properly; a half-ass bandaid came out seven years after Microsoft publicly ackowledged the bug, but the programmer it was assigned to didn't see a good way to fix it.
Here's the full quote from ESR in context: -- [Linux avoided] f any serious bug proved intractable. Linus was behaving as though he believed something like this: 8. Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone. Or, less formally, "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.'' I dub this: "Linus's Law''. My original formulation was that every problem "will be transparent to somebody''. Linus demurred that the person who understands and fixes the problem is not necessarily or even usually the person who first characterizes it. "Somebody finds the problem,'' he says, "and somebody else understands it." ----
I have a few months of college left and rather than graduating with debt, I'll graduate with more money in the bank than when I started school. While in school, I bought a new house worth twice as much as the one I bought before I went to college.
You *can* go into a bunch of debt and get a useless degree in Gender Studies. A degree in snowflake studies at UCLA and then whining about it is an option.
Another option is a degree in an IT field from WGU, which costs $4,500 / year after the current $1,500 tax credit, and while you're in school you'll be getting certifications such as Cisco CCNA, which increases your salary while you're still in school.
Your parents and grandparents *also* had the option to do dumb shit. Most of them didn't.
Most people don't buy Pandora services at the time they install the app. The revenue-generating commmercial activity, the trade, occurs when you use the service. You literally trade ads for music. Speaking of "hence the term", hence the term service mark, applicable when you're using a service.
Were that not true, your argument would imply it's okay for me to make a TV network called NBC, amd there would be no trademark or service mark issues because viewers don't pay with CASH when they watch, they pay by watching ads.
Imagine if another app had an icon that looked EXACTLY like your favorite web browser, perhaps Firefox. So every time you tried to use the web you have a 50/50 chance of getting Facebook's app instead. That would be a) highly annoying and b) unfair for Facebook to trick users into opening the Facebook app instead of their web browser. If they did that by copying the Chrome or Firefox logo, that would be trademark violation.
> Brand confusion is you walk out of the store having purchased a confusingly-labelled product, take it home, and attribute your experience to the other product.
Not according to any court, anywhere. When you want Coca-Cola, and you pick up a bottle that appears to be marked with Coke's trademark and put it into your basket, that's brand confusion. That would be a problem, even if when you got home you realized they had tricked you into buying Cocka-Colla. Consumers shouldn't be tricked into using, buying, installing, etc products and services by deceptive markings.
Note that "oh but our red and and white bottle says Coka, not Coke" doesn't make it not deceptive. If it fools people into picking up the wrong product, it's deceptive.
> However, Trademark law is not around to prevent you from accidentally launching the wrong program on your computer. Or is it?
That's an interesting question. Launching or installing (Roughly using or buying). It's supposed to be primarily* to protect the consumer from getting a product or service other than the one the think they are getting. If you're trying to get Paypal, and you make a selection based on the Paypal trademark / service mark, but end up with the wrong service due to a confusingly similar mark, there is a case to be made.
I take no position on who should win, but given Paypal has documented many examples of actual consumer confusion, it's not a ridiculous case.
* also it is supposed to protect those who spend years providing a quality service in order to build a trusted brand. But mostly it's supposed to be about if the consumer ends up with something other than what they are trying to get.
Here's the short form of what he above poster said:
Yes, a trademark only covers the types of things you sell. Apple can sell computers, while Apple sells records, with no problem. Buyers won't confuse Apple records with Apple computers.
The problem only arises when Apple (computers) starts selling music (itunes) or a possibly a music workstation.
HOWEVER, if you see a red shirt with white lettering that says COKE, or Coca Cola, buyers will likely associate that with the beverage company. A brand as famous and strong as Coke could cause confusion on most any merchandise.
> You just can look at all the worried lobbying telcos
So you're thinking is that if the people who actually run the networks, the people who know what they are talking about, think it's a horribly stupid idea, that proves that it's a great idea?
One early draft of the rules made it illegal to block spam - all smtp traffic had to be treated equally. Ensuing drafts were dumb in a similar, but more complex way. All traffic is NOT the same. Sometimes you WANT your packets delayed, because early packets are dropped in real-time streaming. Yeah they would have had effects - effects like prohibiting proper handling of real time flows, thereby worsening the customer experience.
Okay so apparently your theory is that although the FCC regulations hadn't gone into effect, they still had some great benefit on the internet. 2016, which had NN regulations written, was somehow much better than 1992-2014, with no such regulations, right?
What *exactly* was so great, what did the new regulations accomplish that was better than what we've always had? Added expenses certainly slowed price reductions, what eas this great benefit that was worth it?
People are concerned that a few major ISPs will provide just their content or make deals with a few content companies to provide the content. That is as opposed every ISP providing access to all web sites and internet services. That *could* happen. That *did* happen. The ISPs were called AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. When others offered free and open access to everything on the internet, that beat the pants off the "ISP as content provider" model. People did in fact abandon Prodigy and instead signed up with companies that provide open access to everything.
We need not predict how things would go if ISPs favored sponsored content, that already happened. AOL and Prodigy are the past, so we can see that idea did fail. Open internet access did win in the market, without any fiat from Washington.
> that the outcomes from an academic exercise will be remotely similar
Regulation by the FTC, without net neutrality regulations, isn't an academic exercise. It's what we had until late 2015. It's what built the goddamn internet. I don't have to predict how that make work, that's the past. And I wad there, a member of the Internet Engineering Task Force drafting protocol standards such as HTTP (aka the web). I'd say our little web project went pretty damn well without Washington telling us how to route packets.
The FCC (who created the phone company monstrosities) took over and neutrality regulations were released in 2015. They have never been enforced yet. So those decades of innovation building the world wide web - that was all without net neutrality micromanaging networks, with just FTC regulations.
Words have two types of meaning, both connotation and denotation. Two words may have the exact same denotation, but quite different connotation.
The primary purpose of clothing is clothing is to cover the skin. Other purposes of clothing, such as "saggin" pants, dress shirts, and lab coats include communicating information about one's values, role in the current context, and standards of behavior. Certain clothing suggests that the wearer believes snitches get stiches, other clothing indicates the opposite.
Similarly, the tone of language communicates all of the above and much more. If you are unable to understand the difference between "yo dawg u b trippin" and "Sir, I believe your perspective may lack appropriate context", you may be lacking an essential skill. The two sentences convey quite different connotations, though the same denotation.
Talking about the number of genes is a bit silly, agreed. If you want to compare the two, compare them directly. There are humans and dogs trained in smelling things (in the fragrance industry, for example). Run a direct comparison test. Also of course you could directly test having untrained humans and dogs smell for food and other items.
DRUG dogs, specifically, have not fared well in blind in blind tests. While *some* dogs are probably quite good, in testing the typical police dog consistently "alerts" on wherever the handler thinks the drugs are. Tests have been done in which the drugs are in box #1, nothing is in box #2, and the police handler is *told* the drugs are in box #3. A police dog is more likely to alert on #3, where the cop thinks the drugs are, then box #1, where the drugs actually are.
Corning has already had a short period in which Apple tried a different supplier. They've also has similar deals come and go over their 165 year history. Corning is a major supplier and leading innovator in speciality glass and ceramic products, and optics, used in many different industries.
Apple is an important customer, for sure, but far from their only customer. Corning was a leader in their industry long before Apple even existed. They wouldn't be going out of business without Apple, just R&Ding their next big thing. Just like Corningware was great for Corning for a while, then that levelled off.
> God has a moral component being either the source of moral goodness or its arbitrator (depending on your view)
The biblical God, from all I've read, *is* truth, not the arbiter of truth. "I am the way, the truth, and the light". (The word "am" here is the permanent "am"). Anywhere in that big old Bible does it say "I am the arbiter of morality? If so I haven't seen it.
To whatever extent morality is true, whatever moral laws are fixed and permanent, those are *part of* the biblical God because God *is* truth, according to the Bible. Whatever laws of physics are true, always true, are of course part of "I am the truth".
I haven't taken a survey of how "most people" understand things, but the biblical God is truth - all truth.
I heard a quantum astro physicist speak on this recently. It was interesting that what he said the requirements for the big bang would be just happened to match up to some things outside of physics.
You mentioned: > It all comes down to relativity: If the universe started as a single dimensionless point, then the gravity would have been so strong that time didn't exist. If time didn't exist
If time didn't exist within that point, if the gravity was so strong nothing could escape, then *nothing* could happen, within a basic understanding of relatively. For anything to happen, for the big bang to happen, you need either something outside pf physics (something meta-physical) or certain laws of quantum physics must be present in a very particular way.
Biblically, when God is asked who he is, the answer is basically "I am what it timeless" or "I am what has always been and always will be" (English doesn't have exactly the right words because we give several meanings to the word "is/am" Spanish comes closer with es vs esta). Also "I am the truth". So God states he is, essentially, timeless truth. Whatever has always been true, that's God.
And the physicists say that *before* the big bang can happen, quantum physics must *already* be true. Quantum physics must be timeless truth in order to get the big bang, or else the big bang has to be caused by something beyond physics, something meta-physical.
Therefore reading the plain words, the laws pf physics are timeless truth that must have existed before the big bang, and that's what God is - timeless truth that existed before the big bang. The founders of the US would then have been correct to call the laws of nature the laws of God, acts of nature are called acts of God. They are one and the same. They are timeless truth.
I believe those exceptions are called rights, or human rights. An individual or group may do as they please, but should not infringe on anyone's rights.
If you only have the "right" to say things everyone agrees with, that's no right at all; that's just agreement.
Note that the US Constitution and others modeled on it do not by their terms create rights, they bar the government from *infringing* on the rights. It also says "the right of free speech", not "a right of free speech" - the framers recognized that human rights *already* existed and said shall not infringe rights.
Thanks for pointing that out. So "do not call me" becomes "do call me". That can be avoided by processing a video packet (pr any other packet) ahead of the early voip packets. By delaying when necessary to minimize jitter, the voip doesn't drop out.
Unfotunately, legislators don't know why users WANT their VOIP packets delayed.* They don't know network jitter from doing the jitterbug. So their chance of writing a law that a) Comcast can't find giant loopholes in and b) doesn't completely fuck up proper flow management is about 0%.
* If you deliver each VOIP packet as quickly as possible, when you say "do not call me" the person on the other end might hear "not me, do call".
Slashdot Mirror
> religious conservatives who are employing censorship to "protect public morals" (or whatever they imagine themselves doing)
Are you by chance stoned out of your mind right now? The great firewall of China is there to block international religious text ideas and other ideas which are at odds with the dictum of the ATHEIST Communist party of China. Exactly the opposite of what you seem to think.
Preaching in China can get you a jail sentence, though in recent decades they've started allowing Buddhist and Taoist centers under government control.
The words Linus used at the time to clarify the debugging process were:
"Somebody finds the problem, and somebody else understands it."
Here's my own personal example. I discovered that there was a bug in the storage stack, which caused writes to eventually fail under certain conditions. I had no idea where in the code the problem might be; didn't know which source file to start looking in. I posted the problem to the appropriate mailing list (LVM-DEVEL). Somebody on that list immediately recognised that a different group, a different mailing list actually owned the problem, md-devel.
I posted the problem on md-devel. Somebody quickly replied that the problem would most likely to be found in a certain source file, and told me how to start debugging it. I did as he suggested and an hour later got to the end of my ability again, so I posted the results. Neil Brown, Linux RAID maintainer, looked at my results and knew exactly what must have caused it. He emailed me a fix for the within a few minutes. After I tested the fix, Neil committed it to the kernel repo.
It would have been impossible for me to fully characterise the problem myself, much less fix it. Neil Brown knew the code inside and out but never saw the bug until I pointed it out. With three or four sets of eyes on it from different perspectives, we found and fixed a tricly bug without any of us spending days trying to figure things out. What I found made the issue transparent to Neil, though it was totally opaque to me.
My phone wants to say "syntax" everywhere. That should be "sentence". As I recall, in the original text one had to quote just the first four words of the sentence in order to pretend it's not about what happens after a bug is discovered. And ignore the first two words "all bugs" (clearly saying there ARE bugs), plus ignore "are shallow" (the bugs are shallow to fix, not non-existent). So you'd have to a) pull four words out of context and b) ignore the plain meaning of those four words.
The original had it as one sentence with a semicolon or comma as I recall. So you just had to read the entire syntax to understand he was talking about the process after a bug is discovered. The current version has a period, dividing it into two sentences.
That's the biggest and possibly stupidest straw man on the internet. Read the syntax before after to have a clue about context, or even look up the difference between deep and shallow problems. He didn't say "given enough eyeballs, there are no bugs". In fact, he said there ARE bugs, and he talked about methods of fixing the bugs that are found. Again, he didn't say "given enough eyeballs, there are no bugs". He said the bug would be shallow to someone.
Traditionally the proprietary model is that one programmer owns a module. The same same programmer who wrote the module (and the bug) is supposed to find and fix his own mistake. That model assumes that the person who misunderstood the effects of the ode when he wrote it will magically understand it correctly later. The person who didn't get it right the first time is expected to find their own mistake and magically know the best thing to do instead, the best way to fix it.
Which *is* kinda stupid.
The difference with Linux development model was, Linus said "Somebody finds the problem, and somebody else understands it". Nobody needs to bang their head against the wall for two days trying to figure out a deep bug, to understand why it's wrong, then how it should be rewritten to make it right.
Instead, when shellshock was discovered hundreds of developers looked at the code. Some saw part of the problem, and suggested partial solutions. Florian Mueller's eyes were also on it and he immediately saw what needed to be done. Within 24 hours the community had discussed it and agreed on Florian's solution. Compare Microsoft IE bugs like the vary header bug which was known for 10 years before it was fixed properly; a half-ass bandaid came out seven years after Microsoft publicly ackowledged the bug, but the programmer it was assigned to didn't see a good way to fix it.
Here's the full quote from ESR in context:
--
[Linux avoided] f any serious bug proved intractable. Linus was behaving as though he believed something like this:
8. Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.
Or, less formally, "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.'' I dub this: "Linus's Law''.
My original formulation was that every problem "will be transparent to somebody''. Linus demurred that the person who understands and fixes the problem is not necessarily or even usually the person who first characterizes it. "Somebody finds the problem,'' he says, "and somebody else understands it."
----
I have a few months of college left and rather than graduating with debt, I'll graduate with more money in the bank than when I started school. While in school, I bought a new house worth twice as much as the one I bought before I went to college.
You *can* go into a bunch of debt and get a useless degree in Gender Studies. A degree in snowflake studies at UCLA and then whining about it is an option.
Another option is a degree in an IT field from WGU, which costs $4,500 / year after the current $1,500 tax credit, and while you're in school you'll be getting certifications such as Cisco CCNA, which increases your salary while you're still in school.
Your parents and grandparents *also* had the option to do dumb shit. Most of them didn't.
Most people don't buy Pandora services at the time they install the app. The revenue-generating commmercial activity, the trade, occurs when you use the service. You literally trade ads for music. Speaking of "hence the term", hence the term service mark, applicable when you're using a service.
Were that not true, your argument would imply it's okay for me to make a TV network called NBC, amd there would be no trademark or service mark issues because viewers don't pay with CASH when they watch, they pay by watching ads.
Imagine if another app had an icon that looked EXACTLY like your favorite web browser, perhaps Firefox. So every time you tried to use the web you have a 50/50 chance of getting Facebook's app instead. That would be a) highly annoying and b) unfair for Facebook to trick users into opening the Facebook app instead of their web browser. If they did that by copying the Chrome or Firefox logo, that would be trademark violation.
> Brand confusion is you walk out of the store having purchased a confusingly-labelled product, take it home, and attribute your experience to the other product.
Not according to any court, anywhere. When you want Coca-Cola, and you pick up a bottle that appears to be marked with Coke's trademark and put it into your basket, that's brand confusion. That would be a problem, even if when you got home you realized they had tricked you into buying Cocka-Colla. Consumers shouldn't be tricked into using, buying, installing, etc products and services by deceptive markings.
Note that "oh but our red and and white bottle says Coka, not Coke" doesn't make it not deceptive. If it fools people into picking up the wrong product, it's deceptive.
> However, Trademark law is not around to prevent you from accidentally launching the wrong program on your computer. Or is it?
That's an interesting question. Launching or installing (Roughly using or buying). It's supposed to be primarily* to protect the consumer from getting a product or service other than the one the think they are getting. If you're trying to get Paypal, and you make a selection based on the Paypal trademark / service mark, but end up with the wrong service due to a confusingly similar mark, there is a case to be made.
I take no position on who should win, but given Paypal has documented many examples of actual consumer confusion, it's not a ridiculous case.
* also it is supposed to protect those who spend years providing a quality service in order to build a trusted brand. But mostly it's supposed to be about if the consumer ends up with something other than what they are trying to get.
Here's the short form of what he above poster said:
Yes, a trademark only covers the types of things you sell.
Apple can sell computers, while Apple sells records, with no problem. Buyers won't confuse Apple records with Apple computers.
The problem only arises when Apple (computers) starts selling music (itunes) or a possibly a music workstation.
HOWEVER, if you see a red shirt with white lettering that says COKE, or Coca Cola, buyers will likely associate that with the beverage company. A brand as famous and strong as Coke could cause confusion on most any merchandise.
> You just can look at all the worried lobbying telcos
So you're thinking is that if the people who actually run the networks, the people who know what they are talking about, think it's a horribly stupid idea, that proves that it's a great idea?
One early draft of the rules made it illegal to block spam - all smtp traffic had to be treated equally. Ensuing drafts were dumb in a similar, but more complex way. All traffic is NOT the same. Sometimes you WANT your packets delayed, because early packets are dropped in real-time streaming. Yeah they would have had effects - effects like prohibiting proper handling of real time flows, thereby worsening the customer experience.
Okay so apparently your theory is that although the FCC regulations hadn't gone into effect, they still had some great benefit on the internet. 2016, which had NN regulations written, was somehow much better than 1992-2014, with no such regulations, right?
What *exactly* was so great, what did the new regulations accomplish that was better than what we've always had? Added expenses certainly slowed price reductions, what eas this great benefit that was worth it?
People are concerned that a few major ISPs will provide just their content or make deals with a few content companies to provide the content. That is as opposed every ISP providing access to all web sites and internet services. That *could* happen. That *did* happen. The ISPs were called AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. When others offered free and open access to everything on the internet, that beat the pants off the "ISP as content provider" model. People did in fact abandon Prodigy and instead signed up with companies that provide open access to everything.
We need not predict how things would go if ISPs favored sponsored content, that already happened. AOL and Prodigy are the past, so we can see that idea did fail. Open internet access did win in the market, without any fiat from Washington.
> that the outcomes from an academic exercise will be remotely similar
Regulation by the FTC, without net neutrality regulations, isn't an academic exercise. It's what we had until late 2015. It's what built the goddamn internet. I don't have to predict how that make work, that's the past. And I wad there, a member of the Internet Engineering Task Force drafting protocol standards such as HTTP (aka the web). I'd say our little web project went pretty damn well without Washington telling us how to route packets.
The FCC (who created the phone company monstrosities) took over and neutrality regulations were released in 2015. They have never been enforced yet. So those decades of innovation building the world wide web - that was all without net neutrality micromanaging networks, with just FTC regulations.
yo dawg that b phat n shit
ya feel me dawg
Words have two types of meaning, both connotation and denotation. Two words may have the exact same denotation, but quite different connotation.
The primary purpose of clothing is clothing is to cover the skin. Other purposes of clothing, such as "saggin" pants, dress shirts, and lab coats include communicating information about one's values, role in the current context, and standards of behavior. Certain clothing suggests that the wearer believes snitches get stiches, other clothing indicates the opposite.
Similarly, the tone of language communicates all of the above and much more. If you are unable to understand the difference between "yo dawg u b trippin" and "Sir, I believe your perspective may lack appropriate context", you may be lacking an essential skill. The two sentences convey quite different connotations, though the same denotation.
PDF and Flash are executable code. Because that may not be obvious, perhaps "don't open attachments" is a good idea.
There has also been at least one jpeg vulnerability. Jpegs aren't supposed to contain executable code
Talking about the number of genes is a bit silly, agreed. If you want to compare the two, compare them directly. There are humans and dogs trained in smelling things (in the fragrance industry, for example). Run a direct comparison test. Also of course you could directly test having untrained humans and dogs smell for food and other items.
DRUG dogs, specifically, have not fared well in blind in blind tests. While *some* dogs are probably quite good, in testing the typical police dog consistently "alerts" on wherever the handler thinks the drugs are. Tests have been done in which the drugs are in box #1, nothing is in box #2, and the police handler is *told* the drugs are in box #3. A police dog is more likely to alert on #3, where the cop thinks the drugs are, then box #1, where the drugs actually are.
Corning has already had a short period in which Apple tried a different supplier. They've also has similar deals come and go over their 165 year history. Corning is a major supplier and leading innovator in speciality glass and ceramic products, and optics, used in many different industries.
Apple is an important customer, for sure, but far from their only customer. Corning was a leader in their industry long before Apple even existed. They wouldn't be going out of business without Apple, just R&Ding their next big thing. Just like Corningware was great for Corning for a while, then that levelled off.
> God has a moral component being either the source of moral goodness or its arbitrator (depending on your view)
The biblical God, from all I've read, *is* truth, not the arbiter of truth. "I am the way, the truth, and the light". (The word "am" here is the permanent "am"). Anywhere in that big old Bible does it say "I am the arbiter of morality? If so I haven't seen it.
To whatever extent morality is true, whatever moral laws are fixed and permanent, those are *part of* the biblical God because God *is* truth, according to the Bible. Whatever laws of physics are true, always true, are of course part of "I am the truth".
I haven't taken a survey of how "most people" understand things, but the biblical God is truth - all truth.
I heard a quantum astro physicist speak on this recently. It was interesting that what he said the requirements for the big bang would be just happened to match up to some things outside of physics.
You mentioned:
> It all comes down to relativity: If the universe started as a single dimensionless point, then the gravity would have been so strong that time didn't exist. If time didn't exist
If time didn't exist within that point, if the gravity was so strong nothing could escape, then *nothing* could happen, within a basic understanding of relatively. For anything to happen, for the big bang to happen, you need either something outside pf physics (something meta-physical) or certain laws of quantum physics must be present in a very particular way.
Biblically, when God is asked who he is, the answer is basically "I am what it timeless" or "I am what has always been and always will be" (English doesn't have exactly the right words because we give several meanings to the word "is/am" Spanish comes closer with es vs esta). Also "I am the truth". So God states he is, essentially, timeless truth. Whatever has always been true, that's God.
And the physicists say that *before* the big bang can happen, quantum physics must *already* be true. Quantum physics must be timeless truth in order to get the big bang, or else the big bang has to be caused by something beyond physics, something meta-physical.
Therefore reading the plain words, the laws pf physics are timeless truth that must have existed before the big bang, and that's what God is - timeless truth that existed before the big bang. The founders of the US would then have been correct to call the laws of nature the laws of God, acts of nature are called acts of God. They are one and the same. They are timeless truth.
> How would a properly secure and safe password system know if you new password is only slightly different than your old one?
it wouldn't. A sane system would store a salted hash of the password, so a bad guy can't download ALL of your damn password.
> If it can tell a minor change then it is not a good password setup
Right, it's a Windows password setup. *nix systems were more secure than that in the 1970s.
> Surely one can find exceptions to the rule.
I believe those exceptions are called rights, or human rights. An individual or group may do as they please, but should not infringe on anyone's rights.
If you only have the "right" to say things everyone agrees with, that's no right at all; that's just agreement.
Note that the US Constitution and others modeled on it do not by their terms create rights, they bar the government from *infringing* on the rights. It also says "the right of free speech", not "a right of free speech" - the framers recognized that human rights *already* existed and said shall not infringe rights.
Thanks for pointing that out. So "do not call me" becomes "do call me". That can be avoided by processing a video packet (pr any other packet) ahead of the early voip packets. By delaying when necessary to minimize jitter, the voip doesn't drop out.
Yeah that's the intent, and that's great.
Unfotunately, legislators don't know why users WANT their VOIP packets delayed.* They don't know network jitter from doing the jitterbug. So their chance of writing a law that a) Comcast can't find giant loopholes in and b) doesn't completely fuck up proper flow management is about 0%.
* If you deliver each VOIP packet as quickly as possible, when you say "do not call me" the person on the other end might hear "not me, do call".