I was referring to absolutist dismissal of religion. "Order the fundamentalists around" was very elliptical, sorry about that. Let me try that one again.
Social hierarchy is pretty much the only determinant of truth for such people. Evidence, reason... hell, they fervently implement policies which hurt their own children. They claim they want to stop abortions, but won't implement policies that stop abortions, on and on... they'll believe only what someone they recognize as an authority tells them to believe. "Science" is just another word for "authority" to them.
A lot of the public discussion, Dawkins being a good example, subjects them to social ridicule, which I think we can agree is an attempt to establish social authority. In that world, that really is an attempt to deny them their belief in their God.
Personally, I believe Jesus often used the word "poor" to encompass more than pecuniary deficits.
The right-wingers have given organized social hierarchy a bad name where not an outright vile stench. Douglas Adams had a good point: if they're obsessed and we're not, they win. I've noticed the figure 29% turning up repeatedly as the baseline fanatic vote, there's no need to, umm, get obsessive about obsession, they can be managed with a very dilute version if we can just get our act together and somehow make common cause with the sane ~15% in the GOP (I figure there's a few percent like Rove et al.).
You know what I notice? People try to order the fundamentalists around with the same authoritarian attitude the fundamentalists try to use on their teenagers and women and gays and any others they regard as insufficiently subservient. Why expect better results? Seems to me we've forgotten we're all human here.
Well, I ain't the mod, but I'd have flamebaited it too. There isn't a "flame" mod. Hell, my previous post was flame, I expect it to be downvoted, I even want it downvoted because it's addressed solely to the person I answered, not stinking up the general conversation like GP's. Actually, on second thought "redundant" would have been more accurate, you didn't make any point GGGP didn't, and he was both more detailed and more likely to actually do some good.
You can't have a monopoly or a monopolistic cartel without government intervention.
Fucking horse shit. The Sherman act was written _precisely_ because it's a la-la-la child's fantasy. You want to see what happens without government intervention? You look at the history of what that act stopped. You want to say oh, it wouldn't happen today? You're going to try to float that _here_, on _slashdot_ ?!!!?!? There simply aren't words. That fantasy is literally inexpressibly stupid.
Re:Was hoping a faster algorithm would be chosen..
on
SHA-3 Winner Announced
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps you'd like to read what that phrase is referring to. Here's my abridged form:
Actual military discipline for everyone subject to the call to military service is and was out of the question. What's necessary, what shall not be limited even around the fringes, is that as many as possible have and keep their own weapons and know how to use them.
and here it is in the words of one of those who actually wrote it:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped...
(emphasis mine)
To forestall any quibbles: Madison and Hamilton are and were two of the most famous Federalists. Madison wrote the amendment, Madison and Hamilton wrote a large fraction of the Federalist papers arguing for the adoption of the Constitution they (and many others) had written, the quote above is Hamilton, in one of those Federalist papers. So far as I know, nobody saw anything at all objectionable in the above description of their reasoning.
So if you're still going to argue the Second means anything other than ~nobody subject to the call to military service must ever be denied the right to possess and carry militia-grade weaponry~, you'll need to argue that all the men who wrote, advocated for, and adopted the U.S. Constitution had no idea what they were talking about.
Endorsed sweatshop conditions? I agree, that part really is absurd if you look at in context. No, really.
I believe that starting point is full context for what we both object to: the basis (and we agree it's a false basis) for the "endorsed" criticism. He's _endorsing_ being born in America, he calls that the silver spoon he was born with, and I think he's got a perfectly valid point there, He was certainly not "endorsing" sweatshop conditions.
He was just searching the world for sweatshop conditions so he and his could take the wealth they produced for themselves. No doubt he pities those poor women all the way to the bank. That's his "old fashioned way", that's how he got "everything he has", he flat out claims that _he's_ the one doing "hard work". So of course he deserves ever more of the wealth those women produced: after all, he's the one that earned it.
And he criticises the poor in America for their sense of "entitlement".
But that depends on the barcode reader working, and If you can get a barcode reader working you can get OCR working. Much better to just tattoo the digits on their forearms.
or even travel by car near the beach on a holiday weekend (hello, welcome to the checkpoint, papers please!)
It wasn't until I reread this that I realized just how deep your satire is. The Onion? The Colbert Report? Whichever, kudos on some of the most ludicrous, savage mockery of a right wing fathead I've seen all week.
Fair use is, by statute declaration, not copyright infringement at all. Copyright holders have no authority at all to forbid any fair use.
PP might as well have said a lot of people have a big misunderstanding of what "innocence" is, that "innocence" is just a defense you can use.
The criteria for fair use are laid out in statute law and have decades of case law to back them. Courts have the same discretion in finding the boundaries of fair use as they have in finding the boundaries of any other law, and the same responsibility. There's nothing at all remarkable about that discretion, it's why they're called "Judge".
They make very few thousands of the really high-end stuff like this. You can bet every dollar you have that these will execute faster. Multinational corporations don't shell out $20M for a mainframe upgrade without knowing exactly what they're getting.
L3 cache is 48GB. <== not a typo. There's an outboard L4 cache that's much larger. They've got bandwidth that can feed that beast: they were built to handle TB/s of just I/O bandwidth, not including CPU access to the data, something like a decade ago.
Providing internet service is insanely high margin once the lines are in place
Meaning, we're handing a lot of welfare^W"capital-gains" queens billions per year for nothing. They're providing a pittance of a service, far less for our money than what we get for taxes, and priding themselves on their "success".
Flat-lining in every use connotes death. Things that have leveled off "have stopped growing", "have reached a plateau", "have leveled off", "have saturated their market segment".
Isn't it this simple? Dedicate a code like say *811 or some such as "report last incoming call as an unsolicited robocall". Require all telcos to log the real source of the reported call. Any caller with enough robocall reports is required to account for their outgoing calls, and if unable is forced to pay the $500 statutory per-call penalty (that's what it is in California) to each call recipient, per call. Give the government say 15% of the penalty and I think no robocaller would be able to fly under the radar for long.
You're not getting it: with SSL-encrypted traffic the route is irrelevant. None of the transit nodes can see anything but impenetrable noise. Encrypted sessions aren't suspicious, they're ordinary. Encrypted http is widespread already; google defaults to it for anything that could conceivably be private. It defaults to it for news, maps, play, (gmail/docs/calendar of course,) probably more. There's nothing in the least remarkable about any site using https. DNS doesn't just serve IP addresses, it can and does serve private data too. There's nothing remarkable about the notion of encrypted DNS or any other protocol either.
If you mean ISPs shouldn't be allowed to do traffic analysis, who you contact and when, that really would be forbidding access the government has warrantless access to, for example in phone conversations it's called "pen register" data and the various agencies only have to provide a count of the number of traps they set on those, total for the nation, and I think that's only at long-ish intervals.
This is just my take, but: in real religious texts you find metaphor for what works long-term, stories that just show how people behave, basically a catalog of the human soul from lots of different perspectives. Gods are the usual stand-ins for what happens for no apparent reason. Care to explain the patterns and gaps in the logistic map without using math? Jesus spoke openly of the reason so much is told as metaphor. "A village is made up of stories about itself", and the stories in fake religions do not describe the real world.
"Particular selection and arrangement". Notes can't be copyrighted. Particular selections and arrangements can be. Same with words, addresses, topographical data, what not. The selection and arrangement can't be mechanical, if there are parts that are, those parts can't be copyrighted either.
Slashdot Mirror
Social hierarchy is pretty much the only determinant of truth for such people. Evidence, reason ... hell, they fervently implement policies which hurt their own children. They claim they want to stop abortions, but won't implement policies that stop abortions, on and on ... they'll believe only what someone they recognize as an authority tells them to believe. "Science" is just another word for "authority" to them.
A lot of the public discussion, Dawkins being a good example, subjects them to social ridicule, which I think we can agree is an attempt to establish social authority. In that world, that really is an attempt to deny them their belief in their God.
Personally, I believe Jesus often used the word "poor" to encompass more than pecuniary deficits.
The right-wingers have given organized social hierarchy a bad name where not an outright vile stench. Douglas Adams had a good point: if they're obsessed and we're not, they win. I've noticed the figure 29% turning up repeatedly as the baseline fanatic vote, there's no need to, umm, get obsessive about obsession, they can be managed with a very dilute version if we can just get our act together and somehow make common cause with the sane ~15% in the GOP (I figure there's a few percent like Rove et al.).
You know what I notice? People try to order the fundamentalists around with the same authoritarian attitude the fundamentalists try to use on their teenagers and women and gays and any others they regard as insufficiently subservient. Why expect better results? Seems to me we've forgotten we're all human here.
Well, I ain't the mod, but I'd have flamebaited it too. There isn't a "flame" mod. Hell, my previous post was flame, I expect it to be downvoted, I even want it downvoted because it's addressed solely to the person I answered, not stinking up the general conversation like GP's. Actually, on second thought "redundant" would have been more accurate, you didn't make any point GGGP didn't, and he was both more detailed and more likely to actually do some good.
Fucking horse shit. The Sherman act was written _precisely_ because it's a la-la-la child's fantasy. You want to see what happens without government intervention? You look at the history of what that act stopped. You want to say oh, it wouldn't happen today? You're going to try to float that _here_, on _slashdot_ ?!!!?!? There simply aren't words. That fantasy is literally inexpressibly stupid.
Users != uses. I doubt the NIST would consider the speed of HW implementations so carefully if it didn't matter much. Mainframes come with heavy-duty hardware crypto assists.
well-regulated militias
Perhaps you'd like to read what that phrase is referring to. Here's my abridged form:
Actual military discipline for everyone subject to the call to military service is and was out of the question. What's necessary, what shall not be limited even around the fringes, is that as many as possible have and keep their own weapons and know how to use them.
and here it is in the words of one of those who actually wrote it:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped ...
(emphasis mine)
To forestall any quibbles: Madison and Hamilton are and were two of the most famous Federalists. Madison wrote the amendment, Madison and Hamilton wrote a large fraction of the Federalist papers arguing for the adoption of the Constitution they (and many others) had written, the quote above is Hamilton, in one of those Federalist papers. So far as I know, nobody saw anything at all objectionable in the above description of their reasoning.
So if you're still going to argue the Second means anything other than ~nobody subject to the call to military service must ever be denied the right to possess and carry militia-grade weaponry~, you'll need to argue that all the men who wrote, advocated for, and adopted the U.S. Constitution had no idea what they were talking about.
I believe that starting point is full context for what we both object to: the basis (and we agree it's a false basis) for the "endorsed" criticism. He's _endorsing_ being born in America, he calls that the silver spoon he was born with, and I think he's got a perfectly valid point there, He was certainly not "endorsing" sweatshop conditions.
He was just searching the world for sweatshop conditions so he and his could take the wealth they produced for themselves. No doubt he pities those poor women all the way to the bank. That's his "old fashioned way", that's how he got "everything he has", he flat out claims that _he's_ the one doing "hard work". So of course he deserves ever more of the wealth those women produced: after all, he's the one that earned it.
And he criticises the poor in America for their sense of "entitlement".
But that depends on the barcode reader working, and If you can get a barcode reader working you can get OCR working. Much better to just tattoo the digits on their forearms.
or even travel by car near the beach on a holiday weekend (hello, welcome to the checkpoint, papers please!)
It wasn't until I reread this that I realized just how deep your satire is. The Onion? The Colbert Report? Whichever, kudos on some of the most ludicrous, savage mockery of a right wing fathead I've seen all week.
PP is, in every relevant way false.
Fair use is, by statute declaration, not copyright infringement at all. Copyright holders have no authority at all to forbid any fair use.
PP might as well have said a lot of people have a big misunderstanding of what "innocence" is, that "innocence" is just a defense you can use.
The criteria for fair use are laid out in statute law and have decades of case law to back them. Courts have the same discretion in finding the boundaries of fair use as they have in finding the boundaries of any other law, and the same responsibility. There's nothing at all remarkable about that discretion, it's why they're called "Judge".
The reign of the old shogunate, is over.
L3 is 48MB, (see p. 43), not GB as The Register had it, thanks for noticing that.
They make very few thousands of the really high-end stuff like this. You can bet every dollar you have that these will execute faster. Multinational corporations don't shell out $20M for a mainframe upgrade without knowing exactly what they're getting. L3 cache is 48GB. <== not a typo. There's an outboard L4 cache that's much larger. They've got bandwidth that can feed that beast: they were built to handle TB/s of just I/O bandwidth, not including CPU access to the data, something like a decade ago.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Dang it, I screwed up the URL.
Panopticlick's trick works disturbingly well. iirc noscript's about the only thing that'll fog it up.
Providing internet service is insanely high margin once the lines are in place
Meaning, we're handing a lot of welfare^W"capital-gains" queens billions per year for nothing. They're providing a pittance of a service, far less for our money than what we get for taxes, and priding themselves on their "success".
Flat-lining in every use connotes death. Things that have leveled off "have stopped growing", "have reached a plateau", "have leveled off", "have saturated their market segment".
Isn't it this simple? Dedicate a code like say *811 or some such as "report last incoming call as an unsolicited robocall". Require all telcos to log the real source of the reported call. Any caller with enough robocall reports is required to account for their outgoing calls, and if unable is forced to pay the $500 statutory per-call penalty (that's what it is in California) to each call recipient, per call. Give the government say 15% of the penalty and I think no robocaller would be able to fly under the radar for long.
Dammit, that line gets no hits on Google and I just spent my last mod point.
Look up "pen register," I gave you a link. The government already has warrantless access..
You're not getting it: with SSL-encrypted traffic the route is irrelevant. None of the transit nodes can see anything but impenetrable noise. Encrypted sessions aren't suspicious, they're ordinary. Encrypted http is widespread already; google defaults to it for anything that could conceivably be private. It defaults to it for news, maps, play, (gmail/docs/calendar of course,) probably more. There's nothing in the least remarkable about any site using https. DNS doesn't just serve IP addresses, it can and does serve private data too. There's nothing remarkable about the notion of encrypted DNS or any other protocol either.
If you mean ISPs shouldn't be allowed to do traffic analysis, who you contact and when, that really would be forbidding access the government has warrantless access to, for example in phone conversations it's called "pen register" data and the various agencies only have to provide a count of the number of traps they set on those, total for the nation, and I think that's only at long-ish intervals.
This is just my take, but: in real religious texts you find metaphor for what works long-term, stories that just show how people behave, basically a catalog of the human soul from lots of different perspectives. Gods are the usual stand-ins for what happens for no apparent reason. Care to explain the patterns and gaps in the logistic map without using math? Jesus spoke openly of the reason so much is told as metaphor. "A village is made up of stories about itself", and the stories in fake religions do not describe the real world.
People who want stability often prefer distributions that focus on stability, perhaps you could try one of those.
"Particular selection and arrangement". Notes can't be copyrighted. Particular selections and arrangements can be. Same with words, addresses, topographical data, what not. The selection and arrangement can't be mechanical, if there are parts that are, those parts can't be copyrighted either.