Human scientists contributed to the development of the atomic bomb. Do they share responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Apparently you have forgottent (like another poster below) that the atom bomb is used daily to keep America, the country of the free, running smoothly. Half of your cities are powered by nuclear reactors that are direct derivatives of this same bomb that you use in such a bad context. I am not trying to troll, and I am not even saying I disagree with you, but you could have chosen a better example. For instance, how much should it weigh on your conscience that you are using, indirectly, a technology that resulted from millions of deaths, and live in a country that survives on it? If you want to assign blame by this philosophy, you could come dangerously close to condemning yourself in a number of ways; are you, as an individual, willing to realise your responsibility and say no to using atomic power because it weighs on your conscience?
I realise that this was not exactly your argument, and in fact I have somewhat reversed the positions of those who should take responsibility, but that was my intention. It works both ways; just because you didn't invent the technology doesn't mean that you should use it. And if you're not American, my apologies; it probably still applies, but I happened to use that particular viewpoint for this argument.
You cretinous, cock-sucking, camel-kissing, crap-cuddling coward. Anyone with even a quarter a cerebral cortex could check the status bar of their browser and ken that this isn't a goatse.cx link. Fucking loser.
"Great, now I'm not only vulnerable to repeated port scans from any moron with a TCP/IP connection, but from my local community LAN also."
You do run a firewall, right? If not, try Tiny. It's just one step up from ZoneAlarm, and so much smaller. You should probably ignore the CNet luzer votes though. You might also find this interesting.
Um...what? What the hell is the title then? Or have I been staring at this bloody screen for so long I have terminal domestic blindness? If this be the case, heed my warning all ye fellow Slashdotters: Philips 107S monitors felch.
Naah...this has got to be a troll. Surely no one is this stupid? Have you checked a computer catalogue in the last four years you fucking idiot? What long-forgotten era are you living in? Like the previous post says...ever heard of a laptop? Judging from your post, you're still wondering when someone is going to figure that you can use more than 640 kB of RAM, so a nice new ThinkPad sure would be faster than what you're running at the moment.
Um, mod this up. Not only is it actually funny, it's original too. Or do slashdot moderators not know what intelligence is? Yeah, go on, mod me down...
You're a mucking foron. How can someone have posted so far down the fucking thread without having noticed the fact that Blizzard has FUCKING PATENTED THE NAME DIABLO FOR A MOVIE?? NOT JUST FOR A FUCKING GAME!!! FOR A FUCKING MOVIE AS WELL YOU STUPID FUCKING LAME-ARSE TROLL DICK!!!!
Sheesh, sometimes people like that just really get to me, you know? And I bet he isn't the last either...
But in defence, while the poor guy was obviously confused, "a lot" is an adjective...
Oh, and one other thing that I hate: spelling "you're" as "your". You're is short for you are, while your is the adjective possessive form of you. Evidently a complicated concept for some people. I want to kill the a-hole who went and made a post with this error in it, to which about fifty people replied (including my own stupid self). Seeing it once is bad enough... "Doesn't matter your wrong" is not a sentence! Try "Doesn't matter; you're wrong" next time!
I think most people will agree then, if this is the case, the Windows kernel is probably fairly well equatable to the horse manure flung against a wall that is now regarded as modern art.
You see, you all have a significant problem here. You are failing to define the word "art" on a small enough scale. In fact, off the top of my head I would argue that there are, in fact, two different types of art: art that requires you simply to look at it, and art that must be worked through to be appreciated.
The first are generally things like sculptures, paintings and stained-glass windows. More recently, photographs have been added to this list, and I see no reason that you cannot now add 3D modelling as well. I have seen some remarkable 3D rendered images that could only be considered works of art -- they are, quite simply, both remarkably beautiful and amazingly skillful.
The second type of art is stuff like poetry, where you have to actually read through it in order to appreciate it. Personally, I don't even think of this as art so much -- I am a writer, but I don't think of what I write as being art in itself. In many ways, writing a book and designing a game are remarkably similar, especially if you go to extreme lengths like I do, in designing vehicles, weapons, even sketching characters. That's unusual, and I only do it because I'm a designer as well. This second type of art is generally inspired either by the same things that inspire the first type, or by first type of art itself. That is to say, many poems are about landscapes, or people, just as are paintings. However, the second type allows far more abstract expression of ideas than the first type does -- and as such, good programming could, of course, be regarded as an art-form. However, it is much more difficult to quantify. A poem can be read by anyone and appreciated by anyone, but I can't imagine myself sitting down and reading six hundred lines of code because I think it's beautiful. It is, in this way, more like mathematics, which can also be beautiful.
I shan't go on because I'm not sure how well I can make my point in a shortish post. Basically, I think we have to distinguish between something that is beautiful and something that is art. They are not necessarily the same thing.
I agree with what you're saying. Coding is funner when it happens slowly, in a weird kinda way. But I'm not a programmer -- I'm a writer. I think, if I didn't have a computer and had to write my novels by hand, I would be something else. Even a typewriter would be goddam aweful. I thank god every day that my computer is fast enough to run page scrolling on a 200 page document in Word 2000 and play Winamp without skipping at the same time;)
Yes, that was it. Sorry for not seeing it earlier; I haven't had much sleep lately (oh, so that's an excuse now?)
There is plenty of evidence to support microevolution; no one is debating this. However, macroevolution is an entirely different matter. Even given that a species can change from an ape into a human, which is probably just inside the scope of credibility, although I seriously doubt the conditions were present to force such a change, I would still have a pretty hard time working out how all that life happened in the first place. Like the previous post says, the "simple" cell is a most complicated thing. In fact, all experiments attempting to cause spontaneous "cell generation", involving a duplicate of the conditions that were present when the Earth was young and evolution supposedly started to happen when organic molecules started randomly interacting, have failed completely. It is not that we do not know the theory of how it should happen; we do. It's not that we can't accelerate the process or even give it much better conditions. We can. It simply won't happen. In fact, the probability of a cell spontaneously generating out of a primordial soup have been calculated at about the same as if I took a sledgehammer to my Swiss watch, dumped the bits into a box, shook it once or twice, and pulled the watch out in perfect working order, telling the correct time. This is roughly equatable to a ratio of 1:10^40000 which, if you understand a thing about mathematics, you will realise is an extremely large number; ie an incredibly low probability. Oh sure, it could happen, but then for that one cell to survive long enough in the rather inhospitable primordial soup to replicate and make more of itself, and for them to become more sophisticated, and write new DNA structures...and now I'm getting out of my league so I'll shut up in case I do an M$ spokesperson stunt (open mouth, insert foot). The point of all this is that evolution could, theoretically, happen. But to say the chances are infinitesimal barely does it justice. Scientifically, I believe that the probablity I quoted is so close to 0 that it is zero to all intents and purposes. What evidence do I have about what did happen? Well, if I told you that, you'd simply laugh, so what's the point? Besides, it would take me all night, and you'd fall asleep after the first paragraph.
Ah, slashdot is so useful. You can make a controversial remark and know that someone who knows more about the topic than you will tell you exactly where to
1. Shove it
2. Look for decent information.
The latter was what I was hoping for. You think I have time to go through a huge generic search when you just told me exactly what to look for? Thankz for the help;)
Although, under preliminary examination, I still disagree with you...
Like hell I'm going to read every post here, so this has probably already been mentioned, but does it strike anyone as interesting the way that the article (or at least, the one I read two weeks ago) makes numerous, "scientific" references to things like "two million years ago, when apes and humans started to separate on their evolutionary paths..." I forget the exact statistics they were spouting, but that kind of thing was the general gist. Has this been proven? Is this paradigm regarded as fact? I surely hope not, considering how many times the "theory" of evolution has been examined, analysed, and refuted with real scientific methods and/or evidence. Just try a search on Google for evolution, and see how many pages you hit that disprove it pretty conclusively. Then try to find some that prove it. Make up your own mind.
I'm not saying I believe in creation theory; I'm not religious, let alone a Christian (no offense to Christians -- I used to be one). But clearly the theory of evolution is far too flawed to be taken seriously, just as the theory of the staged moonlanding. Sorry to rant; I just hate it when people (especially scientists) stick to these stupid ideas. You'd think that if they can decode the human genome, they'd be smart enough to realise we didn't evolve from protazoa. There just wasn't enough time, even if it could happen. We know for a fact that the Earth is only around 4.5 billion years old -- if evolution happened we'd see animals changing practically overnight, considering that humans are supposed to have evolved from very basic mammals in only about 65 million years.
Am I the only person who saw this article on numerous news pages two weeks ago? I mean, a couple of days maybe, but weeks for a story like this to get noticed? I was thinking of submitting it, but then I'm way too lazy, and I still have to figure out how to make hyperlinks;)
You can make up your own mind as to whether I'm kidding or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you have forgottent (like another poster below) that the atom bomb is used daily to keep America, the country of the free, running smoothly. Half of your cities are powered by nuclear reactors that are direct derivatives of this same bomb that you use in such a bad context. I am not trying to troll, and I am not even saying I disagree with you, but you could have chosen a better example. For instance, how much should it weigh on your conscience that you are using, indirectly, a technology that resulted from millions of deaths, and live in a country that survives on it? If you want to assign blame by this philosophy, you could come dangerously close to condemning yourself in a number of ways; are you, as an individual, willing to realise your responsibility and say no to using atomic power because it weighs on your conscience?
I realise that this was not exactly your argument, and in fact I have somewhat reversed the positions of those who should take responsibility, but that was my intention. It works both ways; just because you didn't invent the technology doesn't mean that you should use it. And if you're not American, my apologies; it probably still applies, but I happened to use that particular viewpoint for this argument.
Oh dear, I do appear to have been seriously wounded.
C'mon, a crowbar? You're kidding, surely man! I scarcely touched you! But my, what a nasty cut.
You cretinous, cock-sucking, camel-kissing, crap-cuddling coward. Anyone with even a quarter a cerebral cortex could check the status bar of their browser and ken that this isn't a goatse.cx link. Fucking loser.
You do run a firewall, right? If not, try Tiny. It's just one step up from ZoneAlarm, and so much smaller. You should probably ignore the CNet luzer votes though. You might also find this interesting.
That's assuming you are satisfied with software.
Holy shit. What did I tell you about Philips 107S monitors? I wasn't kidding man -- they felch! God, I think my eyes aren't so great either.
Um...what? What the hell is the title then? Or have I been staring at this bloody screen for so long I have terminal domestic blindness? If this be the case, heed my warning all ye fellow Slashdotters: Philips 107S monitors felch.
For sale: parachute. Once used, never opened, small stain.
Naah...this has got to be a troll. Surely no one is this stupid? Have you checked a computer catalogue in the last four years you fucking idiot? What long-forgotten era are you living in? Like the previous post says...ever heard of a laptop? Judging from your post, you're still wondering when someone is going to figure that you can use more than 640 kB of RAM, so a nice new ThinkPad sure would be faster than what you're running at the moment.
Um, mod this up. Not only is it actually funny, it's original too. Or do slashdot moderators not know what intelligence is? Yeah, go on, mod me down...
Um, could somebody please mod the parent up? Or am I missing something?
Is this to make it sound bigger, or am I missing something? I mean, I know my maths is bad, but it's not that bad...
You doubt very correctly.
More idiots!! RTFA!!!
Sheesh, sometimes people like that just really get to me, you know? And I bet he isn't the last either...
If that's ironic, how ironic is it then that you spelled "ironically" wrong? Heck, imagine if I'd speeled "spelling" wrong ;)
Yes, that's a joke.
Oh, and one other thing that I hate: spelling "you're" as "your". You're is short for you are, while your is the adjective possessive form of you. Evidently a complicated concept for some people. I want to kill the a-hole who went and made a post with this error in it, to which about fifty people replied (including my own stupid self). Seeing it once is bad enough... "Doesn't matter your wrong" is not a sentence! Try "Doesn't matter; you're wrong" next time!
Can you imagine what would happen if hardrive manufacturers could implement this protection? Goodbye mp3s...does our salvation maybe lie in ogg?
You think Trident is bad? What about Voodoo?
I think most people will agree then, if this is the case, the Windows kernel is probably fairly well equatable to the horse manure flung against a wall that is now regarded as modern art.
The first are generally things like sculptures, paintings and stained-glass windows. More recently, photographs have been added to this list, and I see no reason that you cannot now add 3D modelling as well. I have seen some remarkable 3D rendered images that could only be considered works of art -- they are, quite simply, both remarkably beautiful and amazingly skillful.
The second type of art is stuff like poetry, where you have to actually read through it in order to appreciate it. Personally, I don't even think of this as art so much -- I am a writer, but I don't think of what I write as being art in itself. In many ways, writing a book and designing a game are remarkably similar, especially if you go to extreme lengths like I do, in designing vehicles, weapons, even sketching characters. That's unusual, and I only do it because I'm a designer as well. This second type of art is generally inspired either by the same things that inspire the first type, or by first type of art itself. That is to say, many poems are about landscapes, or people, just as are paintings. However, the second type allows far more abstract expression of ideas than the first type does -- and as such, good programming could, of course, be regarded as an art-form. However, it is much more difficult to quantify. A poem can be read by anyone and appreciated by anyone, but I can't imagine myself sitting down and reading six hundred lines of code because I think it's beautiful. It is, in this way, more like mathematics, which can also be beautiful.
I shan't go on because I'm not sure how well I can make my point in a shortish post. Basically, I think we have to distinguish between something that is beautiful and something that is art. They are not necessarily the same thing.
I agree with what you're saying. Coding is funner when it happens slowly, in a weird kinda way. But I'm not a programmer -- I'm a writer. I think, if I didn't have a computer and had to write my novels by hand, I would be something else. Even a typewriter would be goddam aweful. I thank god every day that my computer is fast enough to run page scrolling on a 200 page document in Word 2000 and play Winamp without skipping at the same time ;)
There is plenty of evidence to support microevolution; no one is debating this. However, macroevolution is an entirely different matter. Even given that a species can change from an ape into a human, which is probably just inside the scope of credibility, although I seriously doubt the conditions were present to force such a change, I would still have a pretty hard time working out how all that life happened in the first place. Like the previous post says, the "simple" cell is a most complicated thing. In fact, all experiments attempting to cause spontaneous "cell generation", involving a duplicate of the conditions that were present when the Earth was young and evolution supposedly started to happen when organic molecules started randomly interacting, have failed completely. It is not that we do not know the theory of how it should happen; we do. It's not that we can't accelerate the process or even give it much better conditions. We can. It simply won't happen. In fact, the probability of a cell spontaneously generating out of a primordial soup have been calculated at about the same as if I took a sledgehammer to my Swiss watch, dumped the bits into a box, shook it once or twice, and pulled the watch out in perfect working order, telling the correct time. This is roughly equatable to a ratio of 1:10^40000 which, if you understand a thing about mathematics, you will realise is an extremely large number; ie an incredibly low probability. Oh sure, it could happen, but then for that one cell to survive long enough in the rather inhospitable primordial soup to replicate and make more of itself, and for them to become more sophisticated, and write new DNA structures...and now I'm getting out of my league so I'll shut up in case I do an M$ spokesperson stunt (open mouth, insert foot). The point of all this is that evolution could, theoretically, happen. But to say the chances are infinitesimal barely does it justice. Scientifically, I believe that the probablity I quoted is so close to 0 that it is zero to all intents and purposes. What evidence do I have about what did happen? Well, if I told you that, you'd simply laugh, so what's the point? Besides, it would take me all night, and you'd fall asleep after the first paragraph.
return 0;
1. Shove it 2. Look for decent information.
The latter was what I was hoping for. You think I have time to go through a huge generic search when you just told me exactly what to look for? Thankz for the help ;)
Although, under preliminary examination, I still disagree with you...
I'm not saying I believe in creation theory; I'm not religious, let alone a Christian (no offense to Christians -- I used to be one). But clearly the theory of evolution is far too flawed to be taken seriously, just as the theory of the staged moonlanding. Sorry to rant; I just hate it when people (especially scientists) stick to these stupid ideas. You'd think that if they can decode the human genome, they'd be smart enough to realise we didn't evolve from protazoa. There just wasn't enough time, even if it could happen. We know for a fact that the Earth is only around 4.5 billion years old -- if evolution happened we'd see animals changing practically overnight, considering that humans are supposed to have evolved from very basic mammals in only about 65 million years.
You can make up your own mind as to whether I'm kidding or not.