Not sure what to say. Atheism is not religion, Evolution is science and sure you can teach religion in schools, but my children won't be attending those schools. I don't want to have the awkward conversation about how to respect the beliefs of their teachers and peers while recognizing that all those lessons on logic and critical thinking need to be ignored when talking about religion. Some nice stories, culturally significant but total fiction.
"I believe what I believe based on reasoned faith. If Evolutionists/Athiests could come up with something better than it rained on rocks and they came alive, or the banana turned into the dog, with no genetic evidence, no duplication of evolution/creative mutations in a lab, etc. I might take them more seriously. If someone comes along with a more reasonable explanation with better evidence, I am open to listening and learning from a skeptical point of view."
"The problem with your statement is that if biological evolution were a strong theory, or in fact science at all, you would be able to easily refute the Creation story"
The age of the earth is plenty of evidence. It's well understood though that you can't prove or disprove the divine... you can just shift the goalposts "who said time was constant", "the dinosaurs were created in-situ as a test of faith", "who said the decay of C-14 was stable?"
I have a real problem with this "evidence" line of discussion. Do you believe? Do you really believe? If so, then who cares what science says? Your perception of *reality* is centered around the idea that you have a personal relationship with the divine and that what is presented to you in this life is all connected to this relationship. There's nothing science can say which would or should shake your belief.
Jesus established his church on earth through the gospel and it's been recorded in the bible. Questioning the pope and distancing Roman Catholicism as "not true Christian", only changes the conversation to one of how you interpret your personal Christianity. Roman Catholicism is hardly the fringe of Christianity.
I'm skeptical of scientists who are devout creationists, but it's pretty easy to quickly figure out how they reconcile their beliefs with their science. I personally think it's perfectly possible to be a creationist studying and applying evolution, but if you start trying to seek scientific evidence of creationism, you're both a skeptic of your own faith and a pretty crappy scientist.
This kind of stuff certainly shouldn't be taught in schools... it's bad religion masquerading as bad science.
These many flavours-of-evolution seem like an attempt to discredit a strong theory by linking it with some weak ones.
Connecting abiogenesis "chemical evolution", the big bang theory "cosmic evolution" with natural selection "biological evolution" is weird, they have little, if anything to do with one another.
I wonder about your teachers and text books and why the subjects would be taught that way. That said, I don't think it's a big stretch to have an issue with current theories around Abiogenesis or the Big Bang theory. They're on the fringes, however Natural selection or the theory of evolution is not. It has practical applications.
As for bananas into dogs, even Darwin had issues with speciation.
Religious, metaphysical theories are not helpful and can even be harmful. Science was launching probes into the outer planets by the time the church forgave Galileo for daring to suggest a helocentric solar system. It's a good thing those scientists didn't have the church contradicting the lessons in their classrooms.
In Canada, the situation was so bad, that for the first 6 months of the iPhone, you needed to go to T-Mobile in the U.S. and bring back a phone and roam on it. When the iPhone was taken up by one carrier, they charged nosebleed prices for the data plan, it was still cheaper to roam.
Breaking through the carrier situation was an enormous change in the industry. Before that happened, the customer was the telco and the product was a tool to lock customers into contracts. You had to pay to upload a ringtone. You had to pay to download a photo. You had to pay to use USB. It was criminal.
You're putting words and motives into his mou... well, synthesizer.
You can't know his thoughts, unless you have a citation of something he's said.
You make it sound as though he's spiritually misguided and looking for a purpose where religion readily provides one.
If this is true, then surrendering any hope for the longevity of humanity on a fabricated notion of some eternal life or loving creator, means that for the basic survival of the species, these religious notions are harmful and should be abandoned.
Religion has no answers. It's just made up stuff left over from a time when the structure of organized religion was beneficial to society.
The swipes, short swipes, swipes from the top, left, right, side, corner, taps, gestures, long-presses, double-taps, tap presses, or whatever secret knocking code needed to activate a feature with no menu or visual indication of the capability is horrible.
Throw on the visual restrictions of the narrow phone displays preventing well-organized data, and the clunky size of everything so that it can be touched...
The awfulness has been translated badly into other user interfaces and now I'd kill for a keyboard, or even a Blackberry scrollwheel with a menu.
We're not old, we're just used to actually doing things with computers.
The smaller shop I worked in had a very hands-on CTO who would manage testing and test automation, in the larger shop we had a QE/QA department which would manage testing and test automation.
In both places, there was no room for pure operations or admins. They're not needed when the sprint ends, tests are signed off and DevOps deploys the code into production. Admins aren't qualified to troubleshoot issues when they're caused by automation errors in the DevOps toolchain.
Some legacy operations work would fall into the hands of DevOps, but part of their job would be to automate it away.
Nuts and bolts infrastructure, racking servers and difficult-to-automate stuff like networking and firewalls are an exception, but the DevOps model works better for cloud providers where all of that can be expressed as code.
The Dev part of DevOps didn't mean that they were developers of the application codebase, but that they were using developer tools and methods to create infrastructure as code. We tried some of the DevOps sitting in on developer scrums and feeding back on code, or Developers sitting in on DevOps scrums it made people feel good and respect eachother's roles a bit more, but very little actual code came out of it.
In what you describe, it sounds like DevOps was contributing automation components to a more traditional Operations team.
In what I've experienced, DevOps would write the puppet manifests and organize the infrastructure such that when executed, it would produce running machines with dev, test, staging or production code and data, complete with monitoring, appropriate backups and tools for measuring performance and health.
I've done a couple DevOps roles myself, both for startups, one small, one ~300 people.
There are security controls, logs etc. But DevOps has the power to create and destroy production and the tools to monitor all relevant metrics. Everything necessary for troubleshooting is at their disposal, and in practice that can mean shell access.
Seriously, if you have a different method, post a link to something. We all get blindsided by industry developments, if there's a different way, I'd like to know about it.
"Sometimes an ironclad NDA and a copy of real prod data is the only available solution."
When you're getting executives to sign off on risk and only handing the data to specific named trusted developers, then it's not "just copying production databases into testing". It's a calculated risk by the executives, as informed by their staff.
Most of the time, when a developer complains about not having access to prod, the request disappears when I tell them to get their boss to go to their boss and pitch the case. They usually find a scrubbed set of data or another method to reproduce.
Shoulder surfing operations (with operations hands on keyboard), often solves things too, but everyone hates it. It has a huge benefit though in that operations needs to know what the developer is thinking as much as the developer needs to know whats' going on in production.
When DevOps exists, DevOps has responsibility for what's in prod.
The guys staffed, trained and assigned to cover emergencies 24x7x365 and answering that call at 4:59pm on Friday should be the only guys who can mess with production code.
My point is that it was very short time when open standards were popular.
I'm horrified at what people accept as "normal" now. I recently tried to have a club use a mailing list. I told them Google Groups would mean that having a Google account would be a requirement to join the group... "so?, they're free!"
They looked at me like I didn't understand what Google groups was.
It seems we're going back to a time when only geeks are on the Internet. Everyone else is in various marketing silos.
The only reason I got online was because I started missing out on the parties and meets ups. Why didn't anyone call me? Oh, there was email. WTF is email? I shut down my connection years later when I gladly traded less party invites for more sanity and privacy.
Also, consider bars and clubs. They used to be in the newspaper. Now they have websites. If they're still in the newspaper, it's a single line with a link to their website. If my girlfriend wasn't on the Internet, we would be at a loss as to where to go out on the weekend. She tells me I'm an old man for phoning her or leaving a voicemail.
The time of popular open standards was short. ~2002-2006 RIP.
Before that, not everyone was online. After that, Facebook swallowed them.
The last time I tried to get Siri to play a podcast in my car, I got so frustrated that I resorted to saying "Siri, play", thinking that since there was nothing else but podcasts on my phone, I would be ok.... which she responded with this awful syrupy romantic pop music. I couldn't figure out where it came from or why Siri would think I would want to hear it.
I figured out later that it was the U2 album.
I don't bother with Siri in the car anymore, it's far too distracting.
I would much prefer if my phone had a programmable set of voice commands. But that kind of customization or programmability has been long taken away from the end-user.
"Any user not bothered enough to go through their history is also not bothered by the collection of it."
I'm an exception. I want my stuff to work and to not have to waste my time wrestling data from a company who's primary business it is to sell my eyes and sell my data.
I used to work at IBM. Anyone with a clue looked at 100% at-home work options with suspicion. They claimed they were saving on real-estate etc.
If you can do it from home, you can do it from India or Brazil, and remember... IBM India and IBM Brazil are not outsourcing, it's "Global Resourcing". Why should a *global* company put their workforce in a country where the costs are high?
That said, as long as your job doesn't leave the country, IBM is mostly an awesome place to work if you're in a marginalized category or need special accommodations (disabled, old, queer, new immigrant, single mother etc,). For other people, they just pay poorly and rot your brain.
They might think "lol, we're enlightened because we don't *really* believe this stuff", but no... at some level, you really are acting on it, you really *do* believe that it's okay, and you really *don't* believe those people are your peers.
It just took a little prod, some peer pressure and a little promise of social betterment of your status to get you to show your pent up racism.
I bet you're right. The Vault7 leaks all seem like leaks from a competent but certainly not-miracle working security team. They've got access to some remarkable vulnerabilities, and they seem well-funded, otherwise just a bunch of normal guys. The poor soul who wrote this one probably never meant it to be more than a hack for a specific project.
I was hooking up a monitoring system to a mine system fire and environment panel.
On the panel was a delicate 8-way toggle switch. If the switch was hit, a deluge water suppression system would cause irreparable damage to a major project. Hundreds of millions of dollars.
Deactivating the alarm would require months of planning, signoff from multiple safety authorities, work stoppage and evacuation of major groups of personnel.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure what to say. Atheism is not religion, Evolution is science and sure you can teach religion in schools, but my children won't be attending those schools. I don't want to have the awkward conversation about how to respect the beliefs of their teachers and peers while recognizing that all those lessons on logic and critical thinking need to be ignored when talking about religion. Some nice stories, culturally significant but total fiction.
"I believe what I believe based on reasoned faith. If Evolutionists/Athiests could come up with something better than it rained on rocks and they came alive, or the banana turned into the dog, with no genetic evidence, no duplication of evolution/creative mutations in a lab, etc. I might take them more seriously. If someone comes along with a more reasonable explanation with better evidence, I am open to listening and learning from a skeptical point of view."
No. You're clinging to the gaps. You'll just find another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
"The problem with your statement is that if biological evolution were a strong theory, or in fact science at all, you would be able to easily refute the Creation story"
The age of the earth is plenty of evidence. It's well understood though that you can't prove or disprove the divine... you can just shift the goalposts "who said time was constant", "the dinosaurs were created in-situ as a test of faith", "who said the decay of C-14 was stable?"
I have a real problem with this "evidence" line of discussion. Do you believe? Do you really believe? If so, then who cares what science says? Your perception of *reality* is centered around the idea that you have a personal relationship with the divine and that what is presented to you in this life is all connected to this relationship. There's nothing science can say which would or should shake your belief.
Jesus established his church on earth through the gospel and it's been recorded in the bible. Questioning the pope and distancing Roman Catholicism as "not true Christian", only changes the conversation to one of how you interpret your personal Christianity. Roman Catholicism is hardly the fringe of Christianity.
I'm skeptical of scientists who are devout creationists, but it's pretty easy to quickly figure out how they reconcile their beliefs with their science. I personally think it's perfectly possible to be a creationist studying and applying evolution, but if you start trying to seek scientific evidence of creationism, you're both a skeptic of your own faith and a pretty crappy scientist.
This kind of stuff certainly shouldn't be taught in schools... it's bad religion masquerading as bad science.
These many flavours-of-evolution seem like an attempt to discredit a strong theory by linking it with some weak ones.
Connecting abiogenesis "chemical evolution", the big bang theory "cosmic evolution" with natural selection "biological evolution" is weird, they have little, if anything to do with one another.
I wonder about your teachers and text books and why the subjects would be taught that way. That said, I don't think it's a big stretch to have an issue with current theories around Abiogenesis or the Big Bang theory. They're on the fringes, however Natural selection or the theory of evolution is not. It has practical applications.
As for bananas into dogs, even Darwin had issues with speciation.
Religious, metaphysical theories are not helpful and can even be harmful. Science was launching probes into the outer planets by the time the church forgave Galileo for daring to suggest a helocentric solar system. It's a good thing those scientists didn't have the church contradicting the lessons in their classrooms.
Read the article summary. It's at the top of the page. That's part of what people are afraid of.
Not sure what you're going to do with fossil fuels without oxygen.
These are all biophysical and subjective at best.
Some would say that the definition of 'is' is subjective itself. Water is not wet unless you are touching it.
"Evolution is a garbage theory (essentially spontaneous generation, disproved hundreds of years ago)...."
Slashdot really needs a -1, Stupid.
In Canada, the situation was so bad, that for the first 6 months of the iPhone, you needed to go to T-Mobile in the U.S. and bring back a phone and roam on it. When the iPhone was taken up by one carrier, they charged nosebleed prices for the data plan, it was still cheaper to roam.
Breaking through the carrier situation was an enormous change in the industry. Before that happened, the customer was the telco and the product was a tool to lock customers into contracts. You had to pay to upload a ringtone. You had to pay to download a photo. You had to pay to use USB. It was criminal.
That's why you use Dogecoins instead. Then you get both sides of the decimal point.
You're putting words and motives into his mou... well, synthesizer.
You can't know his thoughts, unless you have a citation of something he's said.
You make it sound as though he's spiritually misguided and looking for a purpose where religion readily provides one.
If this is true, then surrendering any hope for the longevity of humanity on a fabricated notion of some eternal life or loving creator, means that for the basic survival of the species, these religious notions are harmful and should be abandoned.
Religion has no answers. It's just made up stuff left over from a time when the structure of organized religion was beneficial to society.
I forgot the obvious rotate, shake, flip over, force-click, force-click-hold, pinch, drag, press and drag... any others?
The swipes, short swipes, swipes from the top, left, right, side, corner, taps, gestures, long-presses, double-taps, tap presses, or whatever secret knocking code needed to activate a feature with no menu or visual indication of the capability is horrible.
Throw on the visual restrictions of the narrow phone displays preventing well-organized data, and the clunky size of everything so that it can be touched...
The awfulness has been translated badly into other user interfaces and now I'd kill for a keyboard, or even a Blackberry scrollwheel with a menu.
We're not old, we're just used to actually doing things with computers.
The smaller shop I worked in had a very hands-on CTO who would manage testing and test automation, in the larger shop we had a QE/QA department which would manage testing and test automation.
In both places, there was no room for pure operations or admins. They're not needed when the sprint ends, tests are signed off and DevOps deploys the code into production. Admins aren't qualified to troubleshoot issues when they're caused by automation errors in the DevOps toolchain.
Some legacy operations work would fall into the hands of DevOps, but part of their job would be to automate it away.
Nuts and bolts infrastructure, racking servers and difficult-to-automate stuff like networking and firewalls are an exception, but the DevOps model works better for cloud providers where all of that can be expressed as code.
The Dev part of DevOps didn't mean that they were developers of the application codebase, but that they were using developer tools and methods to create infrastructure as code. We tried some of the DevOps sitting in on developer scrums and feeding back on code, or Developers sitting in on DevOps scrums it made people feel good and respect eachother's roles a bit more, but very little actual code came out of it.
In what you describe, it sounds like DevOps was contributing automation components to a more traditional Operations team.
In what I've experienced, DevOps would write the puppet manifests and organize the infrastructure such that when executed, it would produce running machines with dev, test, staging or production code and data, complete with monitoring, appropriate backups and tools for measuring performance and health.
I've done a couple DevOps roles myself, both for startups, one small, one ~300 people.
There are security controls, logs etc. But DevOps has the power to create and destroy production and the tools to monitor all relevant metrics. Everything necessary for troubleshooting is at their disposal, and in practice that can mean shell access.
Seriously, if you have a different method, post a link to something. We all get blindsided by industry developments, if there's a different way, I'd like to know about it.
e.g., "DevOps should include production support" https://devops.com/supporting-production-applications-devops-way/
"Sometimes an ironclad NDA and a copy of real prod data is the only available solution."
When you're getting executives to sign off on risk and only handing the data to specific named trusted developers, then it's not "just copying production databases into testing". It's a calculated risk by the executives, as informed by their staff.
Most of the time, when a developer complains about not having access to prod, the request disappears when I tell them to get their boss to go to their boss and pitch the case. They usually find a scrubbed set of data or another method to reproduce.
Shoulder surfing operations (with operations hands on keyboard), often solves things too, but everyone hates it. It has a huge benefit though in that operations needs to know what the developer is thinking as much as the developer needs to know whats' going on in production.
When DevOps exists, DevOps has responsibility for what's in prod.
The guys staffed, trained and assigned to cover emergencies 24x7x365 and answering that call at 4:59pm on Friday should be the only guys who can mess with production code.
My point is that it was very short time when open standards were popular.
I'm horrified at what people accept as "normal" now. I recently tried to have a club use a mailing list. I told them Google Groups would mean that having a Google account would be a requirement to join the group... "so?, they're free!"
They looked at me like I didn't understand what Google groups was.
It seems we're going back to a time when only geeks are on the Internet. Everyone else is in various marketing silos.
Rewind to 2002 and people sounded like this:
The time of popular open standards was short. ~2002-2006 RIP.
Before that, not everyone was online. After that, Facebook swallowed them.
The last time I tried to get Siri to play a podcast in my car, I got so frustrated that I resorted to saying "Siri, play", thinking that since there was nothing else but podcasts on my phone, I would be ok.... which she responded with this awful syrupy romantic pop music. I couldn't figure out where it came from or why Siri would think I would want to hear it.
I figured out later that it was the U2 album.
I don't bother with Siri in the car anymore, it's far too distracting.
I would much prefer if my phone had a programmable set of voice commands. But that kind of customization or programmability has been long taken away from the end-user.
"Any user not bothered enough to go through their history is also not bothered by the collection of it."
I'm an exception. I want my stuff to work and to not have to waste my time wrestling data from a company who's primary business it is to sell my eyes and sell my data.
I used to work at IBM. Anyone with a clue looked at 100% at-home work options with suspicion. They claimed they were saving on real-estate etc.
If you can do it from home, you can do it from India or Brazil, and remember... IBM India and IBM Brazil are not outsourcing, it's "Global Resourcing". Why should a *global* company put their workforce in a country where the costs are high?
That said, as long as your job doesn't leave the country, IBM is mostly an awesome place to work if you're in a marginalized category or need special accommodations (disabled, old, queer, new immigrant, single mother etc,). For other people, they just pay poorly and rot your brain.
They might think "lol, we're enlightened because we don't *really* believe this stuff", but no... at some level, you really are acting on it, you really *do* believe that it's okay, and you really *don't* believe those people are your peers.
It just took a little prod, some peer pressure and a little promise of social betterment of your status to get you to show your pent up racism.
I bet you're right. The Vault7 leaks all seem like leaks from a competent but certainly not-miracle working security team. They've got access to some remarkable vulnerabilities, and they seem well-funded, otherwise just a bunch of normal guys. The poor soul who wrote this one probably never meant it to be more than a hack for a specific project.
Some of the Vault7 stuff is funny:
https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_14588098.html
Not every permutation and combination of malware not seen before is "ingenious".
File system filter driver dynamically installs malware. Got it. Isn't this the kind of thing a file system filter driver is supposed to do? "filter can mean log, observe, modify...." https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/ifs/what-is-a-file-system-filter-driver-
Handy tool, but unless I'm missing something, "ingenious" is way overstated. 25 years ago, this might have been novel.
I was hooking up a monitoring system to a mine system fire and environment panel.
On the panel was a delicate 8-way toggle switch. If the switch was hit, a deluge water suppression system would cause irreparable damage to a major project. Hundreds of millions of dollars.
Deactivating the alarm would require months of planning, signoff from multiple safety authorities, work stoppage and evacuation of major groups of personnel.
It looked really simple to connect...
I think you know how the story goes...
I refused and they went with a webcam.