concerning the parent poster (i have no problem with life of brian yadda yadda) i'll tell you this : it proves correct more often to suspect intolerance on the faithfull. They will say "i have no problem with that, you see : i'm so enlightened" but there's always something waiting like : "oh wait you insult the mother of god with that painting, we will stone you to death !".
Those people are intolerant, so we should not tolerate them?
I have a problem with this kind of statement, it is the step just before intolerance.
Would it be better for the parent poster to be intolerant? I don't think that expressing tolerance for a movie is necessarily objectionable (although it might be under some circumstances.)
With this one special movie you don't have a problem but what with other works of arts?
There is plenty of stuff that we should be intolerant of. Some can be characterized as "works of art" by their proponents and as "depravity" or "perversity" by their opponents. (Example: snuff films.) Whether they actually should be tolerated varies on a case by case basis, but there are certainly things that should not be tolerated.
What do you do if they clash with your proven and verified facts about Jesus ?
If any facts have been proven and verified, then whatever works of art conflict are clearly in error. Duh.
I suppose that it depends on who is doing the categorizing. I don't know, myself; it's a complicated thing.
One online dictionary lists this as one of the definitions of religion: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
So perhaps it is not just the belief, but what one does with it, that makes a religion. That can't be the whole story, though, because lots of people don't do anything about their "religious" beliefs.
Your logic is flawed. Clarke says "religion is the most malevolent mind virus". That statement says nothing about secular humanism.
The previous poster's logic *is* flawed, but he makes the same mistake that you do: differentiating between secular humanism and religion. As religion does not necessarily require belief in the supernatural, secular humanism fits the definition (or "at least one" definition) of religion. (Maybe Clarke meant "belief in the supernatural" when he said "religion", but that wouldn't be very intellectually honest.)
Clarke's statement could be interpreted as a condemnation of zealous devotion to anything at all, but as someone who is zealously devoted to a number of different things, I don't prefer that view.
Instead, I interpret Clarke's statement as a criticism of lack of critical thinking. People often believe things for bad reasons, and it's no excuse if some of those things happen to be true. Phrased like that, I might agree; it's quite possible that bad decision-making has the most harmful influence on humanity.
In just about every place except the USA, the term "Yankee" means someone from the USA. Most folks don't recognize the cultural differences between northern and southern states.
Look, I don't dispute that the average temperature on the planet in the last 100 years has gone up 0.8 degrees.
Unfortunately, gathering temperature data that is suitable for historical comparison is difficult. Simply measuring the ground temperature at the same place for 100 years isn't adequate. Cities grow around it, people build factories next door, or other changes occur that cause us to doubt the accuracy of a long-term comparison.
With today's weather satellites, we can take pretty good temperature readings from the middle of nowhere, but that doesn't help us show short-term (100 year) trends because we don't have historical data on those particular points in the middle of nowhere.
I do, in fact, consider the nature of reality, and I have concluded that it doesn't matter if my brain is really floating in a vat in some scientist's laboratory, being fed fake sensory data. Unpleasant stimuli is still unpleasant, and by my actions, I seem to be able to reduce it, regardless of whether or not it's "real". Therefore I reject philosophical skepticism.
While the idea you mention is expressed through metaphore, my comment was literal: I don't believe that we actually live in the Matrix that is depicted in the movie, and I expect sane people everywhere to agree with me.
it also about expanding peoples minds by placing seeds of doubt about what is real and are we actually in control of our own lives?
It seems implausible to me that a movie about a giant vr environment would cause any sane person to think that we actually live in a giant vr environment.
Are you as dense as you seem? Where, in my post, did I say anything about a 180 page thesis?
Yes, there was a day when there were only typewriters and everything was done by hand. Before that, it was all done by hand, for real, with pen and paper. Do you really suggest that this is an answer?
They are still ignoring a really big, important feature: BIBLIOGRAPHY. The built-in bibliography "manager" SUCKS large rocks through capillary tubes. It is NOT useful in any way, shape, or form.
If you are a high school or college student, or a professional who actually gives proper attribution rather than flat-out plaigerizes, or write scientific papers (biology, for instance - physics and math people use latex/lyx, end of story) you MUST provide references in your papers Research papers for class, papers for submission to professional journals, publications for dissemination online...all require references and a properly formatted reference list.
Since when is a high school or college student unable to write their own properly formatted bibliography? When I wrote out my research papers by hand, or typed them out with a typewriter, or (when I finally got access to a computer as a 3rd year student in high school) used Microsoft Write, I was able to create a properly formatted reference list without a "bibliography manager."
They were interested but ultimately I had to disabuse them of the idea of using it to replace Office because OO/SO cannot do references properly.
I'm reliably informed that scientific research papers pre-date the use of computers for word processing.
Every producer of every product *has* liabilities. If the software is under the GPL or the EULA doesn't matter. I should have made this clearer.
The question the article now asks is simply: Who is to blame, when something goes terribly wrong. When sth. with SAP goes terribly wrong: Sue them. When somebody distributes virus contaminated software: Sue them. But what, if the Linux kernel contains some backdoor? Blame Linus? Alan? Redhat?
If you have suffered a loss due to their negligence, sue them, or whoever else you think is responsible. The GPL has little bearing on it. Open source software is no more vulnerable in this regard than closed source software, except that the stereotypical open source software developer doesn't have deep pockets.
Why is this new or unexpected? If you are criminally negligent, don't expect your pure motives to get you off the hook.
The post you are responding to, however, isn't talking about this aspect of software development, it's responding to a specific point about when the GPL applies.
Here
is a list of quotes from the bible regarding the shape of the earth. Admittedly,
it's from infidels.org, but surely the host doesn't matter, since they're
quoting infallible scripture...
None of the quotes from the bible on that web page were literal statements describing the shape of the earth. They were descriptions of dreams or quotes used to describe some theological point to illiterate shepherds thousands of years ago, not scientific claims.
Of course, the linked article is not intended to be a rigorous disproof of a particular claim, it's intended to be a satirical article poking fun. Or at least, that's what it claims. You weren't intending for it to be taken seriously, were you?
If they're correct about the 6000x speed increase, that would mean a 56k modem could transmit at 336mb... seems just *slightly* off to me. However, assuming they're correct and there actually IS a 6000x increase in transmission speed, does that mean a T1 suddenly would jump from a potential 1.5mb link to a 9000mb (or 9gb) link?
No, they're saying that on the 1000 Mbps network in question, a single TCP stream is only able to achieve 266 Mbps of throughput where their variant achieves 925 Mbps of throughput.
The 6000 number came from running 10 streams together, achieving 8609 Mbps, which is 6000 times what a typical ADSL connection gives (according to their press release.) This is pretty meaningless, since their underlying network is much faster than a typical ADSL connection, but big numbers impress reporters who don't possess critical thinking skills (or the background to use them).
What I'd like to know is where they did this real-world test. On a connection between two universities on Internet2 with wide fiber links, I can understand that they see a considerable perfomance gain. However, I'd also like to see tests done through consumer grade DSL or cable connections where the ISP typically use deep buffers.
Consumer grade DSL or cable connections are typically not fast enough to push the boundaries of what TCP is capable enough, so there probably wouldn't be much benefit from using Fast TCP there (a guess; I haven't looked at the Fast TCP specifics yet.) In other words, ordinary TCP is already capable of saturating a consumer grade DSL or cable connection. Where ordinary TCP has difficulties (well, one of the places it has difficulties) is saturating long-distance, high-bandwidth connections without using multiple streams.
Regardless of the merits of death taxes - I'm not terribly fond of them, because they don't accomplish what they're supposed to - a nontrivial inheritance is most certainly a good idea.
If there were, for example, a 100% death tax (with exception for spouse, of course) for all assets above a certain level (say $1 000 000), you are effectively punishing accidental death. An expected death would allow time for you to set up foundations that could employ your offspring, to give them gifts of cash and property, and generally to divest your assets. An unexpected one would result in total elimination of everything you've done.
I don't see much difference to society either way. The hypothetical death tax that you speak of (which I don't necessarily endorse) isn't punishing you, because you're dead. It's not punishing your heirs because they're getting as much as the society has decided they should get.
Under such a scheme, accidental deaths might result in less people using loopholes to escape the intent of the law, but if the law is a good one, we don't want people to use loopholes to escape its intent. If the law's not a good one, then we want to repeal it. (Obviously I'm speaking in theoretical terms, not practical terms.)
Why should anyone inherit something they didn't create?
Should the same hold for money and property?
Possibly. 100% inheritance taxes were debated by the Founding Fathers, who wanted to ensure that the aristocracy of Europe were never transplanted to the United States. There's enough merit to the idea to at least discuss it periodically, to see if current inheritance tax levels are still appropriate.
I would say that whether or not nontrivial inheritances are a good idea probably depends on circumstances.
What is needed is compromise on both parties, companies need to make things affordable instead of gouging consumers and the consumers have to realize that it cost somebody money and time to produce something so they should pay for it. I know this sounds a bit circular and communistic but the reality is that both camps can be happy if they both cooperate.
But this in the end is wishful thinking as the article clearly points out that there's plenty of people out there ready to cheat the system and complain when they get caught.
I think I've got you beat on wishful thinking: what we need are people who produce content for the fun of it, because it scratches an itch, and then distribute that content for free. Then we need an open ratings system to help us distinguish crap from stuff that we'd be interested in (note that the definition of crap varies from person to person.)
I don't expect to see anyone spend millions of dollars on movies that they intend to distribute for free, but million dollar budgets are not necessary to produce good movies, and as technology improves, we are approaching the day when people can produce high quality content with little more than talent and a PC.
We're already there with regards to text content; video content won't be far behind.
Slashdot Mirror
Those people are intolerant, so we should not tolerate them?
Would it be better for the parent poster to be intolerant? I don't think that expressing tolerance for a movie is necessarily objectionable (although it might be under some circumstances.)
There is plenty of stuff that we should be intolerant of. Some can be characterized as "works of art" by their proponents and as "depravity" or "perversity" by their opponents. (Example: snuff films.) Whether they actually should be tolerated varies on a case by case basis, but there are certainly things that should not be tolerated.
If any facts have been proven and verified, then whatever works of art conflict are clearly in error. Duh.
That sounds reasonable, for some business behaviors. Context matters; many actions can be good under some circumstances and bad under others.
I think that was the point.
One online dictionary lists this as one of the definitions of religion: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
So perhaps it is not just the belief, but what one does with it, that makes a religion. That can't be the whole story, though, because lots of people don't do anything about their "religious" beliefs.
The previous poster's logic *is* flawed, but he makes the same mistake that you do: differentiating between secular humanism and religion. As religion does not necessarily require belief in the supernatural, secular humanism fits the definition (or "at least one" definition) of religion. (Maybe Clarke meant "belief in the supernatural" when he said "religion", but that wouldn't be very intellectually honest.)
Clarke's statement could be interpreted as a condemnation of zealous devotion to anything at all, but as someone who is zealously devoted to a number of different things, I don't prefer that view.
Instead, I interpret Clarke's statement as a criticism of lack of critical thinking. People often believe things for bad reasons, and it's no excuse if some of those things happen to be true. Phrased like that, I might agree; it's quite possible that bad decision-making has the most harmful influence on humanity.
Firefox *is* younger and less mature. For now. When he reaches adulthood he'll undoubtedly prefer the more snooty "II".
This can cause great amusement.
Unfortunately, gathering temperature data that is suitable for historical comparison is difficult. Simply measuring the ground temperature at the same place for 100 years isn't adequate. Cities grow around it, people build factories next door, or other changes occur that cause us to doubt the accuracy of a long-term comparison.
With today's weather satellites, we can take pretty good temperature readings from the middle of nowhere, but that doesn't help us show short-term (100 year) trends because we don't have historical data on those particular points in the middle of nowhere.
I do, in fact, consider the nature of reality, and I have concluded that it doesn't matter if my brain is really floating in a vat in some scientist's laboratory, being fed fake sensory data. Unpleasant stimuli is still unpleasant, and by my actions, I seem to be able to reduce it, regardless of whether or not it's "real". Therefore I reject philosophical skepticism.
While the idea you mention is expressed through metaphore, my comment was literal: I don't believe that we actually live in the Matrix that is depicted in the movie, and I expect sane people everywhere to agree with me.
It seems implausible to me that a movie about a giant vr environment would cause any sane person to think that we actually live in a giant vr environment.
Bujold?
Rape is the least of what he deserves. Try him as a domestic terrorist under the patriot act an make him disappear.
Don't you think we should figure out if he's actually guilty first?
Lots of copyrighted works are distributed freely by their owners for a variety of different reasons.
Yes, there was a day when there were only typewriters and everything was done by hand. Before that, it was all done by hand, for real, with pen and paper. Do you really suggest that this is an answer?
Don't be ridiculous.
If you are a high school or college student, or a professional who actually gives proper attribution rather than flat-out plaigerizes, or write scientific papers (biology, for instance - physics and math people use latex/lyx, end of story) you MUST provide references in your papers Research papers for class, papers for submission to professional journals, publications for dissemination online...all require references and a properly formatted reference list.
Since when is a high school or college student unable to write their own properly formatted bibliography? When I wrote out my research papers by hand, or typed them out with a typewriter, or (when I finally got access to a computer as a 3rd year student in high school) used Microsoft Write, I was able to create a properly formatted reference list without a "bibliography manager."
They were interested but ultimately I had to disabuse them of the idea of using it to replace Office because OO/SO cannot do references properly.
I'm reliably informed that scientific research papers pre-date the use of computers for word processing.
The question the article now asks is simply: Who is to blame, when something goes terribly wrong. When sth. with SAP goes terribly wrong: Sue them. When somebody distributes virus contaminated software: Sue them. But what, if the Linux kernel contains some backdoor? Blame Linus? Alan? Redhat?
If you have suffered a loss due to their negligence, sue them, or whoever else you think is responsible. The GPL has little bearing on it. Open source software is no more vulnerable in this regard than closed source software, except that the stereotypical open source software developer doesn't have deep pockets.
Why is this new or unexpected? If you are criminally negligent, don't expect your pure motives to get you off the hook.
The post you are responding to, however, isn't talking about this aspect of software development, it's responding to a specific point about when the GPL applies.
None of the quotes from the bible on that web page were literal statements describing the shape of the earth. They were descriptions of dreams or quotes used to describe some theological point to illiterate shepherds thousands of years ago, not scientific claims.
Of course, the linked article is not intended to be a rigorous disproof of a particular claim, it's intended to be a satirical article poking fun. Or at least, that's what it claims. You weren't intending for it to be taken seriously, were you?
Another thing that the hotel room of the future will have is video on demand - you'll be able to watch any movie whenever you want to.
No, they're saying that on the 1000 Mbps network in question, a single TCP stream is only able to achieve 266 Mbps of throughput where their variant achieves 925 Mbps of throughput.
The 6000 number came from running 10 streams together, achieving 8609 Mbps, which is 6000 times what a typical ADSL connection gives (according to their press release.) This is pretty meaningless, since their underlying network is much faster than a typical ADSL connection, but big numbers impress reporters who don't possess critical thinking skills (or the background to use them).
The important part is the 266 -> 925 increase.
Consumer grade DSL or cable connections are typically not fast enough to push the boundaries of what TCP is capable enough, so there probably wouldn't be much benefit from using Fast TCP there (a guess; I haven't looked at the Fast TCP specifics yet.) In other words, ordinary TCP is already capable of saturating a consumer grade DSL or cable connection. Where ordinary TCP has difficulties (well, one of the places it has difficulties) is saturating long-distance, high-bandwidth connections without using multiple streams.
I don't see much difference to society either way. The hypothetical death tax that you speak of (which I don't necessarily endorse) isn't punishing you, because you're dead. It's not punishing your heirs because they're getting as much as the society has decided they should get.
Under such a scheme, accidental deaths might result in less people using loopholes to escape the intent of the law, but if the law is a good one, we don't want people to use loopholes to escape its intent. If the law's not a good one, then we want to repeal it. (Obviously I'm speaking in theoretical terms, not practical terms.)
Possibly. 100% inheritance taxes were debated by the Founding Fathers, who wanted to ensure that the aristocracy of Europe were never transplanted to the United States. There's enough merit to the idea to at least discuss it periodically, to see if current inheritance tax levels are still appropriate.
I would say that whether or not nontrivial inheritances are a good idea probably depends on circumstances.
Should it be?
Even if the job is "beating the crap out of k-0s"?
But this in the end is wishful thinking as the article clearly points out that there's plenty of people out there ready to cheat the system and complain when they get caught.
I think I've got you beat on wishful thinking: what we need are people who produce content for the fun of it, because it scratches an itch, and then distribute that content for free. Then we need an open ratings system to help us distinguish crap from stuff that we'd be interested in (note that the definition of crap varies from person to person.)
I don't expect to see anyone spend millions of dollars on movies that they intend to distribute for free, but million dollar budgets are not necessary to produce good movies, and as technology improves, we are approaching the day when people can produce high quality content with little more than talent and a PC.
We're already there with regards to text content; video content won't be far behind.