The difference is, it's usually considered acceptable for networked application to have ABSOLUTE SHIT security because either application is used only between "trusted" clients (all "enterprise" crap with remote GUI, all HPC, networked backup, etc.), or nothing depends on its security (networked games).
I would agree with the first part, however "knowing hackers methods" should not matter. Secure software is supposed to work equally reliable when subjected to known and unknown intrusion methods. Any knowledge of specific attacks and its types should have only illustrative purpose.
apropos(1) uses the input language (unordered list of English words) completely incompatible with the language used by the interactive shell (shell and program-specific command line arguments). They do not belong together, should never be a part of the same entry, and user interface must never encourage the user to mix them. Interactive help may have command-line interface, even command-line interface with autocompletion, however this has absolutely nothing to do with composing the command line.
The idea of command line guessing what user tried to say assuming that user is deep in a la-la-land as far as shell syntax is concerned, belongs to the same "DON'T!" list as making programs with a thin veneer of RPC over their program-specific language, then giving user a "shell" that only connects tightly-coupled combinations of programs.
Apple does not shit up the direction of software development for non-Apple users.
Microsoft isn't holding up any progress at all, and is slowly turning into one of the main contributors to FOSS.
Microsoft contributed absolutely nothing of value to free or open source software. It submitted a giant patch (on, I think, a third attempt) to make Linux work under its shitty Windows-based virtualization. That's not contribution, it's sabotage.
More like 4DOS shell (complete with menu system popping up). Or <Tab> in bash that is probably related to it. Or any autocompletion that relies on a parser instead of a dictionary.
Does Windows 7 search box parse the input to select the context, or use a flat list of "things" to call?
Then you should be far happier than most -- you can watch the news and see politics unfold and feel like you're getting what you want. As a minimal-government type with strong social Libertarian leanings, I couldn't tell you what that's like.
You should learn not to stuff your (retarded) political preferences into discussions about unrelated subjects.
Far from it, friend.
I am not your friend.
I simply don't consider all people who believe in God to be "religious". Religion is something different though related.
What you "consider" doesn't mean shit. Go, read a dictionary.
you realize a lot of those people working in apple stores, radio shack, and target are also experienced software and electronics engineers? some with decades of experience?
Today software engineers are mainly there to model (describe) software systems. The implementation is done by coders.
No, that's how things were in 1950-60's. Now, a person who does not write code has no business talking about it, and if he does, no one should listen to him.
I do. It's prettier, but still completely unusable. I have to use it for its idiotic calendar, however for all other purposes Thunderbird is a far better client for Exchange.
Microsoft is now what Inquisition was for most of the Middle Ages -- a force that nearly single-handedly held up the progress in all areas of science and engineering. We laugh at our ancestors for putting up with them, and our descendants will laugh at us for putting up with Microsoft.
You know the same sort of mentality today in the form of the nanny-state (to use a non-religious example)
I love nanny state and hate free speech. Now what?
Again using Jesus as an easy example, he wasn't much of a religious person.
Are you fucking stupid? Jesus supposedly believed to be a god and a son of god. It's not possible to be more religious than that. Jesus also did never existed.
I never said that those are questions that people go around asking people, I said that are questions that people confront at some point in their life.
People never "confront" those questions. They may present their thoughts as if those thoughts are answers to those vague questions.
Likewise, the "Who am I?" question is quite common in the context of literature, for example, in science fiction is might be the "What does it mean to be human?" question that shows up when the topic of transhumanism shows up.
"Transhumanism" is mostly used as a metaphor for racial discrimination and treatment of people with mental diseases. It's a SOLVED problem.
However, you are correct that more context generally needs to be applied to them, otherwise, they form a fairly cliché list. It's a common cliché though, which can make it useful for discussion as it can alleviate the need to explain everything up front.
Then stop talking in ambiguous, pointless language. It's stupid.
None of this has anything to do with accepting mythology as fact. Religion taken as fiction merely makes a bad, old fiction. Taken as anything else, it's nonsense.
I hate to steer things this way... but you mentioned ethics. Isn't that pretty much the Judeo-Christian view as well? "must be nice to people, or I'll get punished by God".
Yes, however isn't Judeo-Christian view on ethics morally bankrupt for this very reason?
A lot of good this is going to do considering that the whole point of the study was, antibiotics-resistant bacteria development is caused by prevalence of antibiotics-treated meat. Eating meat without antibiotics has absolutely no effect on the person until everyone else (or almost everyone else) does the same.
Do you have evidence to support your claim? Most philosophers would argue that the questions that I postulated aren't exactly "stupid questions" and as near as I can tell
Those are stupid questions when given to a human in a similar way how "Have you stopped beating your wife" is a stupid question when given to someone who did not beat his wife, or never had a wife to begin with -- no possible answer that has anything to do with reality, would satisfy the person asking. The difference is, a question about wife-beating includes an unquestionable false assumption, and questions you have listed imply that the answer must be from some area of human knowledge that the person asking it neglected to identify. Someone who asked "Who am I?" and is not satisfied with an obvious answer such as "Human" or his name, acts in the same manner as a person asking "What is Sun?" and not being satisfied with the answer "Yellow star that Earth is orbiting", insisting that it should be something along the lines of "Round, shiny thing in the sky approximately a half of an angular degree wide". The fact that such preferred answer, among other things, is bad because it can just as well describe the Moon, is completely overshadowed by the unstated assumption that the question was about visual appearance.
Humans don't ask those questions to each other. They use those questions to prompt speculation, usually their own one. Most philosophers are already full of shit, however philosophers at very least have decency to describe their assumptions -- if someone identifies himself as a religious philosopher, I can already skip the rest of his writings because the corresponding answers will have to be the variations of "God's plaything", "God made you" and "Whatever version of afterlife my religious mythology happens to have", with a lot of mental masturbation derived from those assumptions, usually seeing those assumptions as so obvious as not warranting to be included into such "answers".
Even if those assumptions were correct, and the mental masturbation attached to them was valid, it would be still a stupid pair of questions and answers because question itself does not provide any idea what it is about. It's short just to look profound, and the only reason why it stumps people is because there is no way to determine what it is about. That's all that there is to the "philosophy" part of it. A non-charlatan philosopher would always specify what problem he is trying to solve -- "How to determine the validity of generalisations we apply to observations?" is a perfectly valid philosophical question (though it still has two different answers when applied to rigorous scientific study and to everyday life). "Who am I?" is not.
I have presented you with any hard evidence as to what my philosophical thoughts on those questions are.
Stop trying to decorate your speech, it only makes it worse. The only possible "hard evidence of your philosophical thoughts" is you presenting those thoughts, so dropping the "hard evidence" part of that sentence will only make it less stupid.
Not that it would make your thoughts less stupid in their own right. Religion paints a comforting but entirely fictional picture, and presents it as reality. It squishes mythology, art and pseudo-philosophy into a sticky mess, and pretends that such mess is justified despite the fact that fundamental claims of its mythology are thoroughly debunked, and the whole thing falls apart if those were extracted from that mess.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is, it's usually considered acceptable for networked application to have ABSOLUTE SHIT security because either application is used only between "trusted" clients (all "enterprise" crap with remote GUI, all HPC, networked backup, etc.), or nothing depends on its security (networked games).
I would agree with the first part, however "knowing hackers methods" should not matter. Secure software is supposed to work equally reliable when subjected to known and unknown intrusion methods. Any knowledge of specific attacks and its types should have only illustrative purpose.
No, that's something completely different.
apropos(1) uses the input language (unordered list of English words) completely incompatible with the language used by the interactive shell (shell and program-specific command line arguments). They do not belong together, should never be a part of the same entry, and user interface must never encourage the user to mix them. Interactive help may have command-line interface, even command-line interface with autocompletion, however this has absolutely nothing to do with composing the command line.
The idea of command line guessing what user tried to say assuming that user is deep in a la-la-land as far as shell syntax is concerned, belongs to the same "DON'T!" list as making programs with a thin veneer of RPC over their program-specific language, then giving user a "shell" that only connects tightly-coupled combinations of programs.
Actually, that would be Apple.
Apple does not shit up the direction of software development for non-Apple users.
Microsoft isn't holding up any progress at all, and is slowly turning into one of the main contributors to FOSS.
Microsoft contributed absolutely nothing of value to free or open source software. It submitted a giant patch (on, I think, a third attempt) to make Linux work under its shitty Windows-based virtualization. That's not contribution, it's sabotage.
More like 4DOS shell (complete with menu system popping up). Or <Tab> in bash that is probably related to it. Or any autocompletion that relies on a parser instead of a dictionary.
Does Windows 7 search box parse the input to select the context, or use a flat list of "things" to call?
Then you should be far happier than most -- you can watch the news and see politics unfold and feel like you're getting what you want. As a minimal-government type with strong social Libertarian leanings, I couldn't tell you what that's like.
You should learn not to stuff your (retarded) political preferences into discussions about unrelated subjects.
Far from it, friend.
I am not your friend.
I simply don't consider all people who believe in God to be "religious". Religion is something different though related.
What you "consider" doesn't mean shit. Go, read a dictionary.
Hey, "CEO"! Learn to speak before giving people your stupid advice based on your experience of being in a privileged position.
I think, you are an ignorant, arrogant moron who should kill all your friends, then yourself.
Try to find some respected technical blogs and keep up with them.
You DO NOT study anything you are supposed to do prodessionally by reading blogs.
you realize a lot of those people working in apple stores, radio shack, and target are also experienced software and electronics engineers? some with decades of experience?
No.
Today software engineers are mainly there to model (describe) software systems. The implementation is done by coders.
No, that's how things were in 1950-60's. Now, a person who does not write code has no business talking about it, and if he does, no one should listen to him.
BIOS development
...is very much like Call of Cthulhu game, as far as SAN points are concerned.
Yessss! Pretend that you know something you don't! Be a huge fraud!
I do. It's prettier, but still completely unusable. I have to use it for its idiotic calendar, however for all other purposes Thunderbird is a far better client for Exchange.
Actually yes.
Microsoft is now what Inquisition was for most of the Middle Ages -- a force that nearly single-handedly held up the progress in all areas of science and engineering. We laugh at our ancestors for putting up with them, and our descendants will laugh at us for putting up with Microsoft.
Because Microsoft is known to keep hordes of astroturfers on this and other sites.
Oh wow. Two astroturfers in one thread, both can't even focus on promoting Microsoft crap.
Jesus also did never existed.
"Jesus also never existed", obviously. Oh, the wonders of editing in a hurry.
You know the same sort of mentality today in the form of the nanny-state (to use a non-religious example)
I love nanny state and hate free speech. Now what?
Again using Jesus as an easy example, he wasn't much of a religious person.
Are you fucking stupid? Jesus supposedly believed to be a god and a son of god. It's not possible to be more religious than that.
Jesus also did never existed.
I never said that those are questions that people go around asking people, I said that are questions that people confront at some point in their life.
People never "confront" those questions. They may present their thoughts as if those thoughts are answers to those vague questions.
Likewise, the "Who am I?" question is quite common in the context of literature, for example, in science fiction is might be the "What does it mean to be human?" question that shows up when the topic of transhumanism shows up.
"Transhumanism" is mostly used as a metaphor for racial discrimination and treatment of people with mental diseases. It's a SOLVED problem.
However, you are correct that more context generally needs to be applied to them, otherwise, they form a fairly cliché list. It's a common cliché though, which can make it useful for discussion as it can alleviate the need to explain everything up front.
Then stop talking in ambiguous, pointless language. It's stupid.
None of this has anything to do with accepting mythology as fact. Religion taken as fiction merely makes a bad, old fiction. Taken as anything else, it's nonsense.
I hate to steer things this way... but you mentioned ethics. Isn't that pretty much the Judeo-Christian view as well? "must be nice to people, or I'll get punished by God".
Yes, however isn't Judeo-Christian view on ethics morally bankrupt for this very reason?
A lot of good this is going to do considering that the whole point of the study was, antibiotics-resistant bacteria development is caused by prevalence of antibiotics-treated meat. Eating meat without antibiotics has absolutely no effect on the person until everyone else (or almost everyone else) does the same.
Do you have evidence to support your claim? Most philosophers would argue that the questions that I postulated aren't exactly "stupid questions" and as near as I can tell
Those are stupid questions when given to a human in a similar way how "Have you stopped beating your wife" is a stupid question when given to someone who did not beat his wife, or never had a wife to begin with -- no possible answer that has anything to do with reality, would satisfy the person asking. The difference is, a question about wife-beating includes an unquestionable false assumption, and questions you have listed imply that the answer must be from some area of human knowledge that the person asking it neglected to identify. Someone who asked "Who am I?" and is not satisfied with an obvious answer such as "Human" or his name, acts in the same manner as a person asking "What is Sun?" and not being satisfied with the answer "Yellow star that Earth is orbiting", insisting that it should be something along the lines of "Round, shiny thing in the sky approximately a half of an angular degree wide". The fact that such preferred answer, among other things, is bad because it can just as well describe the Moon, is completely overshadowed by the unstated assumption that the question was about visual appearance.
Humans don't ask those questions to each other. They use those questions to prompt speculation, usually their own one. Most philosophers are already full of shit, however philosophers at very least have decency to describe their assumptions -- if someone identifies himself as a religious philosopher, I can already skip the rest of his writings because the corresponding answers will have to be the variations of "God's plaything", "God made you" and "Whatever version of afterlife my religious mythology happens to have", with a lot of mental masturbation derived from those assumptions, usually seeing those assumptions as so obvious as not warranting to be included into such "answers".
Even if those assumptions were correct, and the mental masturbation attached to them was valid, it would be still a stupid pair of questions and answers because question itself does not provide any idea what it is about. It's short just to look profound, and the only reason why it stumps people is because there is no way to determine what it is about. That's all that there is to the "philosophy" part of it. A non-charlatan philosopher would always specify what problem he is trying to solve -- "How to determine the validity of generalisations we apply to observations?" is a perfectly valid philosophical question (though it still has two different answers when applied to rigorous scientific study and to everyday life). "Who am I?" is not.
I have presented you with any hard evidence as to what my philosophical thoughts on those questions are.
Stop trying to decorate your speech, it only makes it worse. The only possible "hard evidence of your philosophical thoughts" is you presenting those thoughts, so dropping the "hard evidence" part of that sentence will only make it less stupid.
Not that it would make your thoughts less stupid in their own right. Religion paints a comforting but entirely fictional picture, and presents it as reality. It squishes mythology, art and pseudo-philosophy into a sticky mess, and pretends that such mess is justified despite the fact that fundamental claims of its mythology are thoroughly debunked, and the whole thing falls apart if those were extracted from that mess.
s/to the public/from the public/
I am sure, keeping those things to the public is merely a side effect of keeping them from "enemies".