Good god, you have degrees. Impressive. After all, it's not like I ever get CS grad students in my office who have approximately the same level of computer science knowledge as my grandmother.
FreeNet keys aren't the same length as the data, nor do they function as one-time pads, nor can you decipher the FreeNet data on your hard drive without an impossible amount of computing power. When you say this "is how FreeNet and other systems work," you've either misunderstood FreeNet or public key cryptography.
Moving the argument from "shall we censor political speech" to "shall we censor dirty words and smut" doesn't really help much in the fight against censorship.
*And yes, I know IQ is defined so that it follows a normal distribution -- thus it's symmetrical by definition. For this reason alone, it's unlikely to correspond to the actual distribution of intelligence in the population.
Yeah, because we all know that normal distributions of genetic traits in populations are rare as hell. Things like height, weight, etc., are all just the exceptions that prove the rule. After all it's not like a set of atomic genotypes would ever be easy to model mathematically as a random variable generating the Gaussian distribution.
It's too bad that nobody has figured out how to make an RTS with the strategic depth of chess or go. You'd think that there is no a priori reason that it should be impossible.
Well, I for one am willing to subvert the entire open source movement this way, but only for the United States government, and only for a great deal of money.
Representatives of the NSA: if you're reading this, you know who I am and how to get in touch with me. And probably what I'm doing at exactly this moment.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of room for a web of trust here. I wonder how hard it would be to inject some sort of extremely non-obvious race condition hidden in a large and useful patch that just so happens to let you execute arbitrary code?
If you were found out, you could just claim, plausibly, that you hadn't seen the possibility of the race. Or maybe just be a one-time contributor so there is no way to track you down if the hole is discovered.
Really? I just compared my Dell AT101W (a clicky model-M clone) to my laptop at TypingTest.com
The clicky keyboard wins at 80WPM versus 73WPM. Although the secretary was probably wondering what I was doing typing like that, since she can hear all the clicks.
Ok, maybe you're just an atheist who can't count. Homosexuality has a fitness hit bigger than any known genetic disease. At 3% of the male population (your 5% to 10% numbers are widely quoted in the media but don't jive with the literature), it's simply too common to be genetic. At the wacky 5% to 10% numbers you quote, it would be even more improbable.
The most frequent genetic disease we know about with the same kind of fitness hit is sickle cell, which is as high as 1/500 births among African Americans. (Abount 1 in 34,000 births among everybody in the US.) And the genes that cause sickle cell have the benefit of fighting the most deadly killer in human history: malaria.
It order for homosexuality to be genetic, every male homosexual must provide a fitness benefit to his nephews and nieces somewhere on the equivalent of that provided by mother love to make up for the kids he doesn't have. Yet no one -- in any society, much less all of them -- has ever noticed any huge fitness advantage to gay uncles. It's not there.
More damning, we haven't found any genes that cause homosexuality. If the genes were there, we would have seen them 10 years ago. The chance that we would have missed it in the Hap Map (I hope to god that you know what that is with your "read a book on natural selection" shit) is negligible.
And yes, some gays have had some children (not as many as straight men by all accounts) throughout history. However even a gene with a 5% fitness hit will be weeded out over time (a 5% fitness hit would mean that a gay man would have only 95% of the children a straight man would have -- a wild overestimate compared to the conclusions of the only study I know of on this).
The idea that homosexuality is genetic does not jive with theory nor with evidence. There are simply no genetic diseases that common with anywhere near that fitness impact. Homosexuality genes would have shown up in genetic studies long ago.
If it's not genetic, there's not too many other things it could be. A pathogen is by far the most likely cause, and that's where the smart money has been for the last 5 years at least. If it were exposure to a chemical or some such, we would most likely have noticed by now. The most likely pathogen is a virus, a very common (perhaps unnoticed) childhood disease that causes this side effect in a small number of cases. There are lots of people (though perhaps not enough) looking into the causes of homosexuality.
And finally, your claim that gays are a race is silly and a terrible misuse of the English language. Say what you mean with words that mean it.
If you have any intellectual bollux at all, your next post will be an apology for the race-baiting, and be posted under your real username.
I'm interested in your explanation of why the above comment was "racist" -- unless you simply use the term as a synonym for "bad m'kay." And are you one of those Christians who think that homosexuality is a choice? You fucking homophobic moron.
No, homosexuality has a cause. It can't be genetic, because the fitness deficit is too big for that to be a realistic explanation. That leaves pathogens of some sort, probably a childhood disease that every now and then causes some sort of damage to the hypothalamus.
YA_Python_dev, please go away and hang out with your kind on the fundamentalist Christian websites or wherever your kind go to hate on gays. The rest of understand that it's a biological condition with an actual biological cause: it's not "the devil in you." Gays are normal people like you or me, who have to live with a condition that causes severe social and health problems for them, one that most of them would never wish for another person to be born with.
"Homosexuality: not even mentioned in the Gospels, and the Old Testament has more to say about the evil of pork."
Luke 17:34-35, KJV: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
I love abusing scripture. Anyway, it's just some sort of brain damage. Someday we'll figure out how to zap whatever has been causing it -- just like the deaf population imploded after the Rubella vaccine -- and then everybody will wonder what the fuss was about.
I'm sorry, I sometimes forget that there are a lot of Slashdot readers who speak English as a second language. (If you read Slashdot for long enough you will even find some commenters that aren't very good at English as their first language.) The "you" in the above comment was the second person impersonal, referring to the person doing the uploading. Contrast that, for instance, to the second-person personal in the parenthetical two sentences back.
No, the "you" in the last comment wasn't meant for you -- that grammatical construct is one of those quirks of English that you'll run into as you continue to learn it. Persevere in your study! Our language can be sometimes be tricky. Notice that the "some losers still can't grasp that concept" was meant for you even though it was third-person.
It's really one of those things that can only be figured out from context. The biggest hint that I was using the second-person impersonal was that I referred to "you" as having sex with a live women. That would be silly if it were referring to you now, wouldn't it? On the other hand, the third-person statement referred to a loser, so it was clear who I intended it for.
"Most of the folks here at Slashdot don't know that much about computers in general, or Operating Systems."
Most of them don't.
I'm going right out to buy copy of "One Night in Paris"...
You may not realize this, but breaking up with a girl, and then uploading a copy of a sex tape that you two made to the world makes you a shitty human being. It does not make her a shitty human being, it makes you a shitty human being. I am saddened that it has been 40 years since the sexual revolution, and some losers still can't grasp that concept.
Vista is a fine operating system. Most people hate it for the same reason they hate Paris Hilton: When the crowd speaks, you must obey!
I run Debian, Fedora, and Vista at home. At work it's RHEL, XP, Fedora, and a bunch of other junk. This week most of my OS hate is for Fedora and Ubuntu -- I'm seriously pissed at all this beta crap. How bad is it? Enough to make me seriously consider Debian stable for an actual Desktop machine.
If you are a neophyte computer user, you'll have problems with Vista as you would with any operating system. If you're an idiot who has only used XP, but never a secure operating system like Linux or OS X, you'll hate UAC. If you're just kind of slow, you won't like how some things are now colored differently. Oh no, confusing!
Frankly, I am really, really, tired of all this Microsoft bashing. If it were real criticism, related to reality, they might benefit from it and come up with a better OS. It's not. Basically, it's a loud message to Microsoft: Don't innovate, we can't appreciate it. The color of the taskbar is more important that impovements like Start Window search, improved booting and recovery (that has saved my ass at least once), improved security, vastly polished system tools of all sorts; no, what matters is that not everything is in the some place it used to be. What matters is that there are a few geriatric scanners that nobody has released Vista drivers for. Good god, most of the people having problems with Vista shouldn't be using computers in the first place -- that's the real crime here.
Except when they do break things -- like everybody's Nvidia drivers a couple of years ago. Or Grub when I upgraded to some LTS version or other last year (new kernel switched hda and hdb every reboot). I have had far fewer problems with Windows than with Linux updates over the years. The first time I tried Mandrake it attempted (and failed) to update the kernel, rendering the machine unbootable. A few months ago RHEL crashed two of our main servers with an autofs update.
Although you wouldn't know it if you get all your news from Slashdot, Windows updates get a good deal more testing. I really like how the SP1 roll-out was done for Vista. Very professional to scan for driver issues before installing. (Actually Vista is a very professional operating system, one that has been unfairly trashed. I'd feel sorry for Microsoft if they hadn't asked for it with a half dozen different Vista versions.)
Of course Debian stable have the best updates in the business. I have never had a hint of a problem with them.
Re:Just a tad over the top?
on
DDR3 RAM Explained
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
The crazies tend to be a lot poorer than the sickies. A nursing degree is far more useful than a psychology degree any day.
Yeah. When the hackers steal his identity and ruin his credit, he'll just be cool about it and say "Well, I still love Firefox; I got hacked, but it's not like I had to pay money for this software!."
Slashdot Mirror
And with all the competition, my school still can't hire any decent humanities professors. What's up with that?
I get more than 5000 spam messages a day. They'd have to give me a lot more than a new PC.
Good god, you have degrees. Impressive. After all, it's not like I ever get CS grad students in my office who have approximately the same level of computer science knowledge as my grandmother.
FreeNet keys aren't the same length as the data, nor do they function as one-time pads, nor can you decipher the FreeNet data on your hard drive without an impossible amount of computing power. When you say this "is how FreeNet and other systems work," you've either misunderstood FreeNet or public key cryptography.
Maybe I've misunderstood you, but that sentence seems to suggest that you don't understand how public key cryptography works.
Moving the argument from "shall we censor political speech" to "shall we censor dirty words and smut" doesn't really help much in the fight against censorship.
I only missed question 6.
4) You own him until he leaves the company.
It's too bad that nobody has figured out how to make an RTS with the strategic depth of chess or go. You'd think that there is no a priori reason that it should be impossible.
Well, I for one am willing to subvert the entire open source movement this way, but only for the United States government, and only for a great deal of money.
Representatives of the NSA: if you're reading this, you know who I am and how to get in touch with me. And probably what I'm doing at exactly this moment.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of room for a web of trust here. I wonder how hard it would be to inject some sort of extremely non-obvious race condition hidden in a large and useful patch that just so happens to let you execute arbitrary code?
If you were found out, you could just claim, plausibly, that you hadn't seen the possibility of the race. Or maybe just be a one-time contributor so there is no way to track you down if the hole is discovered.
Really? I just compared my Dell AT101W (a clicky model-M clone) to my laptop at TypingTest.com
The clicky keyboard wins at 80WPM versus 73WPM. Although the secretary was probably wondering what I was doing typing like that, since she can hear all the clicks.
Ok, maybe you're just an atheist who can't count. Homosexuality has a fitness hit bigger than any known genetic disease. At 3% of the male population (your 5% to 10% numbers are widely quoted in the media but don't jive with the literature), it's simply too common to be genetic. At the wacky 5% to 10% numbers you quote, it would be even more improbable.
The most frequent genetic disease we know about with the same kind of fitness hit is sickle cell, which is as high as 1/500 births among African Americans. (Abount 1 in 34,000 births among everybody in the US.) And the genes that cause sickle cell have the benefit of fighting the most deadly killer in human history: malaria.
It order for homosexuality to be genetic, every male homosexual must provide a fitness benefit to his nephews and nieces somewhere on the equivalent of that provided by mother love to make up for the kids he doesn't have. Yet no one -- in any society, much less all of them -- has ever noticed any huge fitness advantage to gay uncles. It's not there.
More damning, we haven't found any genes that cause homosexuality. If the genes were there, we would have seen them 10 years ago. The chance that we would have missed it in the Hap Map (I hope to god that you know what that is with your "read a book on natural selection" shit) is negligible.
And yes, some gays have had some children (not as many as straight men by all accounts) throughout history. However even a gene with a 5% fitness hit will be weeded out over time (a 5% fitness hit would mean that a gay man would have only 95% of the children a straight man would have -- a wild overestimate compared to the conclusions of the only study I know of on this).
The idea that homosexuality is genetic does not jive with theory nor with evidence. There are simply no genetic diseases that common with anywhere near that fitness impact. Homosexuality genes would have shown up in genetic studies long ago.
If it's not genetic, there's not too many other things it could be. A pathogen is by far the most likely cause, and that's where the smart money has been for the last 5 years at least. If it were exposure to a chemical or some such, we would most likely have noticed by now. The most likely pathogen is a virus, a very common (perhaps unnoticed) childhood disease that causes this side effect in a small number of cases. There are lots of people (though perhaps not enough) looking into the causes of homosexuality.
And finally, your claim that gays are a race is silly and a terrible misuse of the English language. Say what you mean with words that mean it.
If you have any intellectual bollux at all, your next post will be an apology for the race-baiting, and be posted under your real username.
I'm interested in your explanation of why the above comment was "racist" -- unless you simply use the term as a synonym for "bad m'kay." And are you one of those Christians who think that homosexuality is a choice? You fucking homophobic moron.
No, homosexuality has a cause. It can't be genetic, because the fitness deficit is too big for that to be a realistic explanation. That leaves pathogens of some sort, probably a childhood disease that every now and then causes some sort of damage to the hypothalamus.
YA_Python_dev, please go away and hang out with your kind on the fundamentalist Christian websites or wherever your kind go to hate on gays. The rest of understand that it's a biological condition with an actual biological cause: it's not "the devil in you." Gays are normal people like you or me, who have to live with a condition that causes severe social and health problems for them, one that most of them would never wish for another person to be born with.
I love abusing scripture. Anyway, it's just some sort of brain damage. Someday we'll figure out how to zap whatever has been causing it -- just like the deaf population imploded after the Rubella vaccine -- and then everybody will wonder what the fuss was about.
I'm sorry, I sometimes forget that there are a lot of Slashdot readers who speak English as a second language. (If you read Slashdot for long enough you will even find some commenters that aren't very good at English as their first language.) The "you" in the above comment was the second person impersonal, referring to the person doing the uploading. Contrast that, for instance, to the second-person personal in the parenthetical two sentences back.
No, the "you" in the last comment wasn't meant for you -- that grammatical construct is one of those quirks of English that you'll run into as you continue to learn it. Persevere in your study! Our language can be sometimes be tricky. Notice that the "some losers still can't grasp that concept" was meant for you even though it was third-person.
It's really one of those things that can only be figured out from context. The biggest hint that I was using the second-person impersonal was that I referred to "you" as having sex with a live women. That would be silly if it were referring to you now, wouldn't it? On the other hand, the third-person statement referred to a loser, so it was clear who I intended it for.
Disagreeing with you is narrow-mindedness, huh? What a worldview you must have.
You may not realize this, but breaking up with a girl, and then uploading a copy of a sex tape that you two made to the world makes you a shitty human being. It does not make her a shitty human being, it makes you a shitty human being. I am saddened that it has been 40 years since the sexual revolution, and some losers still can't grasp that concept.
Vista is a fine operating system. Most people hate it for the same reason they hate Paris Hilton: When the crowd speaks, you must obey!
I run Debian, Fedora, and Vista at home. At work it's RHEL, XP, Fedora, and a bunch of other junk. This week most of my OS hate is for Fedora and Ubuntu -- I'm seriously pissed at all this beta crap. How bad is it? Enough to make me seriously consider Debian stable for an actual Desktop machine.
If you are a neophyte computer user, you'll have problems with Vista as you would with any operating system. If you're an idiot who has only used XP, but never a secure operating system like Linux or OS X, you'll hate UAC. If you're just kind of slow, you won't like how some things are now colored differently. Oh no, confusing!
Frankly, I am really, really, tired of all this Microsoft bashing. If it were real criticism, related to reality, they might benefit from it and come up with a better OS. It's not. Basically, it's a loud message to Microsoft: Don't innovate, we can't appreciate it. The color of the taskbar is more important that impovements like Start Window search, improved booting and recovery (that has saved my ass at least once), improved security, vastly polished system tools of all sorts; no, what matters is that not everything is in the some place it used to be. What matters is that there are a few geriatric scanners that nobody has released Vista drivers for. Good god, most of the people having problems with Vista shouldn't be using computers in the first place -- that's the real crime here.
Except when they do break things -- like everybody's Nvidia drivers a couple of years ago. Or Grub when I upgraded to some LTS version or other last year (new kernel switched hda and hdb every reboot). I have had far fewer problems with Windows than with Linux updates over the years. The first time I tried Mandrake it attempted (and failed) to update the kernel, rendering the machine unbootable. A few months ago RHEL crashed two of our main servers with an autofs update.
Although you wouldn't know it if you get all your news from Slashdot, Windows updates get a good deal more testing. I really like how the SP1 roll-out was done for Vista. Very professional to scan for driver issues before installing. (Actually Vista is a very professional operating system, one that has been unfairly trashed. I'd feel sorry for Microsoft if they hadn't asked for it with a half dozen different Vista versions.)
Of course Debian stable have the best updates in the business. I have never had a hint of a problem with them.
The crazies tend to be a lot poorer than the sickies. A nursing degree is far more useful than a psychology degree any day.
Then why is the spam problem so much bigger than the telemarketer or junk fax problem? Surely there is some technical aspect to this "social problem."
Removing the "Boom" dramatically alters the economics because you can fly it over dense population centers that were banned to Concorde. Happy?
Yeah. When the hackers steal his identity and ruin his credit, he'll just be cool about it and say "Well, I still love Firefox; I got hacked, but it's not like I had to pay money for this software!."