I don't know that the current state of the laws are a great signpost here unless we're looking at similar law that's already been interpreted. In the law that directly applies, it's lagging the technology as is often the case, so simply examining what's on the books right now is not all that instructive when it comes to understanding the heart of the matter.
I think a great way to start this discussion is to establish expectation of privacy. If you peer into someone's window, you're fine. If you peer into someone's window with a camera and take a photo, you're not so fine, particularly if you start distributing it. Why? Because there's an expectation of privacy that's been violated here, even if the curtains weren't drawn. On the other hand, if the inside of the rooms aren't visible, then you're ok--the facade of the house is fair game.
Is open wifi like peering into a room? I assert that it is not--there ought not to be any expectation of privacy on an open wifi because an actual transmission is occurring here. Not a passive one, either, such as when it was ruled last year that the FBI can't monitor infrared radiation to see through walls in order to figure out of there's a meth operation or a pot house inside. A wifi signal is something that one must set up and actively broadcast, not unlike setting up and broadcasting a pirate radio station from your house.
I believe my view jibes with common sense, too...what would it mean for businesses that intend to set up public wifi for their customers or whoever to use if it's to be regarded with a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? Now if you secure your connection, ok, that's different...now one would have to go to some effort to see the contents.
Cell phone calls are certainly in a gray area, but I would hold that the expectation of most people takes into account the historical association with phone calls being private, and besides, there's no publicly available alternative. With wifi, you get built in the ability to secure it. If you choose not to do so, ok, that's up to you. No problem on my side, just don't expect that if you take your clothes off in the public square I'll afford you the same privacy as if you do the same in a public bathroom stall.
Of course, complicating this issue is that I'm using American mores around privacy, and those do not match those of Europeans. But to some extent I believe what I'm arguing here ought to be universally true. For instance, the French idea that one can control whether one's image is recorded on the public street is fraught with complications because it simply doesn't accord with reality...
I don't get the flap over the wifi collection thing. It was publicly open wifi stuff they were collecting. If I stick a bullhorn out my window and I yell, I'm eating breakfast now, I'm showering now, I'm going to work, is it reasonable to reserve the right to be offended when people know about the particulars of my day?
Well, let me just air the following uncontroversial opinions:
Usenet
vi
Wikimedia
-ducks & covers-
Honestly, this looks like a case of sour grapes to me. Wikimedia has a process for alerting the editors to illegal content and getting it removed right away. Surely Sanger knows this. Instead he writes a letter to the FBI because, uh oh, he's implicated by having viewed it! Ahem. BS.
This is why our luckless perp should have been running a Tor server. What?!, he'd say. I'm just providing a service no different from ISPs! I have no control over what people do with it!
How dare you trivialize this issue by referring to it as "jovial". This is not endowed with or characterized by hearty, joyous humor! We've got to take this sort of thing more seriously if anything's going to happen.
That actually makes sense. It's a shame, really...I had a snarky comment that would make me look superior all lined up. Ye/. gods, why hast thou forsaken me?!?!
I am not forcing you to wear anything, but Western governments do (our women).
I don't support laws that force anyone to dress in a particular fashion, whether the Islamic requirement for women to wear various head or body coverings, or the ridiculous French laws that prohibit them. I do not see a problem requiring people to be identifiable for certain purposes, such as for a photo ID.
I am not disrespecting you or insulting you publicly, you do. That's the difference.
I don't believe I've insulted or disrespected you in this conversation, so I presume you're using the editorial "you" to mean those whose point of view I represent.
Once again, however, from whence does this inalienable right to be respected or live a life free of offense come? You don't have that right; no one does. And if you did, as I pointed out earlier—and which I trust your acute avoidance in addressing has escaped the notice of exactly no one—it would be hypocritical of you to not similarly respect others the same, from the Mormon that believes dark-skinned people are cursed by god to those like me that believe in freedom of expression.
I know why you're attempting to neatly discard that aspect of the discussion, though; it's unanswerable, and engaging it would devastate your argument.
You can claim internal inconsistency only if it refers to finalized laws.
Well this is an interesting attempt to frame the scope of the discussion, but it's completely arbitrary. When I examine my beliefs, I look at everything, especially when it impacts my day-to-day life. I would think that sweeping away most of your holy texts like this would diminish their importance...is it allowed in your faith to pick and choose what you like to believe and leave the rest?
It's a pointless exercise on your part in any case...I'm quite happy to expose internal inconsistencies in any meaningful subset of this belief structure you care to describe.
That is true. Without threat of violence there is no respect.
This is quite a stupid thing to write; how unenlightened to think that being afraid of a thing and holding it in high esteem are the same thing. Is this view derived from your understanding of the religion of peace?
And finally, once again: demand that you do not insult me is not compelling you to live by my laws. It's very basic principle of co-existence.
You have it exactly wrong. Is demanding a life free from insult not the North Korean regime's greatest crime?
Inviting skeptical inquiry and criticism is the basis for coexistence in a free society, and that requires that people be free to insult each other. The type of society you propose would not allow the free exchange of ideas; people could be held accountable not for what they say, but how others take it, which is quite out of one's control. It's not for lack of trying, either...every religion has tried to create this society at one point or another to disastrous effect. You state just prior the incoherence of your position by saying baldly that your proposed "very basic principle of co-existence" necessarily begets violence—some principle of coexistence!
We do not have common ground of laws, because your laws come mostly from Shaitan, and my laws are from Allah.
Ah, well, if you believe you have divine warrant, I suppose we do not have a common ground of laws. The laws I wish to follow are based on the notion of minimizing human suffering in this world, while yours are optimized for gaining access to a place in the afterlife that I do not believe exists. And, while I can follow a logical progression of argument for the laws I advocate for, you admit you cannot—if you admit an iota of faith, you yield this point. Despite conceding this and in spite of the fact that I'm happy to leave you to your beliefs, it seems that's not enough either...you cannot keep your beliefs to yourself, as you say freely:
That means that if any Muslim is forced to sign such agreement or is implied as being in such agreement, he has no Islamic obligation to follow the clause of that agreement that implies that Muslims should tolerate insults against the Prophet...
If I accept your view on this is sane, then I am bound fast. I must to some extent accept and live under Islamic law, allowing you break any agreement after-the-fact you like out of "respect." Your religious views, in other words, are either viral in that you require me to comply with them, or they are disrespected in your view, and you claim religious persecution.
No, I do not accept this. It's hypocritical; you do not recognize the right of other religions to place such impositions on you, yet you expect me to suffer the imposition of yours. Beyond that, your system is not internally consistent; even your prophet discarded certain hadith, the so-called Satanic Verses, but he (and you) are so certain that, in the end, it was finally sorted which of his dictations were given by god and which were not. You cannot be sure of that or anything else in the self-contradictory teachings of your faith without claiming a godlike view into at least some corner of the mind of your deity—is this how you define heresy, though?
The entire force of your position simply revolves around how much of your identity you have invested in your views, which, at the end of the day, leads to you believing that you have divine warrant to force others to live by those views. The thinly veiled violence inherent in your particular brand of belief is evident from what you've written, that "Muslims WILL take action against you."
If you say that I should go then to other country, I say that I have a choice of either undergoing hardship of moving to such country (which one?) or doing what I do here facing potential persecution from the Western government for my views.
I'm uninterested in persecuting you, I would not agree with a government that does so. You're free to hold any crazy beliefs you like, that's fine with me. However, leaving you to your beliefs is different from allowing myself to be compelled by them.
Some religions discourage rational thought to a greater degree than others...
I disagree...the point I made earlier about this is that, from a philosophical standpoint, all religions are equally absurd. The only thing that changes is the willingness of a particular religion's followers to be exploited. The poorer, the more ignorant, etc, the easier to exploit. Judaism is a respected religion today...all the ridiculousness is there in the texts, but the followers are fairly well-to-do. Christianity exists in more places...in the US it's fairly sane for most people, in some South American countries somewhat less so, and in Uganda (which is 80% Christian) it's pretty crazy. Nigeria, on the other hand, is so poor that the local religions are essentially based on witch doctors; there's been a recent increase in child sacrifice so that practitioners can bury the bones of the slain children in the foundation of their houses, which will supposedly bring wealth.
But, then, it's important to recognize that this is an honestly held faith in Nigeria, and it is disrespectful to criticize it or prevent it followers from practicing it.
So, you believe that freedom of expression is a less important human right than requiring even nonbelievers to respect your religion under threat of physical reprisal?
If yes, is this a hypocritical belief, or do you think we ought to be required to respect the beliefs of all faiths equally? (Just to pick one out of the hat, for instance, the fundamentalist Mormon belief that dark-skinned people are cursed by god.)
I don't think it's orthogonal. I think that encouraging rational thought is directly related to whether you can keep good people from doing evil. I do agree that all religion is irrational by definition. I'm not sure that philosophically speaking there is much difference from religion to religion—a logical disconnect is a logical disconnect, in a math proof it doesn't matter if I insert an incorrect step asserting 1=0 or some more convoluted incorrect statement...either way, from there I can prove anything I want.
That's addressing the core of the rational difference from religion to religion, of course in practice different religions do break into different categories across the spectrum. But this has more to do with the affluence of the average adherent at any one moment, I think, than anything to do with the core values of the particular faith.
Techno-savvy isn't a requirement to answer, I just figured it would be one since we're here on/.
I agree, your post is most definitely not a troll. Mods, though, what are ya gonna do?
You're a real, live, hard-line Muslim that agrees with the call to do harm to Matt & Trey here? (I didn't explicitly state this as a requirement for responding, but I thought it was implicit...in any case, just want to clarify before continuing...)
I'm saying that the people are peaceful or violent and twist the religion to support them, not the other way around.
You have missed the underlying point of the argument here. What allows this twisting around (of both the peaceful and not-so-peaceful kinds) to gain a following and force is the disconnect of logic that religion not only allows, but requires. If people were to choose to stay in the realm of what can be soundly argued, however, it would not be so easy to get good people to do bad things.
Do you have a different understanding of the few hadith to which I refer? You're saying those hadith do not prohibit depictions of Muhammad to deter idolatry?
Don't get mad at me, this is what these particular Muslims believe. If you follow back their thinking, the conclusion is inescapable: they're worried that people will worship a representation of Muhammad, depicted in an episode of South Park, and Matt & Trey will have distracted throngs of the faithful from living a good, godfearing life.
But I understand, you're calling for action that will increase the chance of reasonable mediation here. Am I to assume that you see two legitimately debatable sides to this story: one side that supports free expression and does not believe Islam will be splintered by an episode of South Park, and the other side that thinks it would not be wrong to murder Matt & Trey because they doodled something offensive?
By the way, what do you mean "from the safety of my desktop"? Would you prefer we were debating these issues in some kind of face-to-face venue that would give you physical access to me? Might this be desirable for you because, were we to disagree, you could engage a form of "mediation" that involves goin' all roving death squad on me?
So, irrespective of the particulars of my logic, are we to assume that your position is that radicals should be able to force non-believers to follow their religious edicts?
I hope this is not the case, but in the future you may wish to throw a little more substance out there yourself, lest we misunderstand you.
Many Muslims are in a situation similar to what we went through with Crusades and the like. It's a phase (and they aren't nearly as bad as we were back then, really) -- it's a transition phase and we need to help them go through it; baby steps.
If I were Muslim, I think I would be pretty offended at this kind of condescension. I prefer to respect Muslims by treating them like adults capable of understanding the world in which they live. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the tone of the following message would go over: No! Murder bad! Bad Muslim!
For those of you that are unaware, the concern among Muslims about depicting Muhammad is based on a few hadith that warn against doing so to prevent idolatry. The worry is that any depiction could become the focus of worship, and the depiction itself could take the place of what it represents.
Or, in other words, radical Muslims are fearful that a large faction of the faithful will splinter off and form a new denomination based on the worship of an episode of South Park. They're so anxious over this possibility, these groups have threatened to suborn the murder of Matt Stone & Trey Parker by dispatching roving death squads.
Don't click away to a calendar app—I assure you, it is 2010 and this is actually happening. (And I understand why some of you with mod points might choose "Funny" for this post, which is totally fine, but I promise everyone that this is as unbiased an accounting of the facts as I find myself able to give.)
By the way, if you happen to be a techno-savvy hard-line Muslim reading this post, I have one question for you: shouldn't your first problem, before Matt & Trey, be with the second most populous denomination of Islam, the Shi'a, who apparently have no problem with depictions of Muhammad? Is it off-base for me to ask that you sort this out amongst yourselves before requiring the non-believers to follow your religious edicts under threat of death?
Whoops, I think there's a minor error in this summary and the headline of the article. It should read, Fairfax County public school system administrators criminally negligent in securing sensitive data. There, glad I fixed that...
I think perhaps the main point if this is being missed.
Does anyone remember Jini? It was the technology developed by Sun prior to EJBs that promised to make efficient distributed computing and pervasive connectivity a reality. Except, it never caught on because it required software development organizations to invert their staff profile. Instead of having a few device driver coders and enterprise architects, a few more low-level programmers and architect/designers, and the bulk of the staff in standard software development, Jini would have pushed the work to the outsides of that bell curve; nearly every developer would be playing the role of either device driver programmer or enterprise architect on most Jini projects. Recognizing this, Sun's compromise was EJBs, a distributed technology that brought half the functionality with perhaps 10x the weight.
Now we see that Google has rolled out a series of technologies that can all be combined to accomplish a similar vision: Google App Engine (cloud development platform), Chrome browser (thin client presentation layer), Google Apps (useful software including Docs, sensitive data hosting such as Health, etc), Chrome OS / Android (netbook/device hardware layer), and Wave (real time connectivity platform and protocol--the *product* most people think of as Wave is one possible manifestation of a front end to the Wave back-end and GWFP, but largely irrelevant for the purposes of the point I'm making here).
Laugh if you want, but demonstrating this bit about being able to host drivers in the cloud for any old device adds a necessary, though admittedly not particularly flashy, part of a fearsome distributed computing technology stack.
6TB is embarrassing? For a NAS used for personal backup? That's not only sufficient, I have lots of room to grow into it...I suppose I should be doubly embarrassed.
So this is great information, thanks so much for taking the time to write it.
So the way to restore a drive to full write speed during garbage collection would be to find 2 or more partial blocks that can fit in a single block, move them all, then completely free those previously partially used blocks. If this is how garbage collection works...why is it that the drives still degrade over time? Just when they fill up a certain amount when it's no longer possible to clear an entire block? (Seems like it should always be possible, though...unless files are required to be always kept in contiguous blocks...)
O. M. G. This would fill more than half the hard disk space I have in my NAS...truly massive! (At my company, there was an April Fool's rumor going around on the day that Twitter would be going down for 10 minutes while their high school intern upgraded their "Tweet Storage Unit" (TSU) by adding an extra 2TB drive. Har har! To be fair, they store a good bit of metadata besides the tweet itself, so let's give them a factor of 10 just for giggles. 30TB! Wow! Truly knee-buckling!
If you happen to work for Google, I will wait courteously as you catch your breath, dry your eyes, and massage your sore ribs. Also, pop the snot bubble coming out of your nose.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know that the current state of the laws are a great signpost here unless we're looking at similar law that's already been interpreted. In the law that directly applies, it's lagging the technology as is often the case, so simply examining what's on the books right now is not all that instructive when it comes to understanding the heart of the matter.
I think a great way to start this discussion is to establish expectation of privacy. If you peer into someone's window, you're fine. If you peer into someone's window with a camera and take a photo, you're not so fine, particularly if you start distributing it. Why? Because there's an expectation of privacy that's been violated here, even if the curtains weren't drawn. On the other hand, if the inside of the rooms aren't visible, then you're ok--the facade of the house is fair game.
Is open wifi like peering into a room? I assert that it is not--there ought not to be any expectation of privacy on an open wifi because an actual transmission is occurring here. Not a passive one, either, such as when it was ruled last year that the FBI can't monitor infrared radiation to see through walls in order to figure out of there's a meth operation or a pot house inside. A wifi signal is something that one must set up and actively broadcast, not unlike setting up and broadcasting a pirate radio station from your house.
I believe my view jibes with common sense, too...what would it mean for businesses that intend to set up public wifi for their customers or whoever to use if it's to be regarded with a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? Now if you secure your connection, ok, that's different...now one would have to go to some effort to see the contents.
Cell phone calls are certainly in a gray area, but I would hold that the expectation of most people takes into account the historical association with phone calls being private, and besides, there's no publicly available alternative. With wifi, you get built in the ability to secure it. If you choose not to do so, ok, that's up to you. No problem on my side, just don't expect that if you take your clothes off in the public square I'll afford you the same privacy as if you do the same in a public bathroom stall.
Of course, complicating this issue is that I'm using American mores around privacy, and those do not match those of Europeans. But to some extent I believe what I'm arguing here ought to be universally true. For instance, the French idea that one can control whether one's image is recorded on the public street is fraught with complications because it simply doesn't accord with reality...
I don't get the flap over the wifi collection thing. It was publicly open wifi stuff they were collecting. If I stick a bullhorn out my window and I yell, I'm eating breakfast now, I'm showering now, I'm going to work, is it reasonable to reserve the right to be offended when people know about the particulars of my day?
Well, let me just air the following uncontroversial opinions:
-ducks & covers-
Honestly, this looks like a case of sour grapes to me. Wikimedia has a process for alerting the editors to illegal content and getting it removed right away. Surely Sanger knows this. Instead he writes a letter to the FBI because, uh oh, he's implicated by having viewed it! Ahem. BS.
This is why our luckless perp should have been running a Tor server. What?!, he'd say. I'm just providing a service no different from ISPs! I have no control over what people do with it!
How dare you trivialize this issue by referring to it as "jovial". This is not endowed with or characterized by hearty, joyous humor! We've got to take this sort of thing more seriously if anything's going to happen.
That actually makes sense. It's a shame, really...I had a snarky comment that would make me look superior all lined up. Ye /. gods, why hast thou forsaken me?!?!
:-)
Why would you think that the position of particles in your inner ear are somehow related to the amount of sleep you get?
I don't support laws that force anyone to dress in a particular fashion, whether the Islamic requirement for women to wear various head or body coverings, or the ridiculous French laws that prohibit them. I do not see a problem requiring people to be identifiable for certain purposes, such as for a photo ID.
I don't believe I've insulted or disrespected you in this conversation, so I presume you're using the editorial "you" to mean those whose point of view I represent.
Once again, however, from whence does this inalienable right to be respected or live a life free of offense come? You don't have that right; no one does. And if you did, as I pointed out earlier—and which I trust your acute avoidance in addressing has escaped the notice of exactly no one—it would be hypocritical of you to not similarly respect others the same, from the Mormon that believes dark-skinned people are cursed by god to those like me that believe in freedom of expression.
I know why you're attempting to neatly discard that aspect of the discussion, though; it's unanswerable, and engaging it would devastate your argument.
Well this is an interesting attempt to frame the scope of the discussion, but it's completely arbitrary. When I examine my beliefs, I look at everything, especially when it impacts my day-to-day life. I would think that sweeping away most of your holy texts like this would diminish their importance...is it allowed in your faith to pick and choose what you like to believe and leave the rest?
It's a pointless exercise on your part in any case...I'm quite happy to expose internal inconsistencies in any meaningful subset of this belief structure you care to describe.
This is quite a stupid thing to write; how unenlightened to think that being afraid of a thing and holding it in high esteem are the same thing. Is this view derived from your understanding of the religion of peace?
You have it exactly wrong. Is demanding a life free from insult not the North Korean regime's greatest crime?
Inviting skeptical inquiry and criticism is the basis for coexistence in a free society, and that requires that people be free to insult each other. The type of society you propose would not allow the free exchange of ideas; people could be held accountable not for what they say, but how others take it, which is quite out of one's control. It's not for lack of trying, either...every religion has tried to create this society at one point or another to disastrous effect. You state just prior the incoherence of your position by saying baldly that your proposed "very basic principle of co-existence" necessarily begets violence—some principle of coexistence!
Your proposed utopia is my worst nightmare.
We do not have common ground of laws, because your laws come mostly from Shaitan, and my laws are from Allah.
Ah, well, if you believe you have divine warrant, I suppose we do not have a common ground of laws. The laws I wish to follow are based on the notion of minimizing human suffering in this world, while yours are optimized for gaining access to a place in the afterlife that I do not believe exists. And, while I can follow a logical progression of argument for the laws I advocate for, you admit you cannot—if you admit an iota of faith, you yield this point. Despite conceding this and in spite of the fact that I'm happy to leave you to your beliefs, it seems that's not enough either...you cannot keep your beliefs to yourself, as you say freely:
If I accept your view on this is sane, then I am bound fast. I must to some extent accept and live under Islamic law, allowing you break any agreement after-the-fact you like out of "respect." Your religious views, in other words, are either viral in that you require me to comply with them, or they are disrespected in your view, and you claim religious persecution.
No, I do not accept this. It's hypocritical; you do not recognize the right of other religions to place such impositions on you, yet you expect me to suffer the imposition of yours. Beyond that, your system is not internally consistent; even your prophet discarded certain hadith, the so-called Satanic Verses, but he (and you) are so certain that, in the end, it was finally sorted which of his dictations were given by god and which were not. You cannot be sure of that or anything else in the self-contradictory teachings of your faith without claiming a godlike view into at least some corner of the mind of your deity—is this how you define heresy, though?
The entire force of your position simply revolves around how much of your identity you have invested in your views, which, at the end of the day, leads to you believing that you have divine warrant to force others to live by those views. The thinly veiled violence inherent in your particular brand of belief is evident from what you've written, that "Muslims WILL take action against you."
I'm uninterested in persecuting you, I would not agree with a government that does so. You're free to hold any crazy beliefs you like, that's fine with me. However, leaving you to your beliefs is different from allowing myself to be compelled by them.
I disagree...the point I made earlier about this is that, from a philosophical standpoint, all religions are equally absurd. The only thing that changes is the willingness of a particular religion's followers to be exploited. The poorer, the more ignorant, etc, the easier to exploit. Judaism is a respected religion today...all the ridiculousness is there in the texts, but the followers are fairly well-to-do. Christianity exists in more places...in the US it's fairly sane for most people, in some South American countries somewhat less so, and in Uganda (which is 80% Christian) it's pretty crazy. Nigeria, on the other hand, is so poor that the local religions are essentially based on witch doctors; there's been a recent increase in child sacrifice so that practitioners can bury the bones of the slain children in the foundation of their houses, which will supposedly bring wealth.
But, then, it's important to recognize that this is an honestly held faith in Nigeria, and it is disrespectful to criticize it or prevent it followers from practicing it.
So, you believe that freedom of expression is a less important human right than requiring even nonbelievers to respect your religion under threat of physical reprisal?
If yes, is this a hypocritical belief, or do you think we ought to be required to respect the beliefs of all faiths equally? (Just to pick one out of the hat, for instance, the fundamentalist Mormon belief that dark-skinned people are cursed by god.)
I don't think it's orthogonal. I think that encouraging rational thought is directly related to whether you can keep good people from doing evil. I do agree that all religion is irrational by definition. I'm not sure that philosophically speaking there is much difference from religion to religion—a logical disconnect is a logical disconnect, in a math proof it doesn't matter if I insert an incorrect step asserting 1=0 or some more convoluted incorrect statement...either way, from there I can prove anything I want.
That's addressing the core of the rational difference from religion to religion, of course in practice different religions do break into different categories across the spectrum. But this has more to do with the affluence of the average adherent at any one moment, I think, than anything to do with the core values of the particular faith.
Techno-savvy isn't a requirement to answer, I just figured it would be one since we're here on /.
I agree, your post is most definitely not a troll. Mods, though, what are ya gonna do?
You're a real, live, hard-line Muslim that agrees with the call to do harm to Matt & Trey here? (I didn't explicitly state this as a requirement for responding, but I thought it was implicit...in any case, just want to clarify before continuing...)
You have missed the underlying point of the argument here. What allows this twisting around (of both the peaceful and not-so-peaceful kinds) to gain a following and force is the disconnect of logic that religion not only allows, but requires. If people were to choose to stay in the realm of what can be soundly argued, however, it would not be so easy to get good people to do bad things.
You are not familiar with the history of Japanese Imperial Buddhists, then.
Do you have a different understanding of the few hadith to which I refer? You're saying those hadith do not prohibit depictions of Muhammad to deter idolatry?
Don't get mad at me, this is what these particular Muslims believe. If you follow back their thinking, the conclusion is inescapable: they're worried that people will worship a representation of Muhammad, depicted in an episode of South Park, and Matt & Trey will have distracted throngs of the faithful from living a good, godfearing life.
But I understand, you're calling for action that will increase the chance of reasonable mediation here. Am I to assume that you see two legitimately debatable sides to this story: one side that supports free expression and does not believe Islam will be splintered by an episode of South Park, and the other side that thinks it would not be wrong to murder Matt & Trey because they doodled something offensive?
By the way, what do you mean "from the safety of my desktop"? Would you prefer we were debating these issues in some kind of face-to-face venue that would give you physical access to me? Might this be desirable for you because, were we to disagree, you could engage a form of "mediation" that involves goin' all roving death squad on me?
So, irrespective of the particulars of my logic, are we to assume that your position is that radicals should be able to force non-believers to follow their religious edicts?
I hope this is not the case, but in the future you may wish to throw a little more substance out there yourself, lest we misunderstand you.
If I were Muslim, I think I would be pretty offended at this kind of condescension. I prefer to respect Muslims by treating them like adults capable of understanding the world in which they live. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the tone of the following message would go over: No! Murder bad! Bad Muslim!
For those of you that are unaware, the concern among Muslims about depicting Muhammad is based on a few hadith that warn against doing so to prevent idolatry. The worry is that any depiction could become the focus of worship, and the depiction itself could take the place of what it represents.
Or, in other words, radical Muslims are fearful that a large faction of the faithful will splinter off and form a new denomination based on the worship of an episode of South Park. They're so anxious over this possibility, these groups have threatened to suborn the murder of Matt Stone & Trey Parker by dispatching roving death squads.
Don't click away to a calendar app—I assure you, it is 2010 and this is actually happening. (And I understand why some of you with mod points might choose "Funny" for this post, which is totally fine, but I promise everyone that this is as unbiased an accounting of the facts as I find myself able to give.)
By the way, if you happen to be a techno-savvy hard-line Muslim reading this post, I have one question for you: shouldn't your first problem, before Matt & Trey, be with the second most populous denomination of Islam, the Shi'a, who apparently have no problem with depictions of Muhammad? Is it off-base for me to ask that you sort this out amongst yourselves before requiring the non-believers to follow your religious edicts under threat of death?
Whoops, I think there's a minor error in this summary and the headline of the article. It should read, Fairfax County public school system administrators criminally negligent in securing sensitive data. There, glad I fixed that...
...OR...has science given us a reason to move on to the standard golf group, the foursome? :-)
I think perhaps the main point if this is being missed.
Does anyone remember Jini? It was the technology developed by Sun prior to EJBs that promised to make efficient distributed computing and pervasive connectivity a reality. Except, it never caught on because it required software development organizations to invert their staff profile. Instead of having a few device driver coders and enterprise architects, a few more low-level programmers and architect/designers, and the bulk of the staff in standard software development, Jini would have pushed the work to the outsides of that bell curve; nearly every developer would be playing the role of either device driver programmer or enterprise architect on most Jini projects. Recognizing this, Sun's compromise was EJBs, a distributed technology that brought half the functionality with perhaps 10x the weight.
Now we see that Google has rolled out a series of technologies that can all be combined to accomplish a similar vision: Google App Engine (cloud development platform), Chrome browser (thin client presentation layer), Google Apps (useful software including Docs, sensitive data hosting such as Health, etc), Chrome OS / Android (netbook/device hardware layer), and Wave (real time connectivity platform and protocol--the *product* most people think of as Wave is one possible manifestation of a front end to the Wave back-end and GWFP, but largely irrelevant for the purposes of the point I'm making here).
Laugh if you want, but demonstrating this bit about being able to host drivers in the cloud for any old device adds a necessary, though admittedly not particularly flashy, part of a fearsome distributed computing technology stack.
6TB is embarrassing? For a NAS used for personal backup? That's not only sufficient, I have lots of room to grow into it...I suppose I should be doubly embarrassed.
Let me check...hm, nope. I'm not. :-)
So this is great information, thanks so much for taking the time to write it.
So the way to restore a drive to full write speed during garbage collection would be to find 2 or more partial blocks that can fit in a single block, move them all, then completely free those previously partially used blocks. If this is how garbage collection works...why is it that the drives still degrade over time? Just when they fill up a certain amount when it's no longer possible to clear an entire block? (Seems like it should always be possible, though...unless files are required to be always kept in contiguous blocks...)
Yes, this truly is a giant database. Let us do math.
140 characters/tweet * 2 bytes/character * 12E9 tweets = ~3.36TB
O. M. G. This would fill more than half the hard disk space I have in my NAS...truly massive! (At my company, there was an April Fool's rumor going around on the day that Twitter would be going down for 10 minutes while their high school intern upgraded their "Tweet Storage Unit" (TSU) by adding an extra 2TB drive. Har har! To be fair, they store a good bit of metadata besides the tweet itself, so let's give them a factor of 10 just for giggles. 30TB! Wow! Truly knee-buckling!
If you happen to work for Google, I will wait courteously as you catch your breath, dry your eyes, and massage your sore ribs. Also, pop the snot bubble coming out of your nose.