Are you telling me an iPhone isn't radical? A desktop Web browser with a display 1/4 the pixels of the original Web browser and 1/8th the size, no mouse, no keyboard, no windows (the document floats inside the viewport), and holistic zooming is not radical?
Actually, yes. It's good, useful, and a successful product, but it's not radical. Web browsers have been done before. Small form factors have been done before. Touchscreens have been done before. Apple takes things, integrates them well, polishes them up and makes them work better than almost anyone else.
But it's still not radical. I looked at the iPhone and thought "I've never seen this done so well before". I didn't think "I've never seen this done before".
Errr...no, no it isn't. Being in possession of a penis and attracted to women does not make anyone a potential rapist or provide motivation for being one
Large swathes of the population would disagree with you. Male sexuality is the growing target of a moral panic that sees all males as potential sexual predators.
Well of course it's a stupid story if you cut out half of it. What, you want a story about God's redemption of a sinful people without any mention of sin?
No. Just like the rest of the democratic world, we are allowed to choose which fox we want to let in the hen-house for the next term of office. They've spent the last couple of centuries creating a two-party system with a false dichotomy, so no matter who you vote for, nothing changes.
Just like security of the tube skyrocketed in London after the terror attacks there? Bombing a train is likely to result in less fatalities than bombing a plane (passengers being rather closer to the ground and all), and in collateral (non-passenger) damage. It's altogether a different sort of beast. In addition, there was already the infrastructure in place in the biggest airports (internationals) to facilitate the added security theatre - for customs and quarantine.
Ahh, but you're using the actual definition of defence. I would be unsurprised if endangering troops in Afghanistan was considered a detriment to the defence of the realm, in that, if the soldiers were killed in Afghanistan the "defence force" as a whole would be weakened.
And also because Starcraft/Broodwar sales are now so low as to be insignificant. iCCup is providing Blizzard's network service for them, and not really costing them anything. bnetd was "too soon" - the titles it supported were still selling well, and at a high price.
If you could go after people working for a company personally then nobody would work for a company
Just like if you could go after a contractor directly, nobody would be a contractor? Oh wait, you can, and there are. I'm pretty much on the far right politically, when it comes to economics. But I still don't necessarily support the idea of the corporate shield. Capitalism and corporatism are two separate concepts, and one can support one without the other.
Besides, the buck should stop with those who make the decisions, not those who are forced to carry them out. Removing the corporate shield wouldn't make working for a company any more dangerous - just running one. And I think we've seen enough examples lately to know that their just plain isn't sufficient accountability at that level of corporate management - the corporate shield is being abused.
No, what you describe is only true if you vote once above the line (just place a 1 in your preferred party). If you fill out all the boxes above the line, then you dictate your own preferences.
Voting above the line is generally the most sensible option - I really don't have the time to audit all the various options below the line, but I can check out the policies of all the parties.
The polling officials aren't actually scrutineers - scrutineers are representatives of political parties (generally volunteers) who are allowed to be present during the counting of the votes. Polling officials are usually casual employees who just show up and do the job. They probably couldn't care less about whether you took a ballot paper or not.
I used to do that job during university. It was a long day, but decent money (varied, but around $350 - $400 for a long day). The only reason I can think of not liking you rejecting a ballot paper is it may screw up their accounting. Each ballot paper issued has to be accounted for at the end of the day.
I'm upset they let people like you on the internet. Read the damn summary. He disabled remote access. They (and nobody else on the internet) could have accessed his router via the normal method - they had a backdoor on the router, which they used to change his password. Now, what probably happened was that they were trying to do what you describe - but they didn't bother checking whether remote access was disabled before they hacked the routers.
As far as my understanding of the founding of Ubuntu goes, Shuttleworth initially started releasing six-monthly snapshots of Debian in order to provide an alternative to Debian's notably conservative release timeframe.
As people wanted more recent versions of software that weren't available even on the six-month snapshot, Ubuntu added them, and eventually became incompatible with Debian.
I don't follow the ins-and-outs of the Debian Project, but it seems to me that Shuttleworth wanted a rapid release cycle, but the Debian Project didn't. So he did it himself, and it eventually evolved into Ubuntu. If the Debian Project had moved to a more rapid release cycle themselves, then Ubuntu may have never been forked.
He killed it by forking it, and ending up more popular than the original? Isn't that what people are *supposed* to do with free software when they want to improve it and their changes aren't wanted upstream? I guess you could say Linus Torvalds was an unpaid employee of the Debian Project as well.
If you start conducting house-to-house searches, the number of bad guys will probably multiply, due to resentment. Especially in the grandparent's neighborhood, which I assume to be somewhere in the Western world, were personal privacy and property rights are held sacrosanct. If you generate enough animosity in your methods, even the non-participating members of the community will be willing to shelter your opponents. Guerrillas who can make an attack and then immediately disappear into the native population are very effective. I'd say you probably would get your ass kicked in the grandparent's neighborhood. Especially if house-to-house searches were conducted with heat guns, sonic weapons, tasers, or other forms of pisses-you-off-but-doesn't-kill-you weaponry.
That said, the OPs analysis of tactics is inappropriate to this sort of engagement as well. Which is why the armies in this sort of campaign are bogged down so much. There are no real military tactics for ending the "war" - it's not a valid military goal. It's a political-social one, and trying to apply a military solution to a political problem is akin to using a technological solution to fix a social problem. It tends not to work, and often exacerbates the problem.
All throughout the summary. This is Slashdot. While there may be an actual article link in the summary, what we're generally discussing is the summary itself. The summary makes a whole lot of general claims, which Ceraphis was debunking.
Nobody expects a study to be perfect. They do expect, that, if general conclusions are being drawn, some effort has gone into trying to create a representative population.
The Slashdot crowd is generally anlytical, and critical. Give them a conclusion, and they will try to falsify it, not because they delight in tearing things down, but because that's the only way to test its robustness.
I'm reluctant to enter this conversation, given its very low standards for mutual respect, but I can't let this common, but to me incorrect, argument pass. How can we know how things would be without religion? That's just an initial logical fillip. But how about all the pain that religion HAS caused?
Ok, let's see that.
Europe was at war of Catholicism versus Protestantism for several hundred years.
No, Europe was at war because various nations wanted other nations stuff. Look at the sides for things like the 30-year war in Germany. It was purportedly a religious war - and yet, Catholic France supported Protestant Sweden against Catholic Spain, while Protestant Denmark opposed it. You find alliances drawn up along geopolitical lines, not religious. You can do the same for most other conflicts of the time, including the Reformation, and the Inquisition - by questioning the Pope's interpretation of scripture, the reformers questioned his authority, which impacted the basis of his political authority. These things were all conflicts over political power, not religion.
Islam and Christianity have been at war for longer than that. Granted, there were side issues of imperialism.
Yes, there were. I wouldn't say they were exactly side-issues though. The First Crusade was launched by the appeal of an Emperor for help in holding back Muslim expansion into his frontiers. He appealed on the basis of their common religion, but the primary goals were political. Even then, look at the results of the Fourth Crusade - the sack of a Christian city by Christian crusaders. How would that have happened if the crusades were primarily religious wars, instead of the same old power+land grabs we've seen from time immemorial?
But how about the persecution of Mormons?
See above re: Pope and challenge to political power. This is what often happens when a group with a new idea (religious or otherwise - see also Communism, Feminism) arises. They're persecuted by the majority, because the majority is secure in the status quo, and don't want things to change.
Mormons persecuting gays
Persecution of people for being different. If it was truly religiously motivated, you'd expect a similar persecution of people who'd committed adultery, or had premarital sex. While the Mormons (and most Christians) would say that these are wrong, they don't get demonized the same way homosexuals do, despite being given an equal weight on sinfulness in the Bible.
What about the various killing sprees over doctrine in the early days of the Catholic church, when various heresies were eliminating by exterminating their adherents like so many cockroaches?
Hard to argue against, given a lack of specificity (which heretics, and how "early"). As a general response, I'd point again to "challenge to political power", when that political power is based on religion. It's a continuing theme through most of post-Roman history. It's also why I think that the American concept of the separation of church and state is one of the most valuable tenets of the political system, despite being a Christian - not because religion interferes with politics, but because giving religious authorities secular power attracts people who want secular power to leadership of religions.
Or (despite the Church's whitewash to the contrary) the tacit support or active participation of Catholic bishops in the German Nazi party of the 1930s-40s?
So now because some religious people supported the Nazis, Nazi Germany is an example of religious causing pain? I'm pretty sure there were atheists and agnostics supporting it too.
Protestants in France in the 18thC, persecution of certain _types_ of Protestants in the United Kingdom at the same time
Most of the transitions between those names weren't major revisions - they were re-badging to avoid getting sued. (Phoenix -> Firebird, Firebird -> Firefox)
Slashdot Mirror
Are you telling me an iPhone isn't radical? A desktop Web browser with a display 1/4 the pixels of the original Web browser and 1/8th the size, no mouse, no keyboard, no windows (the document floats inside the viewport), and holistic zooming is not radical?
Actually, yes. It's good, useful, and a successful product, but it's not radical. Web browsers have been done before. Small form factors have been done before. Touchscreens have been done before. Apple takes things, integrates them well, polishes them up and makes them work better than almost anyone else.
But it's still not radical. I looked at the iPhone and thought "I've never seen this done so well before". I didn't think "I've never seen this done before".
Errr...no, no it isn't. Being in possession of a penis and attracted to women does not make anyone a potential rapist or provide motivation for being one
Large swathes of the population would disagree with you. Male sexuality is the growing target of a moral panic that sees all males as potential sexual predators.
Well of course it's a stupid story if you cut out half of it. What, you want a story about God's redemption of a sinful people without any mention of sin?
Somehow I don't think you understand the basis of libertarianism - pro-government?
No. Just like the rest of the democratic world, we are allowed to choose which fox we want to let in the hen-house for the next term of office. They've spent the last couple of centuries creating a two-party system with a false dichotomy, so no matter who you vote for, nothing changes.
Just like security of the tube skyrocketed in London after the terror attacks there? Bombing a train is likely to result in less fatalities than bombing a plane (passengers being rather closer to the ground and all), and in collateral (non-passenger) damage. It's altogether a different sort of beast. In addition, there was already the infrastructure in place in the biggest airports (internationals) to facilitate the added security theatre - for customs and quarantine.
Ahh, but you're using the actual definition of defence. I would be unsurprised if endangering troops in Afghanistan was considered a detriment to the defence of the realm, in that, if the soldiers were killed in Afghanistan the "defence force" as a whole would be weakened.
And also because Starcraft/Broodwar sales are now so low as to be insignificant. iCCup is providing Blizzard's network service for them, and not really costing them anything. bnetd was "too soon" - the titles it supported were still selling well, and at a high price.
Because they're spending their revenue on controlling the population, rather than paying the deficit?
I'm pretty sure insurance companies have deeper pockets than John and Jane. You might get a judgment for more, but you ain't likely to get more.
If you could go after people working for a company personally then nobody would work for a company
Just like if you could go after a contractor directly, nobody would be a contractor? Oh wait, you can, and there are. I'm pretty much on the far right politically, when it comes to economics. But I still don't necessarily support the idea of the corporate shield. Capitalism and corporatism are two separate concepts, and one can support one without the other.
Besides, the buck should stop with those who make the decisions, not those who are forced to carry them out. Removing the corporate shield wouldn't make working for a company any more dangerous - just running one. And I think we've seen enough examples lately to know that their just plain isn't sufficient accountability at that level of corporate management - the corporate shield is being abused.
As someone who has counted votes at elections, the rule of thumb we were given is "as long as a clear preference is indicated".
No, what you describe is only true if you vote once above the line (just place a 1 in your preferred party). If you fill out all the boxes above the line, then you dictate your own preferences.
Voting above the line is generally the most sensible option - I really don't have the time to audit all the various options below the line, but I can check out the policies of all the parties.
The polling officials aren't actually scrutineers - scrutineers are representatives of political parties (generally volunteers) who are allowed to be present during the counting of the votes. Polling officials are usually casual employees who just show up and do the job. They probably couldn't care less about whether you took a ballot paper or not.
I used to do that job during university. It was a long day, but decent money (varied, but around $350 - $400 for a long day). The only reason I can think of not liking you rejecting a ballot paper is it may screw up their accounting. Each ballot paper issued has to be accounted for at the end of the day.
I'm upset they let people like you on the internet. Read the damn summary. He disabled remote access. They (and nobody else on the internet) could have accessed his router via the normal method - they had a backdoor on the router, which they used to change his password. Now, what probably happened was that they were trying to do what you describe - but they didn't bother checking whether remote access was disabled before they hacked the routers.
As far as my understanding of the founding of Ubuntu goes, Shuttleworth initially started releasing six-monthly snapshots of Debian in order to provide an alternative to Debian's notably conservative release timeframe.
As people wanted more recent versions of software that weren't available even on the six-month snapshot, Ubuntu added them, and eventually became incompatible with Debian.
I don't follow the ins-and-outs of the Debian Project, but it seems to me that Shuttleworth wanted a rapid release cycle, but the Debian Project didn't. So he did it himself, and it eventually evolved into Ubuntu. If the Debian Project had moved to a more rapid release cycle themselves, then Ubuntu may have never been forked.
He killed it by forking it, and ending up more popular than the original? Isn't that what people are *supposed* to do with free software when they want to improve it and their changes aren't wanted upstream? I guess you could say Linus Torvalds was an unpaid employee of the Debian Project as well.
The bad guys aren't numerous in most areas
If you start conducting house-to-house searches, the number of bad guys will probably multiply, due to resentment. Especially in the grandparent's neighborhood, which I assume to be somewhere in the Western world, were personal privacy and property rights are held sacrosanct. If you generate enough animosity in your methods, even the non-participating members of the community will be willing to shelter your opponents. Guerrillas who can make an attack and then immediately disappear into the native population are very effective. I'd say you probably would get your ass kicked in the grandparent's neighborhood. Especially if house-to-house searches were conducted with heat guns, sonic weapons, tasers, or other forms of pisses-you-off-but-doesn't-kill-you weaponry.
That said, the OPs analysis of tactics is inappropriate to this sort of engagement as well. Which is why the armies in this sort of campaign are bogged down so much. There are no real military tactics for ending the "war" - it's not a valid military goal. It's a political-social one, and trying to apply a military solution to a political problem is akin to using a technological solution to fix a social problem. It tends not to work, and often exacerbates the problem.
No, they're analytical. Just not thorough.
All throughout the summary. This is Slashdot. While there may be an actual article link in the summary, what we're generally discussing is the summary itself. The summary makes a whole lot of general claims, which Ceraphis was debunking.
Why are military bases a useful metric at all? Does the presence of a US military base in a country imply that that country is owned by the US?
Nobody expects a study to be perfect. They do expect, that, if general conclusions are being drawn, some effort has gone into trying to create a representative population.
The Slashdot crowd is generally anlytical, and critical. Give them a conclusion, and they will try to falsify it, not because they delight in tearing things down, but because that's the only way to test its robustness.
I'm reluctant to enter this conversation, given its very low standards for mutual respect, but I can't let this common, but to me incorrect, argument pass. How can we know how things would be without religion? That's just an initial logical fillip. But how about all the pain that religion HAS caused?
Ok, let's see that.
Europe was at war of Catholicism versus Protestantism for several hundred years.
No, Europe was at war because various nations wanted other nations stuff. Look at the sides for things like the 30-year war in Germany. It was purportedly a religious war - and yet, Catholic France supported Protestant Sweden against Catholic Spain, while Protestant Denmark opposed it. You find alliances drawn up along geopolitical lines, not religious. You can do the same for most other conflicts of the time, including the Reformation, and the Inquisition - by questioning the Pope's interpretation of scripture, the reformers questioned his authority, which impacted the basis of his political authority. These things were all conflicts over political power, not religion.
Islam and Christianity have been at war for longer than that. Granted, there were side issues of imperialism.
Yes, there were. I wouldn't say they were exactly side-issues though. The First Crusade was launched by the appeal of an Emperor for help in holding back Muslim expansion into his frontiers. He appealed on the basis of their common religion, but the primary goals were political. Even then, look at the results of the Fourth Crusade - the sack of a Christian city by Christian crusaders. How would that have happened if the crusades were primarily religious wars, instead of the same old power+land grabs we've seen from time immemorial?
But how about the persecution of Mormons?
See above re: Pope and challenge to political power. This is what often happens when a group with a new idea (religious or otherwise - see also Communism, Feminism) arises. They're persecuted by the majority, because the majority is secure in the status quo, and don't want things to change.
Mormons persecuting gays
Persecution of people for being different. If it was truly religiously motivated, you'd expect a similar persecution of people who'd committed adultery, or had premarital sex. While the Mormons (and most Christians) would say that these are wrong, they don't get demonized the same way homosexuals do, despite being given an equal weight on sinfulness in the Bible.
What about the various killing sprees over doctrine in the early days of the Catholic church, when various heresies were eliminating by exterminating their adherents like so many cockroaches?
Hard to argue against, given a lack of specificity (which heretics, and how "early"). As a general response, I'd point again to "challenge to political power", when that political power is based on religion. It's a continuing theme through most of post-Roman history. It's also why I think that the American concept of the separation of church and state is one of the most valuable tenets of the political system, despite being a Christian - not because religion interferes with politics, but because giving religious authorities secular power attracts people who want secular power to leadership of religions.
Or (despite the Church's whitewash to the contrary) the tacit support or active participation of Catholic bishops in the German Nazi party of the 1930s-40s?
So now because some religious people supported the Nazis, Nazi Germany is an example of religious causing pain? I'm pretty sure there were atheists and agnostics supporting it too.
Protestants in France in the 18thC, persecution of certain _types_ of Protestants in the United Kingdom at the same time
Look again to the separation of church and s
Most of the transitions between those names weren't major revisions - they were re-badging to avoid getting sued. (Phoenix -> Firebird, Firebird -> Firefox)
Ahhh! Nuclear! Ahhh! It'll explode and kill us all and poison the planet for a bejillion years!