Disk companies have a pretty good idea what their heads and surfaces can do. Do you think they'd be passing up big $$$ by under-utilizing their disk's capacity?
Well, given that all modern drives have some sort of internal error correction mechanism which would be rather difficult without minor redundancy, then yes, I rather think they would.
Why multiple passes of garbage, rather than just one? (Assuming, of course, that your garbage is actually a cryptographically strong source of entropy, for why would it be otherwise?)
Here's a thought experiment for you: imagine there is more than one data recovery company in the world, and you need to decide to which of them to entrust opening your drive (which if they get it wrong will zero your chances of ever getting your data back). How do you decide which company gets your business?
Of course, the "do not open" (unless, arbitrarily, you're a US corporation or government agency) rule is one of the main things wrong with this "competition"...
What concern is it of theirs whether or not you're incorporated or a government agency or whatever? If you're prepared to lose your deposit, why can't you open the drive? Seems like a completely arbitrary condition to me.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, why don't Mozilla just use some of their 146 billion dollar market cap to put some resources into developing Firefox? They really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Oh, hang on.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Firefox's set of extensions and features are very, very important to a "Web 2.0" user for whom the Chrome is meant.
Firefox gives me themes. Let's talk when Chrome offers them.
I can't really take anyone seriously who would open a list of what they think is missing with "themes". I must have misunderstood what you meant by "features". What are you, 11?! (No offense intended to 11-year-olds.)
it might take a while for the guilty parties to be held responsible. Eventually the law will catch up with them.
The article you link to describes how "Months or years of continued litigation may lie ahead, unless the Bush administration, or the administration that follows it, reverses course and closes the prison at GuantÃnamo Bay, which now holds 270 detainees."
No mention of guilty parties being held responsible. You really think that's going to happen?!
Once again, the corporate culture uses lawyers to focus attention on themselves by trying to silence people who simply speak the truth. They make it so easy. It's like catching fish in a barrel.
Sure, for people that read or watch real news. For everyone else, the story will be about how Mythbusters may be doing an item on which kind of pizza oven lining makes the best New York crust.
I'm talking about the Bible in its entirety. A collection of stories.
I'm calling it, in toto, a work of fiction. That is to say, it relates several events as true which most certainly did not happen. Some events it relates may have happened, e.g., someone called Jesus went to some city or other, but this is incidental to the central tenet of the book.
So even though you don't trust that "the gospel of John" records what Jesus said, you're still arguing based on the quotes it gives?
No; my argument is that even if you do believe the gospel records what Jesus said, he may still have meant it figuratively.
Jesus called everyone the children of god and referred to many specifically as sons. Whether or not he referred to himself as "the" son of god or "a" son of god is unclear as we don't have any primary texts in his native tongue of Aramaic.
18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God...
The high priests of the time wanted Jesus dead because he tried to circumvent them. If he referred to himself as Son of God in any sense (including Child of God) they would have latched onto that and made an issue of it.
24"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. 25I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.
Ah, that's just figurative though, right?
Sure. Given that "Son of God" can easily be interpreted as "prophet" and "voice" as "word", you can quite easily see how he could have meant it figuratively. I don't agree with him about life after death, of course, but hey, you can't blame him for living in his time, when they didn't understand as much as we do now about the relationship between the mind and the brain.
Oh wait:
28"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.
Hmmmm, that sounds suspiciously literal.
Agreed. Just because I think he's overall a good moral teacher, doesn't mean to say I think he was right to hold daft superstitions.
Then there's John 8:58, where Jesus claims to have preceeded Abraham, using the "I Am" phraseology of God at the burning bush:
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
You must also think that Descartes was claiming to be God when he said "I think, therefore I am";)
Those who opposed Jesus certainly seemed to understand very clearly what these sort of statements meant. For example, John 10:33:
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Again, they wanted a reason to be rid of him, and they found one. That's just politics.
I don't have the time or resources right now to argue about which books were included in the current Bible, or the reliability of the manuscripts behind them, and honestly it's not a subject I'm very well-versed in. But to say that Jesus never said He was God is, I think, not an honest readings of the texts we have.
I think that to say he did is also not an honest reading. If he really meant to claim it, he could have been considerably less ambiguous.
The men who were closest to Jesus spent the rest of their lives preaching that he claimed to be, and was, God incarnate.
Hardly. He often called himself the Son of Man; he never called himself the Son of God.
All the disciples except John and Judas were killed for refusing to stop preaching that message. Any motivation for personal gain would clearly be negated by the threat of death. (I know you can give examples of people who died for crazy things, but 10 guys preaching the same message is a stretch.
Oh, come now. Branch Davidians, anyone?!
Is it patronizing to think that I understand Jesus' words better than the men who knew him personally and died defending that knowledge?
Clearly you think that calling something "The Gospel according to X" guarantees that it was authored by X. And what about all those other gospels that didn't make it?
You can believe that Jesus was wrong, but don't say you understood him better than John. I trust what John says about him more than what anybody living today says about him.
You have no idea what John says about him. All you have is something that is supposed to have been written by John.
Perhaps you can elaborate upon your point -- which seems to be that books are either purely fiction or purely historically accurate, with no middle ground?
Slashdot Mirror
What if you don't need "business" because you're in-house, say at a government agency?
That's not what bluelip is talking about.
Fine, if you want to piece that data back together yourself. Myself, I would prefer to employ someone who would do it for me...
Best. Comment. Ever!
Disk companies have a pretty good idea what their heads and surfaces can do. Do you think they'd be passing up big $$$ by under-utilizing their disk's capacity?
Well, given that all modern drives have some sort of internal error correction mechanism which would be rather difficult without minor redundancy, then yes, I rather think they would.
Um, no; if you don't wipe unused space with zeros, you're much more likely to recover individual files.
Why multiple passes of garbage, rather than just one? (Assuming, of course, that your garbage is actually a cryptographically strong source of entropy, for why would it be otherwise?)
Why would you ever consider giving your business to a data recovery company that wasn't "an expert in the file system in question"?
But why? Why can't a random dude do that, and simply lose his deposit?
You're an idiot.
Here's a thought experiment for you: imagine there is more than one data recovery company in the world, and you need to decide to which of them to entrust opening your drive (which if they get it wrong will zero your chances of ever getting your data back). How do you decide which company gets your business?
Of course, the "do not open" (unless, arbitrarily, you're a US corporation or government agency) rule is one of the main things wrong with this "competition"...
What concern is it of theirs whether or not you're incorporated or a government agency or whatever? If you're prepared to lose your deposit, why can't you open the drive? Seems like a completely arbitrary condition to me.
Yeah, why don't Mozilla just use some of their 146 billion dollar market cap to put some resources into developing Firefox? They really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Oh, hang on.
Firefox's set of extensions and features are very, very important to a "Web 2.0" user for whom the Chrome is meant.
Firefox gives me themes. Let's talk when Chrome offers them.
I can't really take anyone seriously who would open a list of what they think is missing with "themes". I must have misunderstood what you meant by "features". What are you, 11?! (No offense intended to 11-year-olds.)
1 in every 2 people is poly meaning if your mono, chances are your partner is not.
And 9 in 10 people don't statistical independence, which means that if you do, the chances are exactly the same for the next guy as they ever were.
I don't know; justice is never guaranteed. Besides, many people in this country don't agree that there's a problem.
Then I don't think that saying "habeas corpus has been lost" is much of an exaggeration... :(
it might take a while for the guilty parties to be held responsible. Eventually the law will catch up with them.
The article you link to describes how "Months or years of continued litigation may lie ahead, unless the Bush administration, or the administration that follows it, reverses course and closes the prison at GuantÃnamo Bay, which now holds 270 detainees."
No mention of guilty parties being held responsible. You really think that's going to happen?!
Once again, the corporate culture uses lawyers to focus attention on themselves by trying to silence people who simply speak the truth. They make it so easy. It's like catching fish in a barrel.
Sure, for people that read or watch real news. For everyone else, the story will be about how Mythbusters may be doing an item on which kind of pizza oven lining makes the best New York crust.
Central Limit Theorem says, unless you have a good reason for thinking otherwise, chances are it is.
I'm talking about the Bible in its entirety. A collection of stories.
I'm calling it, in toto, a work of fiction. That is to say, it relates several events as true which most certainly did not happen. Some events it relates may have happened, e.g., someone called Jesus went to some city or other, but this is incidental to the central tenet of the book.
So, why do I need to talk to a historian?
So even though you don't trust that "the gospel of John" records what Jesus said, you're still arguing based on the quotes it gives?
No; my argument is that even if you do believe the gospel records what Jesus said, he may still have meant it figuratively.
Jesus called everyone the children of god and referred to many specifically as sons. Whether or not he referred to himself as "the" son of god or "a" son of god is unclear as we don't have any primary texts in his native tongue of Aramaic.
18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God...
The high priests of the time wanted Jesus dead because he tried to circumvent them. If he referred to himself as Son of God in any sense (including Child of God) they would have latched onto that and made an issue of it.
24"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. 25I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.
Ah, that's just figurative though, right?
Sure. Given that "Son of God" can easily be interpreted as "prophet" and "voice" as "word", you can quite easily see how he could have meant it figuratively. I don't agree with him about life after death, of course, but hey, you can't blame him for living in his time, when they didn't understand as much as we do now about the relationship between the mind and the brain.
Oh wait:
28"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.
Hmmmm, that sounds suspiciously literal.
Agreed. Just because I think he's overall a good moral teacher, doesn't mean to say I think he was right to hold daft superstitions.
Then there's John 8:58, where Jesus claims to have preceeded Abraham, using the "I Am" phraseology of God at the burning bush:
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
You must also think that Descartes was claiming to be God when he said "I think, therefore I am" ;)
Those who opposed Jesus certainly seemed to understand very clearly what these sort of statements meant. For example, John 10:33:
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Again, they wanted a reason to be rid of him, and they found one. That's just politics.
I don't have the time or resources right now to argue about which books were included in the current Bible, or the reliability of the manuscripts behind them, and honestly it's not a subject I'm very well-versed in. But to say that Jesus never said He was God is, I think, not an honest readings of the texts we have.
I think that to say he did is also not an honest reading. If he really meant to claim it, he could have been considerably less ambiguous.
The men who were closest to Jesus spent the rest of their lives preaching that he claimed to be, and was, God incarnate.
Hardly. He often called himself the Son of Man; he never called himself the Son of God.
Oh, come now. Branch Davidians, anyone?!
Is it patronizing to think that I understand Jesus' words better than the men who knew him personally and died defending that knowledge?
Clearly you think that calling something "The Gospel according to X" guarantees that it was authored by X. And what about all those other gospels that didn't make it?
You can believe that Jesus was wrong, but don't say you understood him better than John. I trust what John says about him more than what anybody living today says about him.
You have no idea what John says about him. All you have is something that is supposed to have been written by John.
Perhaps you can elaborate upon your point -- which seems to be that books are either purely fiction or purely historically accurate, with no middle ground?
Just because you think you understand the Bible doesn't mean you have the authority to judge which interpretations are patronising or otherwise.
Literalists always spoil a good myth.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_fiction
Oops, sorry, that should be "poached egg argument".
Lewis's fried egg argument fails to consider that there is a perfectly coherent alternative: the man was speaking metaphorically.
(Or rather, as Shaitland points out, that others were speaking metaphorically in their accounts of him.)