And, everybody who wrote letters and made phone calls--follow up! Let your senator know that: 1. You contacted him earlier 2. You know what he did 3. You are happy or unhappy with his performance 4. And you will remember (3) when you vote on ***** (whenever your senator is up for re-election).
Or carry around your secret key on a smartcard that has its own tiny processor, memory, and I/O and a zero-knowledge checking algorithm. Plenty of that going on already.
BTW, you should also add a fingerprint or retina scan.
authentication: Something you know: Your password Something you have: Your secret key Something you are: Your fingerprint/retinal blood vessel pattern.
The technical aspects of security are not the problem. They've been solved many times in many ways long ago. The problem is getting people to follow good security practices. It's not going to happen to me. Even if it does, the consequences won't be that great. It's too much trouble to protect myself.
Solve those problems and you'll have information security. Don't and you won't.
Instead it relies on transmitting electric pulses across up to seven rotors, arranged in different phases. These are "fired up" in turn, much like the pistons of an internal combustion engine.
They've invented the AC induction motor. Apparently, they invented the vector drive, too.
By wrapping coils of wire around Nikola Tesla's body , placing magnets around the grave, and repeating these claims, we hope to have an infinite free source of electric power.
first principle of OI design (PanelViews in my case) whitespace makes things easier to read. I mean, if you just run on and on and never leave a space, just keep putting as much data as you possibly can in an amazingly small space while eschewing punctuation you can claim a great density of information and a feature rich presentation but who can read that godawful mess?
It would be nice if they actually cared about the issues.
I disagree. Caring about the issues means that you have an activist, not a lawyer. If that individual (activist) changes his mind, dies, has other concerns, etc.--your support dries up.
I'd much prefer that the larger community see its interests connected to mine. In this case, my interest being the health of the FOSS movement.
The little guy (FOSS) can win battles by winning converts. But winning hearts and minds takes resources. The little guy, by definition, is little.
The little guy wins the WAR by co-opting the power of the big guys. Appeal to the self-interest of the big guys. If a powerful legal organization sees helping FOSS as an easy way to satisfy some pro-bono requirement and get some exposure, then it doesn't matter if a particluar lawyer is a GNU fan.
"Well, some might say that the Bible tells what God did, and science explains how he did it."
That's what I've always said. But, your question (If I've parsed it correctly) seems to be:
"Why is Science exclusive of the supernatural?".
And the answer (which pretty much gets to the core of the debate) is:
Because, that's the definition of science. The study of nature. OK, there's a lot of qualifiers (must be disprovable, repeatable, testable, based on observation, etc. etc.), but basically, it's the study of nature.
The supernatural (by definition) is super natural. Above nature. Not part of it. Not science. Once you've defined your terms, you're talking about two completely different paradigms. They're unrelated. They're exclusive in the sense that neither one includes the other.
Religion and science both *say* they include everything. But they don't. Not in that sense, anyhow. Religion includes everything defined in the religious world view. Science includes everything defined in the scientific world view. They're just two completely different world views and, by their nature, don't include each other.
So religion and science dont' exlcude each other in the sense of denying each other. They're not qualified to do that. Neither of them. They just don't include each other, either.
Now, before you sling a smart answer about go look up "false dichotomy" in any online list of fallacies.
End short answer.
***WARNING*** ***WARNING*** ***WARNING***
Begin ramble
Science and Religion (specifically fundamentalist or totalitarian absolutism): Why can't we just get along?
DIGRESSION
Yes, a legal body can define "science" as whatever they want. In a scientific sense, the legislature has no voice. Science is not decided by popular vote. Legislatures can (and have) defined Pi (a basic scientific concept) as 3. That doesn't make it so. There are many other examples; I won't bore you any further with them. I acknowledge that the legislature wants to play with words, but stipulate that their wordplay does not change what science is. /DIGRESSION
The supernatural (metaphyiscal, transcendental, extranatural, etc.) is that which is above (behind, outside of, beyond, etc.) nature. That's the whole point of having supernatural belief systems. So you can think about things that are NOT bound by natural philosophy. (Read some history if you don't recognize the term "natural philosophy" and its relation to the science of today.)
In short, science and the supernatural are two different things. They are completely unrelated. They reside in two different paradigms. It makes no sense to talk about one in terms of the other.
Now, here's the problem that the religious people have, and have always had:.
1. Science is a very useful tool for understanding and operating in the world. 2. Science works for everybody the same way. If it doesn't, then it's not science. Thus the appeal to an ostensibly egalitarian society. 3. Science does not acknowledge God. Neither does science deny God. Science, by definition, has nothing to say one way or the other about the supernatural.
So, now you have a problem. There's this paradigm that a lot of people are buying into. Heck, it works. Why wouldn't they. And that paradigm does not acknowledge God. That paradigm doesn't even bother to deny God. That paradigm, in fact, completely ignores God. Like He's not even worth considering. Just don't need him.
That, friends and neighbors, is Heresy. Hubris. To put forth the idea that God (in any context) is unnecessary is unacceptable.
The dedicated study of nature (science) can tolerate the dedicated worship of God (r
Oh, this was going to be great. Fidelity like you never had it before. No scratches. No groove wear. Dynamic range you won't believe. Crystal clear highs. Thunderous lows, with no rumbling feedback even if sat your player on your speaker.
Remember the little logos? AAD? ADD? DDD was the best you could have (digital recording, digital mastering, and (obviously) digital media in your hand). And a lot of hard work on the part of the engineers operating the mixing boards. It's that last part that costs time and money. Now, all the equipment is digital. So, it's all great, right? Sorry--the technology is not the limiting factor in sound quality anymore.
The limiting factor is apathy. Most people can not really hear the difference. And fewer people care.
Exactly the same thing is now happening in video. Since we can't improve the functionality (well, we could, but you'd never notice). It's pure hype from here on out.
Now, where'd I leave that case of speaker spikes and green markers? Gotta get 'em up on ebay; David Hannum was right.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't that be mechanicals?
Cause, y'know, mechanical engineers build weapons...
The first version will be called Capricorn One.
And, everybody who wrote letters and made phone calls--follow up! Let your senator know that:
1. You contacted him earlier
2. You know what he did
3. You are happy or unhappy with his performance
4. And you will remember (3) when you vote on ***** (whenever your senator is up for re-election).
Mine has announced he will *NOT* run in 2006.
BTW, you should also add a fingerprint or retina scan.
authentication:
Something you know: Your password
Something you have: Your secret key
Something you are: Your fingerprint/retinal blood vessel pattern.
The technical aspects of security are not the problem. They've been solved many times in many ways long ago. The problem is getting people to follow good security practices.
It's not going to happen to me.
Even if it does, the consequences won't be that great.
It's too much trouble to protect myself.
Solve those problems and you'll have information security. Don't and you won't.
If you have to ask if it's wrong, it's wrong.
mole-lashes?
molasses?
moehl-lashes?
This ain't news, folks.
Posting with too many tabs open?
They've invented the AC induction motor. Apparently, they invented the vector drive, too.
By wrapping coils of wire around Nikola Tesla's body , placing magnets around the grave, and repeating these claims, we hope to have an infinite free source of electric power.
I'm going to use the word "Linux" to refer to the group of people...
Unless there's actual penetration, of course.
The fact that the question is being asked should tell you the answer.
There's another forum for stupid shiat like this.
Or is this the best we can do anymore?
Slow smoked pork shoulder (over pecan wood w/ a good dry rub) is the food of the gods.
And they use shoulder to make SPAM(tm)?
It's a crying shame.
"did not"
Similarly for their future tense forms.
So, when you say "And monkeys...", I hear you saying that they actually won't.
Heat it up, though, and it will burn. Heat it in anoxic environment & you'll get crusty black stuff.
Why does it bother you that somebody chooses to view your content in a manner different from your own preferred presentation?
Not a rhetorical question.
In the shape of an exit sign
Went out to his little house...$3,000 worth of cat toys...
first principle of OI design (PanelViews in my case) whitespace makes things easier to read. I mean, if you just run on and on and never leave a space, just keep putting as much data as you possibly can in an amazingly small space while eschewing punctuation you can claim a great density of information and a feature rich presentation but who can read that godawful mess?
I disagree. Caring about the issues means that you have an activist, not a lawyer. If that individual (activist) changes his mind, dies, has other concerns, etc.--your support dries up.
I'd much prefer that the larger community see its interests connected to mine. In this case, my interest being the health of the FOSS movement.
The little guy (FOSS) can win battles by winning converts. But winning hearts and minds takes resources. The little guy, by definition, is little.
The little guy wins the WAR by co-opting the power of the big guys. Appeal to the self-interest of the big guys. If a powerful legal organization sees helping FOSS as an easy way to satisfy some pro-bono requirement and get some exposure, then it doesn't matter if a particluar lawyer is a GNU fan.
Judo.
My question is "what's their interest?".
I don't think this is a bad thing, just curious.
Is the free software movement gaining enough public exposure that helping it is seen as contributing to the public good?
Are we approaching a tipping point in the perception of FOSS?
here's hoping.
That's what I've always said. But, your question (If I've parsed it correctly) seems to be:
"Why is Science exclusive of the supernatural?".
And the answer (which pretty much gets to the core of the debate) is:
Because, that's the definition of science. The study of nature. OK, there's a lot of qualifiers (must be disprovable, repeatable, testable, based on observation, etc. etc.), but basically, it's the study of nature.
The supernatural (by definition) is super natural. Above nature. Not part of it. Not science. Once you've defined your terms, you're talking about two completely different paradigms. They're unrelated. They're exclusive in the sense that neither one includes the other.
Religion and science both *say* they include everything. But they don't. Not in that sense, anyhow. Religion includes everything defined in the religious world view. Science includes everything defined in the scientific world view. They're just two completely different world views and, by their nature, don't include each other.
So religion and science dont' exlcude each other in the sense of denying each other. They're not qualified to do that. Neither of them. They just don't include each other, either.
Now, before you sling a smart answer about go look up "false dichotomy" in any online list of fallacies.
End short answer.
***WARNING*** ***WARNING*** ***WARNING***
Begin ramble
Science and Religion (specifically fundamentalist or totalitarian absolutism): Why can't we just get along?
DIGRESSION
/DIGRESSION
Yes, a legal body can define "science" as whatever they want. In a scientific sense, the legislature has no voice. Science is not decided by popular vote. Legislatures can (and have) defined Pi (a basic scientific concept) as 3. That doesn't make it so. There are many other examples; I won't bore you any further with them. I acknowledge that the legislature wants to play with words, but stipulate that their wordplay does not change what science is.
The supernatural (metaphyiscal, transcendental, extranatural, etc.) is that which is above (behind, outside of, beyond, etc.) nature. That's the whole point of having supernatural belief systems. So you can think about things that are NOT bound by natural philosophy. (Read some history if you don't recognize the term "natural philosophy" and its relation to the science of today.)
In short, science and the supernatural are two different things. They are completely unrelated. They reside in two different paradigms. It makes no sense to talk about one in terms of the other.
Now, here's the problem that the religious people have, and have always had:.
1. Science is a very useful tool for understanding and operating in the world.
2. Science works for everybody the same way. If it doesn't, then it's not science. Thus the appeal to an ostensibly egalitarian society.
3. Science does not acknowledge God. Neither does science deny God. Science, by definition, has nothing to say one way or the other about the supernatural.
So, now you have a problem. There's this paradigm that a lot of people are buying into. Heck, it works. Why wouldn't they. And that paradigm does not acknowledge God. That paradigm doesn't even bother to deny God. That paradigm, in fact, completely ignores God. Like He's not even worth considering. Just don't need him.
That, friends and neighbors, is Heresy. Hubris. To put forth the idea that God (in any context) is unnecessary is unacceptable.
The dedicated study of nature (science) can tolerate the dedicated worship of God (r
I'm a contract engineer, paid an hourly rate.
That means that I sell my life, in 1-hour units.
And these hours pay for house, car, furniture, tv, gas, electricity, toilet paper, dog, food, dog food, etc.
Anybody who thinks time is free is an idiot.
Oh, this was going to be great. Fidelity like you never had it before. No scratches. No groove wear. Dynamic range you won't believe. Crystal clear highs. Thunderous lows, with no rumbling feedback even if sat your player on your speaker.
Remember the little logos? AAD? ADD? DDD was the best you could have (digital recording, digital mastering, and (obviously) digital media in your hand). And a lot of hard work on the part of the engineers operating the mixing boards. It's that last part that costs time and money. Now, all the equipment is digital. So, it's all great, right? Sorry--the technology is not the limiting factor in sound quality anymore.
The limiting factor is apathy. Most people can not really hear the difference. And fewer people care.
Exactly the same thing is now happening in video.
Since we can't improve the functionality (well, we could, but you'd never notice). It's pure hype from here on out.
Now, where'd I leave that case of speaker spikes and green markers? Gotta get 'em up on ebay; David Hannum was right.