Please don't let this be another one of those/. discussions where people conflate generic) stem cell therapy with embryonic stem cell therapy.
Many Christian's oppose the latter, and almost none is against the former.
I'm not even a Christian and I'm *&*#$# tired of the BS that comes from confusing the two positions. Seeing people attack straw men is annoying after the millionth time.
Oops - that's embarassing. I just realized that the Python program must be those used to produce the actual filings. So the programs' fitness to purpose must have been already established. Presumably they don't loop forever, or at least only do so after producing the filings.
While we're on the topic, here's something that confused me about the SEC / Python idea.
Python is Turing complete, which means some Python programs may never terminate*. Has the SEC taken this into consideration in its plans to use them?
Or is the SEC planning to impose limitations such as, "These Python programs must complete within 1 hour when run on an Intel Pentiun IV 2.8 GHz with 4 GB RAM and Windows XP SP 3"?
(* Of course, real computers have finite memories, so it's actually theoretically possible to detect looping on such a computer. But at this point we get back to specifying a particular memory size I think, which kind of goes to my question about the SEC specifying the particular hardware on which the program must run.)
1. Identify the IEEE "Transactions" journals and/or ACM journals that your work is most closely related to. If you don't have access to IEEE or ACM libraries online, you can either buy membership to those organizations (expect to pay $100-$300 per year, I believe) to get access; or you may have luck at a university library.
2. Study the structure of the papers in those journals. Take note of what sections their papers have, and what fraction of column space is dedicated to each. You may want to be guided by this.
3. In those same journals, look up their rules for submission. Also, look for advertisements by the editors regarding topics they'd especially like submissions for. If you find a call that's right up your topic's alley, you may want that to be the journal to which you submit the paper.
4. Submit your idea to exactly one journal. I believe submitting the same paper to multiple journals get can get your paper thrown out.
5. Some (most?) journals conduct "blind" reviews of submissions, in which the reviewers don't know your name or affiliation. So for those journals you probably don't need to worry about a lack of credibility coming from your lack of affiliation.
6. Accept that your paper is unlikely to get accepted in its original submission. However, you should get comments back from the people who review it. Those comments are likely to be extremely valuable in making you aware of other related work, and/or in showing you what needs to change to get published.
Why? Why can there only be one open source code repository?
I'm not saying there should only be one public forge. I'm just saying that would be one way for MS to get away from people's distrust in anything they back. Because I think most people would trust SF.net to not be corrupted the kind of thing I proposed.
Further, ultimately, as a developer, do you even care what repository the code comes from?
No. But as a project contributor, maybe. If this was the MS of the 1990's, I wouldn't trust a forge they owned one tiny bit - there would almost certainly be a trap hidden in the legalese. Nowadays, I'm not sure.
But here's another way to look at it: aside from branding, what might MS's motives be for setting this thing up? Based on their past actions, it's pretty clear that they're not angels.
In the US, the corporation, not the people, would be charged with a crime. And then they'd settle with the Government for a fine and no admission of wrongdoing.
It sounds like Spain out-justiced the US this time around.
I consider Muslim teaching far worse then Buddhism.
But why? If it's mainly because many Muslims seem bent on forcing their ways on other people, then that's the point I was trying to make. If it's for some other reason, such as you consider their wrong conclusions to be far less intellectual respectable than Buddhists' wrong conclusions, then I guess that's something I didn't contemplate.
It doesn't just apply to Muslims because it is stating the laws that their government should use for everybody under its jurisdiction, believers and non-believers.
But how does that explain them going after van Gough or the cartoonist in the Netherlands, or Facebooks guys in the U.S.?
Do they consider those lands to somehow be under Islamic jurisdiction? Or do they have some alternative reasoning?
Anytime there is any suggestion of changing laws to permit something that Christians find "sinful," they will be out in full force attempting to defeat it. In other words, doing their damnedest to impose their standards on everyone.
It was probably a mistake for me to claim Christian theology as a point of contrast. The conduct of many Christians might be incompatible with their theology, and many Christians may hold whacked theologies regarding the role of their beliefs in political governance. Either of these could explain the large disconnection posters are describing between the theology I described, and the examples they gave. Or I could just be wrong about the theology.
What I was really hoping we could discuss, though, is why some Muslims believe and act in the manner described in this story.
As a society, we all want to have a very PC belief that all religions are created equal, have good intentions, at their core are always good messages and what not and it's only the bad people that pervert them.... but I think that's naive and I'm saying this as an agnostic.
I don't think that's right. I think about the only people who think all religions are equal are:
Athiests - who think all religions are crap, and just hope people won't be jerks about their religions.
Politicians - who just want everyone to get along.
Unitarians and maybe Hindus (have I got that right?) - who basically think all religions are partially accurate and pointing towards the same actual truth.
As a fellow agnostic, what I want is just for people to give me enough space to figure this stuff out, without threatening to kill me if I don't buy into their religion.
Could someone explain why some Muslims believe that their rules need to apply to non-Muslims?
As a point of contrast, many Christians believe that their primary responsibility is to not themselves sin. Secondarily is to encourage their fellow Christian to avoid sinning; this includes (at the worst) kicking people out of the church when they're chronically unwilling to shape up. But But it's pretty hard to find anything directly in Christian theology that suggests Christians are supposed to try to impose these standards on non-Christians.
So what is it about some Muslim theologies that leads them to try to, for example, feel justified and/or compelled to try to kill Dutch cartoonists and Facebook executives?
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't let this be another one of those /. discussions where people conflate generic) stem cell therapy with embryonic stem cell therapy.
Many Christian's oppose the latter, and almost none is against the former.
I'm not even a Christian and I'm *&*#$# tired of the BS that comes from confusing the two positions. Seeing people attack straw men is annoying after the millionth time.
Oops - that's embarassing. I just realized that the Python program must be those used to produce the actual filings. So the programs' fitness to purpose must have been already established. Presumably they don't loop forever, or at least only do so after producing the filings.
While we're on the topic, here's something that confused me about the SEC / Python idea.
Python is Turing complete, which means some Python programs may never terminate*. Has the SEC taken this into consideration in its plans to use them?
Or is the SEC planning to impose limitations such as, "These Python programs must complete within 1 hour when run on an Intel Pentiun IV 2.8 GHz with 4 GB RAM and Windows XP SP 3"?
(* Of course, real computers have finite memories, so it's actually theoretically possible to detect looping on such a computer. But at this point we get back to specifying a particular memory size I think, which kind of goes to my question about the SEC specifying the particular hardware on which the program must run.)
Apparently we should never ask a scientist, "How do you like *them* Apples?"
Uugh. You're reminding me of one of the most disturbing Southpark episodes ever.
Remind me to never wash with that detergent...
1. Identify the IEEE "Transactions" journals and/or ACM journals that your work is most closely related to. If you don't have access to IEEE or ACM libraries online, you can either buy membership to those organizations (expect to pay $100-$300 per year, I believe) to get access; or you may have luck at a university library.
2. Study the structure of the papers in those journals. Take note of what sections their papers have, and what fraction of column space is dedicated to each. You may want to be guided by this.
3. In those same journals, look up their rules for submission. Also, look for advertisements by the editors regarding topics they'd especially like submissions for. If you find a call that's right up your topic's alley, you may want that to be the journal to which you submit the paper.
4. Submit your idea to exactly one journal. I believe submitting the same paper to multiple journals get can get your paper thrown out.
5. Some (most?) journals conduct "blind" reviews of submissions, in which the reviewers don't know your name or affiliation. So for those journals you probably don't need to worry about a lack of credibility coming from your lack of affiliation.
6. Accept that your paper is unlikely to get accepted in its original submission. However, you should get comments back from the people who review it. Those comments are likely to be extremely valuable in making you aware of other related work, and/or in showing you what needs to change to get published.
7. Oh, and use LaTeX.
I'm not saying there should only be one public forge. I'm just saying that would be one way for MS to get away from people's distrust in anything they back. Because I think most people would trust SF.net to not be corrupted the kind of thing I proposed.
No. But as a project contributor, maybe. If this was the MS of the 1990's, I wouldn't trust a forge they owned one tiny bit - there would almost certainly be a trap hidden in the legalese. Nowadays, I'm not sure.
But here's another way to look at it: aside from branding, what might MS's motives be for setting this thing up? Based on their past actions, it's pretty clear that they're not angels.
They could endow a trust fund for SourceForget.net. And if they had ideas for a better forge, they could make code submissions to SourceForge.net.
In the US, the corporation, not the people, would be charged with a crime. And then they'd settle with the Government for a fine and no admission of wrongdoing.
It sounds like Spain out-justiced the US this time around.
Funny, I was about to ask, "But is it classy?"
Why are you putting so much effort into being a dick?
Is that we'll all have this in 3-5 years!
Because even the manager isn't allowed to see it when it has eleven.
You, gentlemen, are brilliant.
Good call. They should hire four programmers!
Thanks, I was going for a /. record.
What a bunch of Nazis.
But why? If it's mainly because many Muslims seem bent on forcing their ways on other people, then that's the point I was trying to make. If it's for some other reason, such as you consider their wrong conclusions to be far less intellectual respectable than Buddhists' wrong conclusions, then I guess that's something I didn't contemplate.
But how does that explain them going after van Gough or the cartoonist in the Netherlands, or Facebooks guys in the U.S.?
Do they consider those lands to somehow be under Islamic jurisdiction? Or do they have some alternative reasoning?
It was probably a mistake for me to claim Christian theology as a point of contrast. The conduct of many Christians might be incompatible with their theology, and many Christians may hold whacked theologies regarding the role of their beliefs in political governance. Either of these could explain the large disconnection posters are describing between the theology I described, and the examples they gave. Or I could just be wrong about the theology.
What I was really hoping we could discuss, though, is why some Muslims believe and act in the manner described in this story.
I don't think that's right. I think about the only people who think all religions are equal are:
As a fellow agnostic, what I want is just for people to give me enough space to figure this stuff out, without threatening to kill me if I don't buy into their religion.
Could someone explain why some Muslims believe that their rules need to apply to non-Muslims?
As a point of contrast, many Christians believe that their primary responsibility is to not themselves sin. Secondarily is to encourage their fellow Christian to avoid sinning; this includes (at the worst) kicking people out of the church when they're chronically unwilling to shape up. But But it's pretty hard to find anything directly in Christian theology that suggests Christians are supposed to try to impose these standards on non-Christians.
So what is it about some Muslim theologies that leads them to try to, for example, feel justified and/or compelled to try to kill Dutch cartoonists and Facebook executives?
By replacing benign silicone with a toxic heavy metal like lead, we're guaranteed full Republican support for a roll-out!
This will be the first time a DNA assay kit gets a contact high.