Honestly now, any communication that passes through any computer controlled by your company can be seen. Even if they were encrypted, if, at any point they are EVER stored outside of volatile memory unencrypted, they're available.
If you're doing something with their resources like plotting against them... well...
This is not google, and Costikyan is not a well-known person outside of a certain subset of the gaming populace.
If I had to Google for every idiotic thing the moron editors put up on the front page (since they seem to have taken a liking to stupid braindead bloggers and astroturfers as of late), I would never actually get through anything on this miserable site.
So, basically your argument here is that Slashdot is a worthless wannabe news aggregator and there's no conceivably good reason to come here since I could get better context and more accurate information from Google News? Good argument: don't complain about it's worthlessness, because it's worthless.
Achtung, moron-boy: if they want me to go out to various sites and read things for my informational pleasures so that I keep coming back to give them ad revenue then they better damn well tell me what I'm clicking through to BEFORE I CLICK THROUGH TO IT. As if that weren't bad enough, in case you haven't noticed lately, the editors have shown an amazing inability as of late to tell the difference between legit stories, and troll and astroturfing "stories". I suppose, however, you don't have a problem with blind-clicking through links.
The "agenda" behind the movement is questionable, but based on what it's done lately, I'd wager a guess that the whole purpose is to slide creationist dogma into public institutions where it doesn't belong, such as schools.
As far as the rest of it goes, it may attempt to do those other things, but it fails miserably.
You've been following the political action item of intelligent design for thousands of years?
Fascinating, considering some of the beliefs it expounds were only presented for consideration within the last decade. Even more fascinating is the fact that the current manifestation of the non-creation-based version of ID currently being discussed in this thread is less than 15 years old.
What believers like YOU need is a shot of critical thinking, a decent education, and a good hard belt to the head to try and knock the stupid out of you.
Who the hell is Greg Costikyan and why is his blog a good source of information? It's called "context", folks. Before I read any of the linked text, I should know the basics about what's going on, who Ubisoft is, and who Costikyan is.
I'm getting sick and tired of reading writeups and being left to discern all of the information on my own. If you're going to claim to post news articles with information in them, you're going to have to actually provide some information.
I have no idea in what context your response was made, so I don't really know what you're talking about.
Also, kindly pick your words more carefully.
Firstly, I.D. is not a "phenomenon". There is nothing observable called intelligent design. It's merely a series of increasingly ludicrous assumptions with little or no proof to support them. That makes it a 'tenet' which is practically the opposite of a phenomenon.
Secondly, you are misusing "fact" in your last sentence. The way you are using it first assumes ID is true, which is not true. It then also assumes that god exists in a provable form, which is not true.
kthx.
Erm... I don't think you understand intelligent design. Ironically, it doesn't say WHAT the controlling force is, only that some guiding system causes evolution to happen in a particular way (I don't think it's should be called "intelligent" design. Since whatever is supposedly guiding the mutations is doing so with a hypothetical goal, this being or power must be pretty damn stupid since it screws up almost every mutation and kills the host).
The problem with I.D. is that it makes HUGE assumptions that it can't support. For example, to believe in I.D., you MUST believe that the entire bilogical spectrum is one complete system with a set function.
Simple observations do not support this. For example, if a lifeform is unnaturally pushed into extinction, the entire ecosystem across the globe does not begin to collapse. Therefore, the system's parts must not make up a single-function whole as I.D. suggests (the illustration most commonly given is a mousetrap with a hammer, spring, base, and the trap itself. If any one of those pieces is removed, the entire system becomes useless because it is a single function system). That is, the system must be adaptable at some level. If the system is adaptable, then we know that any given part can potentially be removed (or never exist) without causing the entire system to fail. Since I.D. says that evolution can't happen because the system would collapse without all the parts to support it, but we know for a fact that we can remove parts without a complete failure, we don't have to jump very far to call the argument a load of crap.
THOSE are the sort of things that leave I.D. as nothing but silly ideological nonsense. I am consistently becoming more and more convinced that only idiots believe it, because it has nothing to do with either science OR religion, just stupidity.
Faithful people have creationism. Critical thinkers (sort of..) have abiogenesis. Idiots have I.D.
Please note: your current belief system appears not to clash with the bulk of evolutionary theory in any way (in particular, you appear to only be against the idea of "random mutations" meaning your "belief you can't prove" here is that there is some system guiding mutations. However, since a system can only be accurately labeled as "random" by the person controlling it, your dissention on the point is not sufficient to suggest you do not accept evolution's major theories). You appear to be one of the countless evolutionists who (rightly) see no threat to their theological beliefs within the theory of evolution.
You have also not provided any indication that you believe in I.D.
I think you should read up on it. If you accept the majority of the current evolutionary model, you might be surprised at how ludicrous I.D. is by comparison.
Some group of individuals appears to be on a rampage in this story, moderating down all mentions of religion. No idea why. If they're modding because they're anti-religious, they're idiots, because the whole point of the story is believing in things you CAN'T PROVE.
If they're modding them down because they are religious, however, then they clearly don't understand the concept of "faith" and how to have it you must not be able to PROVE your beleif in the common sense.
Or, perhaps, a couple of 13 year olds got a snow day... it appears there are a lot of children on Slashdot these days...
Please note: I.D. is billed as an "alternative" to evolution in which god exists.
The solidified and well-accepted portions of evolutionary models make no requirement, however, that you cease to believe in any gods.
Intelligent Design, therefore, while perhaps a good example of things to believe in without proof, has nothing to do with science and god. It has much more, however, to do with politically empowered people who don't understand science, and the people they seem to think are somehow disproving god.
Your ending statment, therefore, appears to have little to do with the rest of your post when it is put into the context of the post you replied to.
And, for christ's fucking sake, stop posting in this thread. If you keep this up much longer you're going to be posting at -1 entirely because you got trolled by a signature on Slashdot.
Man, you can find people's entire financial statements on Google if you know what to look for. I once found a company's entire pay-to-train sessions on Google because the idiots had left it in an open directory. We're talking seven or eight classes that cost $400 a head to attend.
This "oopsy" does not surprise me in the least. Spend enough time in the corporate world with typical PHBs, and you will get used to hearing how such-and-such simple and important security task isn't important because "that's never gonna happen", so we shouldn't "waste time on it". This is it what happens when managers run technical systems rather than tech people.
JA: What are the largest challenges you're facing today?
Richard Stallman: Software patents. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The broadcast flag. Cards with secret specifications. Non-free Java platforms.
In other words, organized efforts by people with power to put an end to our freedom.
I find this sort of amusing. He wags a finger at the items and laws themselves, but the point he completely misses is that the people who are going to actually BUY products which support these restrictions are the ones who are going to be responsible for killing his movement.
It's just a fact that people don't care about the ideological bents of folks like Stallan. Maybe he's ahead of his time or something, but right now, his ideas just aren't viable. People don't care about open source and the market will slowly squeeze it out because the loss of things like GNU/Linux distros and MythTV and whatnot just aren't important as far the market is concerned. Open source can't survive in this market because nobody of consequence really wants it to.
Doubtful. With the cost of fabs, it would probably be less expensive just to raid and shut down the illegal "producers" than to try and work out elaborate protection schemes.
Remember - implementing half-assed software hacks to "protect" content on a CD is relatively cheap compared to the cost of imlpementing something similar to prevent overclocking in a complex computer chip.
"Why prop up the middle man when he's no longer nessecary?"
Good question. Why DO artists keep propping up a middleman that's sooooo unnecssary. Why DO consumers keep propping up a middleman that's soooo unnecessary?
More importantly, perhaps, is this: if people really want what you say, how does it matter if the RIAA or MPAA enforce their rights on their content NOW?
I take it then that you feel non-violent robbery shouldn't be punished by the government? If someone breaks into your house and cleans it out without hurting or threatening anybody, the onus should be entirely on you to locate and sue the perpetrator, correct?
And, before you use the bizarre "copyright infringement isn't stealing" justification to look like less of an imbecile, the point here is that both result in a value loss on the part of the victim. I fail to see how the method of the loss is relevant when the ultimate effect is the same (loss in value of the victim), as is the intent (gain in value of the perpetrator).
And, your point would be what? Because the "flamebait" above comes right from the federal guidelines for prosecuting piracy as a criminal offense rather than it being a civil issue requiring a lawsuit in civil court.
You can expect whatever you want, but PIRACY - copying and/or redistributing copyrighted material for the purpose of making a profit - is a criminal offense.
Yeah, we need stronger "intellectual property" laws to make sure that they will remain in power forever...
Intellectual property has you.
It must be hard to argue with people when the best you can do is draw tired old parellels to The Matrix (oh, the irony of lifting the tagline from a copyrighted big-budget hollywood film to whine about how restrictive copyright laws are holding you down and keeping you from using material in new ways...) and retroactively apply statements to me that I never made.
The way I see it, your last post vindicates my original post. You ARE an idiot, so it wasn't an ad hominem, it was just an observation.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly now, any communication that passes through any computer controlled by your company can be seen. Even if they were encrypted, if, at any point they are EVER stored outside of volatile memory unencrypted, they're available.
If you're doing something with their resources like plotting against them... well...
This is not google, and Costikyan is not a well-known person outside of a certain subset of the gaming populace.
If I had to Google for every idiotic thing the moron editors put up on the front page (since they seem to have taken a liking to stupid braindead bloggers and astroturfers as of late), I would never actually get through anything on this miserable site.
So, basically your argument here is that Slashdot is a worthless wannabe news aggregator and there's no conceivably good reason to come here since I could get better context and more accurate information from Google News? Good argument: don't complain about it's worthlessness, because it's worthless.
Achtung, moron-boy: if they want me to go out to various sites and read things for my informational pleasures so that I keep coming back to give them ad revenue then they better damn well tell me what I'm clicking through to BEFORE I CLICK THROUGH TO IT. As if that weren't bad enough, in case you haven't noticed lately, the editors have shown an amazing inability as of late to tell the difference between legit stories, and troll and astroturfing "stories". I suppose, however, you don't have a problem with blind-clicking through links.
Blind click-through on this one, please.
kthx
Indeed.
The "agenda" behind the movement is questionable, but based on what it's done lately, I'd wager a guess that the whole purpose is to slide creationist dogma into public institutions where it doesn't belong, such as schools.
As far as the rest of it goes, it may attempt to do those other things, but it fails miserably.
You've been following the political action item of intelligent design for thousands of years?
Fascinating, considering some of the beliefs it expounds were only presented for consideration within the last decade. Even more fascinating is the fact that the current manifestation of the non-creation-based version of ID currently being discussed in this thread is less than 15 years old.
What believers like YOU need is a shot of critical thinking, a decent education, and a good hard belt to the head to try and knock the stupid out of you.
Who the hell is Greg Costikyan and why is his blog a good source of information? It's called "context", folks. Before I read any of the linked text, I should know the basics about what's going on, who Ubisoft is, and who Costikyan is.
I'm getting sick and tired of reading writeups and being left to discern all of the information on my own. If you're going to claim to post news articles with information in them, you're going to have to actually provide some information.
I have no idea in what context your response was made, so I don't really know what you're talking about. Also, kindly pick your words more carefully. Firstly, I.D. is not a "phenomenon". There is nothing observable called intelligent design. It's merely a series of increasingly ludicrous assumptions with little or no proof to support them. That makes it a 'tenet' which is practically the opposite of a phenomenon. Secondly, you are misusing "fact" in your last sentence. The way you are using it first assumes ID is true, which is not true. It then also assumes that god exists in a provable form, which is not true. kthx.
Erm... I don't think you understand intelligent design. Ironically, it doesn't say WHAT the controlling force is, only that some guiding system causes evolution to happen in a particular way (I don't think it's should be called "intelligent" design. Since whatever is supposedly guiding the mutations is doing so with a hypothetical goal, this being or power must be pretty damn stupid since it screws up almost every mutation and kills the host).
The problem with I.D. is that it makes HUGE assumptions that it can't support. For example, to believe in I.D., you MUST believe that the entire bilogical spectrum is one complete system with a set function.
Simple observations do not support this. For example, if a lifeform is unnaturally pushed into extinction, the entire ecosystem across the globe does not begin to collapse. Therefore, the system's parts must not make up a single-function whole as I.D. suggests (the illustration most commonly given is a mousetrap with a hammer, spring, base, and the trap itself. If any one of those pieces is removed, the entire system becomes useless because it is a single function system). That is, the system must be adaptable at some level. If the system is adaptable, then we know that any given part can potentially be removed (or never exist) without causing the entire system to fail. Since I.D. says that evolution can't happen because the system would collapse without all the parts to support it, but we know for a fact that we can remove parts without a complete failure, we don't have to jump very far to call the argument a load of crap.
THOSE are the sort of things that leave I.D. as nothing but silly ideological nonsense. I am consistently becoming more and more convinced that only idiots believe it, because it has nothing to do with either science OR religion, just stupidity.
Faithful people have creationism.
Critical thinkers (sort of..) have abiogenesis.
Idiots have I.D.
You are not making any sense.
I am sorry if I previously made you cry. Perhaps we could discuss it over dinner? Shall I meet you at the station at, say, six-ish Ms. Taggart?
Please note: your current belief system appears not to clash with the bulk of evolutionary theory in any way (in particular, you appear to only be against the idea of "random mutations" meaning your "belief you can't prove" here is that there is some system guiding mutations. However, since a system can only be accurately labeled as "random" by the person controlling it, your dissention on the point is not sufficient to suggest you do not accept evolution's major theories). You appear to be one of the countless evolutionists who (rightly) see no threat to their theological beliefs within the theory of evolution.
You have also not provided any indication that you believe in I.D.
I think you should read up on it. If you accept the majority of the current evolutionary model, you might be surprised at how ludicrous I.D. is by comparison.
Some group of individuals appears to be on a rampage in this story, moderating down all mentions of religion. No idea why. If they're modding because they're anti-religious, they're idiots, because the whole point of the story is believing in things you CAN'T PROVE.
If they're modding them down because they are religious, however, then they clearly don't understand the concept of "faith" and how to have it you must not be able to PROVE your beleif in the common sense.
Or, perhaps, a couple of 13 year olds got a snow day... it appears there are a lot of children on Slashdot these days...
Please note: I.D. is billed as an "alternative" to evolution in which god exists.
The solidified and well-accepted portions of evolutionary models make no requirement, however, that you cease to believe in any gods.
Intelligent Design, therefore, while perhaps a good example of things to believe in without proof, has nothing to do with science and god. It has much more, however, to do with politically empowered people who don't understand science, and the people they seem to think are somehow disproving god.
Your ending statment, therefore, appears to have little to do with the rest of your post when it is put into the context of the post you replied to.
And you posted claiming to be me.... why?
YHBT.
YHL.
And, for christ's fucking sake, stop posting in this thread. If you keep this up much longer you're going to be posting at -1 entirely because you got trolled by a signature on Slashdot.
Man, you can find people's entire financial statements on Google if you know what to look for. I once found a company's entire pay-to-train sessions on Google because the idiots had left it in an open directory. We're talking seven or eight classes that cost $400 a head to attend.
This "oopsy" does not surprise me in the least. Spend enough time in the corporate world with typical PHBs, and you will get used to hearing how such-and-such simple and important security task isn't important because "that's never gonna happen", so we shouldn't "waste time on it". This is it what happens when managers run technical systems rather than tech people.
It's just a fact that people don't care about the ideological bents of folks like Stallan. Maybe he's ahead of his time or something, but right now, his ideas just aren't viable. People don't care about open source and the market will slowly squeeze it out because the loss of things like GNU/Linux distros and MythTV and whatnot just aren't important as far the market is concerned. Open source can't survive in this market because nobody of consequence really wants it to.
This probably explains why so many more people seem to be talking about so many more topics these days, but have less to say than ever.
Doubtful. With the cost of fabs, it would probably be less expensive just to raid and shut down the illegal "producers" than to try and work out elaborate protection schemes.
Remember - implementing half-assed software hacks to "protect" content on a CD is relatively cheap compared to the cost of imlpementing something similar to prevent overclocking in a complex computer chip.
something we support like piracy? Or is this entirely different for Lots of Really Good Reasons (TM)?
"Why prop up the middle man when he's no longer nessecary?"
Good question. Why DO artists keep propping up a middleman that's sooooo unnecssary. Why DO consumers keep propping up a middleman that's soooo unnecessary?
More importantly, perhaps, is this: if people really want what you say, how does it matter if the RIAA or MPAA enforce their rights on their content NOW?
I'm not clicking a link with a name like that. I'm afraid it might be a goatse troll...
I take it then that you feel non-violent robbery shouldn't be punished by the government? If someone breaks into your house and cleans it out without hurting or threatening anybody, the onus should be entirely on you to locate and sue the perpetrator, correct?
And, before you use the bizarre "copyright infringement isn't stealing" justification to look like less of an imbecile, the point here is that both result in a value loss on the part of the victim. I fail to see how the method of the loss is relevant when the ultimate effect is the same (loss in value of the victim), as is the intent (gain in value of the perpetrator).
And, your point would be what? Because the "flamebait" above comes right from the federal guidelines for prosecuting piracy as a criminal offense rather than it being a civil issue requiring a lawsuit in civil court.
You can expect whatever you want, but PIRACY - copying and/or redistributing copyrighted material for the purpose of making a profit - is a criminal offense.
Yeah, we need stronger "intellectual property" laws to make sure that they will remain in power forever...
Intellectual property has you.
It must be hard to argue with people when the best you can do is draw tired old parellels to The Matrix (oh, the irony of lifting the tagline from a copyrighted big-budget hollywood film to whine about how restrictive copyright laws are holding you down and keeping you from using material in new ways...) and retroactively apply statements to me that I never made.
The way I see it, your last post vindicates my original post. You ARE an idiot, so it wasn't an ad hominem, it was just an observation.