You need to go back and read the First Amendment, the defense of which is the ACLU's primary purpose.
First sentence: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."
Coerced prayer in schools is an obvious violation of the first clause. Other religion in schools issues are a question of how to balance the second and third clauses.
Microsoft, which finds most of its security bugs in house, doesn't have to worry about disclosure.
Too many of Mozilla's recent bug fix releases have had to be rushed out the door, because the person who identified the bugs (in Mozilla's open source code) has published on some full disclosure website.
If you look at Bugzilla, it's obvious that mozilla doesn't let security bugs fester. The "full disclosure" wankers should be publicly recognized as the public nuisances they are.
As of Firefox 1.03, what you say is no longer correct. The Firefox team has separated the content document object model from the chrome, so that chrome functions are no longer vulnerable to being overriden by content.
In addition, they've encapsulated chrome code even further in Firefox 1.5
Admittedly the original design was a bit insecure, but the risks going forward have been eliminated, and the real risks are mostly the usual browser vulnerabilities in parsing, buffers, etc., all of which are present in Konqueror, Safari, and Opera, all of which have received far less security scrutiny.
It's necessary to "make up stories," because evolution, like history, is contingent on a lot of random influences.
However, you can look for similar themes recurring in evolutionary history. Such as a dichotomy between (rare) aggressive, sociopathic strategies and (common) peaceful, live-and-let-live strategies, which can very easily emerge as a stable population equilibrium. And since the equilibrium is stable, it might in fact persist into the modern human population. See John Maynard Smith's model of hawk and dove strategies.
To get "actual figures" or a "real prediction" you'll need a time machine -- good luck with that. At best, you could also look at "sociopathy" in nearby primate groups. A lot of chimps are pretty sociopathic, but a few aren't (read Frans DeWaal's Peacemaking among Primates for illustrations). So I don't see why it's unreasonable to say that humans have the genetic stuff of sociopathy but have reached a less sociopathic equilibrium than chimps, because (for example) we've evolved moral systems and language to communicate a sense of reputation.
Unless you're playing multiplayer online games, any game needs to have some combination of scripting and artificial intelligence.
Unfortunately, although a plot can be scripted easily, meaningful conversations with non-player characters cannot, as there are simply too many possibilities. And AIs are hopeless for conversations, since they're basically a restricted form of the Turing test.
AIs are, however, just barely smart enough to shoot the player and get shot by the player. So in lieu of real interaction, what we get is a bunch of first-person shooter games where the only way to interact with other entities is by shooting them. Or, in sandbox games, getting a BJ from them and then shooting them.
Games seem nihilistic because they are. But it's the limited AI plus limited game designer imagination that make them so. The easiest way to get out of this trap is by improving multiplayer environments, since improving AI is so ridiculously hard.
Re:easy to blow the entire CIA front firm too
on
Googling for CIA Agents
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
Excellent, the Republican talking points troll.
Who cares? Rove passed the information on to (at least) Matthew Cooper, which is stupid, irresponsible and possibly illegal. Anyway, this is just the excuse du jour from Rove's lawyer.
If she wasn't undercover, then why did the CIA ask for a grand jury investigation?
Anwyay, what he he said was that the day Bob Novak outed his wife she ceased to be an undercover operative once she was outed.
If it was so well known, why was it necessary for the White House to spread the story? (Note that Mitchell was one of the people they spread it to, and is the only person to make this claim.)
You don't know much about covers, do you? So was she supposed to be making widgets in a CIA-owned factory?
and finally:
OMFG!!! THE CIA IS TRYING TO BRING DOWN OUR GREAT LEADER W IN A SECRET CONSPIRACY!!!
Well, Karl Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin was making public claims that saying "Joseph Wilson's wife is a CIA agent" doesn't actually reveal that her name is "Valerie", and so isn't illegal.
You and Lazarus should get together and offer him googling lessons, y'know?
easy to blow the entire CIA front firm too
on
Googling for CIA Agents
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
When Robert Novak disclosed of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a CIA operative, the firm (Brewster-Jennings) which was the cover for her counterproliferation work, and presumably many others', was also totally compromised.
Of course it's not that hard to find out where someone is working (in this case, the existence of Brewster-Jennings wasn't a secret, but the fact that it was a CIA front was).
I'm not saying that campaign contribution disclosure is a bad thing. It's essential to the media and bloggers investigating governmental corruption.
But this is more pathetic evidence that Karl Rove, and everyone else involved at the White House, just didn't care. They were far more interested in retaliation and their own political gain than in the lives that were endangered, and the millions of dollars that were wasted.
Web of Science is the worst user interface I have to deal with on any regular basis (including the awful All Music Guide). I think they took the interface from the CD-ROM version circa 1994 and ported it directly to web forms. Someone ought to do a GreaseMonkey update...
ANYbody, regardless of politics, can fall victim to resisting the truth because it's intellectually convenient to do so
But it takes special ignorance and malice to wholeheartedly resist the truth when you're the leader of the free world, and have thousands of highly trained scientists clamoring to advise you.
Who cares what "the Left" (whoever they are) think -- there are a lot of leftists in universities, but they don't suppress or defund behavioral genetics as a field.
On the other hand, Bush's administration is (for instance) eliminating Uganda's amazingly effective "ABC" AIDS prevention approach (Abstinence, Being Faithful, Condoms) because their theocratic masters don't like the "C". So the Ugandan government has stopped distributing condoms in a nation where 10% of the population has AIDS.
The real difference between "the Left" and the government is that when the government relies on ignorant faith and convenient facts over scientific truth, people die.
The Treo 650 actually does everything I need -- excellent calendar, solid email software, web, IM. AND SSH.
I agree that no cameraphone has anything like reasonable picture quality, but the Treo 650 has one of the better cameraphones I've seen (unlike the Treo 600!). I don't want to plan on carrying a camera around everywhere; it's actually more useful to me than a portable digital camera. If I want to take real pictures, I'll use a real camera like a digital SLR, thankyouverymuch.
Oh, and since the Treo includes MP3 player with up to 2 GB of SD storage makes hard disk phones seem rather pointless. Pocket Tunes with the iTunes skin has a reasonable touchscreen/side buttons user interface, although a scrollwheel would be nice.
I think "cultural trend-setter" is a stereotype almost anyone would appreciate. I'm not just talking about the cast of "Queer Eye" here.
Anyway, whether the stereotype is accurate or not (and from what I've seen in San Francisco, there's a lot of truth to it) is beside the point. Businesses are making policy decisions based on the idea of transforming cities to make them more gay-friendly. Google "creative class", or look at this recent Salon article about the economist whose writings on the creative class are getting published in the Harvard Business Review and other business-friendly locations.
Actually, aside from the basic human rights issue of anti-discrimination, being gay-friendly is in microsoft's business interests.
Gay customers buy a lot of computers, and they tend to be cultural trend-setters or bellweathers, i.e. the people who Microsoft is trying to attract from Apple.
Also, large companies have a real interest in ensuring that their homebase becomes a culturally vibrant area which attracts professionals and creative types. Gay-friendly laws encourage cultural vibrancy and improve the hiring pool, since people won't live in cities with a reputation for intolerance. Just look at Procter & Gamble's opposition to the Ohio anti-gay constitutional amendment.
(Although, being based in Cleveland, P&G had a little more incentive than MS...)
This is the same Richard Axel who has engaged in sleazy intellectual property practice with his cotransformation patents (basically, the process of randomly inserting a gene into organisms' DNA, and finding out which insertions have been successful).
The Public Patent Foundation (which recently got Microsoft's FAT filesystem patent rejected) has gotten the patent office to agree to re-examine the most recent, presumably illegitimate Axel patents.
Of course this work has almost nothing to do with the work for which he was awarded the Nobel prize...
Gropernor Schwarzenegger's doing his best to destroy the UC system with incessant shortsighted cuts and fee hikes
I just think of the lawsuit as a massive $50 million contribution from Microsoft to the university. We should probably name a computer lab, or maybe a e-toilet, after them...
It's a vague big-government giveaway to a broken agency (and its corporate masters). And it's easy to satirize (find WMD on Mars??? Osama, the face on Mars???).
It gives the Democrat challenger a chance to outflank to the right, with free-market competition. How about an X-prize competition with, say, $100 million funding for achieving LEO? How about $1 BILLION for docking a reusable vehicle with the Space Station? That's one serious incentive.
...And I've never seen a technologist react the same way to poorly informed questions.
What he meant was that the chemical structure of the new angiogenesis inhibitors resembled that of known angiogenesis inhibitors. And that it was hopeless to explain exactly how to you, since you admit to having zero biochemical knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand...they scooped the MainStream Media in getting it!
For the MSM to miss out on such an obvious strategy, they must be asleep at the wheel, just like during "Rathergate."
Ergo, the MSM is dying.
Ignore the noise, it all relates back to this one: The Bad Plus Suspicious Activity?
You need to go back and read the First Amendment, the defense of which is the ACLU's primary purpose. First sentence: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." Coerced prayer in schools is an obvious violation of the first clause. Other religion in schools issues are a question of how to balance the second and third clauses.
It is the UK after all Someone talked too loudly in the pub about all the Cat5 in the building and caught the attention of animal rights terrorists?
That's funny, the spyware biz must be getting less profitable than Sam led us to believe.
I suppose companies are no longer willing to pay to be the 500th popup ad server on a spyjacked box.
Too many of Mozilla's recent bug fix releases have had to be rushed out the door, because the person who identified the bugs (in Mozilla's open source code) has published on some full disclosure website.
If you look at Bugzilla, it's obvious that mozilla doesn't let security bugs fester. The "full disclosure" wankers should be publicly recognized as the public nuisances they are.
As of Firefox 1.03, what you say is no longer correct. The Firefox team has separated the content document object model from the chrome, so that chrome functions are no longer vulnerable to being overriden by content.
In addition, they've encapsulated chrome code even further in Firefox 1.5
Admittedly the original design was a bit insecure, but the risks going forward have been eliminated, and the real risks are mostly the usual browser vulnerabilities in parsing, buffers, etc., all of which are present in Konqueror, Safari, and Opera, all of which have received far less security scrutiny.
This is FUD. As of Firefox 1.03, what you say is no longer correct. The Firefox team has separated the content document object model from the chrome, so that chrome functions are no longer vulnerable to being overriden by content. In addition, they've encapsulated chrome code even further in Firefox 1.5 Admittedly the original design was a bit insecure, but the risks going forward have been eliminated, and the real risks are mostly the usual browser vulnerabilities in parsing, buffers, etc.
However, you can look for similar themes recurring in evolutionary history. Such as a dichotomy between (rare) aggressive, sociopathic strategies and (common) peaceful, live-and-let-live strategies, which can very easily emerge as a stable population equilibrium. And since the equilibrium is stable, it might in fact persist into the modern human population. See John Maynard Smith's model of hawk and dove strategies.
To get "actual figures" or a "real prediction" you'll need a time machine -- good luck with that. At best, you could also look at "sociopathy" in nearby primate groups. A lot of chimps are pretty sociopathic, but a few aren't (read Frans DeWaal's Peacemaking among Primates for illustrations). So I don't see why it's unreasonable to say that humans have the genetic stuff of sociopathy but have reached a less sociopathic equilibrium than chimps, because (for example) we've evolved moral systems and language to communicate a sense of reputation.
Unfortunately, although a plot can be scripted easily, meaningful conversations with non-player characters cannot, as there are simply too many possibilities. And AIs are hopeless for conversations, since they're basically a restricted form of the Turing test.
AIs are, however, just barely smart enough to shoot the player and get shot by the player. So in lieu of real interaction, what we get is a bunch of first-person shooter games where the only way to interact with other entities is by shooting them. Or, in sandbox games, getting a BJ from them and then shooting them.
Games seem nihilistic because they are. But it's the limited AI plus limited game designer imagination that make them so. The easiest way to get out of this trap is by improving multiplayer environments, since improving AI is so ridiculously hard.
and finally:
OMFG!!! THE CIA IS TRYING TO BRING DOWN OUR GREAT LEADER W IN A SECRET CONSPIRACY!!!
Well, Karl Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin was making public claims that saying "Joseph Wilson's wife is a CIA agent" doesn't actually reveal that her name is "Valerie", and so isn't illegal.
You and Lazarus should get together and offer him googling lessons, y'know?
Of course it's not that hard to find out where someone is working (in this case, the existence of Brewster-Jennings wasn't a secret, but the fact that it was a CIA front was).
But the CIA would have had more time to make sure its agents and assets were secure if the company hadn't been listed on her election contribution records. You can see them at Open Secrets
I'm not saying that campaign contribution disclosure is a bad thing. It's essential to the media and bloggers investigating governmental corruption.
But this is more pathetic evidence that Karl Rove, and everyone else involved at the White House, just didn't care. They were far more interested in retaliation and their own political gain than in the lives that were endangered, and the millions of dollars that were wasted.
Web of Science is the worst user interface I have to deal with on any regular basis (including the awful All Music Guide). I think they took the interface from the CD-ROM version circa 1994 and ported it directly to web forms. Someone ought to do a GreaseMonkey update...
But it takes special ignorance and malice to wholeheartedly resist the truth when you're the leader of the free world, and have thousands of highly trained scientists clamoring to advise you.
Who cares what "the Left" (whoever they are) think -- there are a lot of leftists in universities, but they don't suppress or defund behavioral genetics as a field.
On the other hand, Bush's administration is (for instance) eliminating Uganda's amazingly effective "ABC" AIDS prevention approach (Abstinence, Being Faithful, Condoms) because their theocratic masters don't like the "C". So the Ugandan government has stopped distributing condoms in a nation where 10% of the population has AIDS.
The real difference between "the Left" and the government is that when the government relies on ignorant faith and convenient facts over scientific truth, people die.
some people 'test' code, too. sadly, the average sysadmin is not likely to meet many of these miscreants.
I agree that no cameraphone has anything like reasonable picture quality, but the Treo 650 has one of the better cameraphones I've seen (unlike the Treo 600!). I don't want to plan on carrying a camera around everywhere; it's actually more useful to me than a portable digital camera. If I want to take real pictures, I'll use a real camera like a digital SLR, thankyouverymuch.
Oh, and since the Treo includes MP3 player with up to 2 GB of SD storage makes hard disk phones seem rather pointless. Pocket Tunes with the iTunes skin has a reasonable touchscreen/side buttons user interface, although a scrollwheel would be nice.
I think "cultural trend-setter" is a stereotype almost anyone would appreciate. I'm not just talking about the cast of "Queer Eye" here.
Anyway, whether the stereotype is accurate or not (and from what I've seen in San Francisco, there's a lot of truth to it) is beside the point. Businesses are making policy decisions based on the idea of transforming cities to make them more gay-friendly. Google "creative class", or look at this recent Salon article about the economist whose writings on the creative class are getting published in the Harvard Business Review and other business-friendly locations.
Gay customers buy a lot of computers, and they tend to be cultural trend-setters or bellweathers, i.e. the people who Microsoft is trying to attract from Apple.
Also, large companies have a real interest in ensuring that their homebase becomes a culturally vibrant area which attracts professionals and creative types. Gay-friendly laws encourage cultural vibrancy and improve the hiring pool, since people won't live in cities with a reputation for intolerance. Just look at Procter & Gamble's opposition to the Ohio anti-gay constitutional amendment.
(Although, being based in Cleveland, P&G had a little more incentive than MS...)
But guess who was the inventor listed on the new patents, and who received royalties for every license granted? And who signed off on the application?
The Public Patent Foundation (which recently got Microsoft's FAT filesystem patent rejected) has gotten the patent office to agree to re-examine the most recent, presumably illegitimate Axel patents.
Of course this work has almost nothing to do with the work for which he was awarded the Nobel prize...
they were infiltrated by the judge's appointed special master, a lawyer named Alan Balaran, with only minimal social engineering.
I just think of the lawsuit as a massive $50 million contribution from Microsoft to the university. We should probably name a computer lab, or maybe a e-toilet, after them...
It's a vague big-government giveaway to a broken agency (and its corporate masters). And it's easy to satirize (find WMD on Mars??? Osama, the face on Mars???).
It gives the Democrat challenger a chance to outflank to the right, with free-market competition. How about an X-prize competition with, say, $100 million funding for achieving LEO? How about $1 BILLION for docking a reusable vehicle with the Space Station? That's one serious incentive.
What he meant was that the chemical structure of the new angiogenesis inhibitors resembled that of known angiogenesis inhibitors. And that it was hopeless to explain exactly how to you, since you admit to having zero biochemical knowledge.
Arrogant, yes. Fraudulent, unlikely.