Timing of this study is really peculiar. And anyway protests threatening your rights is true but irrelevant. All that matters is if the achievement of the protest offsets the problem it creates. I do not believe much in protests or even leaks, I think they make a change only when there's someone organized behind it, and organized guys very rarely represent the silent majority. But the study is stupid. Since I am in the scope of godwin's law, it's like saying fighting hitler got people killed.
We don't get energy from the sun directly so we kill other stuff. Veg*ans split hairs on why killing vegetables is different than killing the rest. A life form is a life form. My position is we didn't choose (or recall we did, at least:) ) to be human vs. plants so we don't bear responsibility for our needing to survive through others. Just try not to squander resources so that all the stuff that died and will die because of us didn't do it in vain. If you're Christian there's the sin of gluttony no?:D
Nonetheless veg*ans have good points on the effect of what we eat for our health.
Because natural stuff is coming from a system that evolved with humans since they populated the planet. Manufactured stuff isn't bad by default: but since artificial stuff is not tested for all the interactions with the substances that are already present in the environment to see long term effects, and it's produced in the name of profit (if you're less superficial in your view of society it's in the name of control), I'd go for natural stuff given the choice.
Of course natural stuff can be manufactured by the same people and with the same motivations as artificial stuff so the distinction is really between stuff made with love and stuff that screws people over but being natural is a factor not to overlook.
Can someone tell me exactly when Yahoo [wikipedia.org] stopped being synonymous with vile and savage creatures, with filthy and with unpleasant habits, and became an expression of glee?
Easy one, it happened the first time a yahoo user was able to find a supermodels site.
A hardware failure bringing down the site of a corporation who also is a cloud provider it's pretty bad PR, there should be no single point of failure in a proper cloudy system:)
> Enlighten me, which money in widespread use is not issued from a central bank?
Enlighten me, when did I say a Strict subset?
And the widespread use of central bank issued money just makes my objection stronger...
> Again, I am not talking about members of any religion. I am talking about priests, always have in this entire discussion.
Then I further object that Priests are not the equivalent of the bankers. They are the equivalent of the bankers plus the director of a branch, the guy at the counter and the janitor.
> do you think the less rational religious types will concur?
it is a matter of being rational or not, then.
Religion aside, prejudices aside, having a child from 2 fathers is a technology achievement.If it becomes a widespread practice it's another step in the growing dependence on a system for things we were able to do on our own. Note that I have nothing against technology being used to assist reproduction. But I bet that misuse of this tech will happen just like it happened with all the other tech, and I fear that misuse will be the prevalent one.
> No it isn't. You equate "money" with "central bank" and that equation is false.
"money issued from central banks" is a subset of money. I never equated that to money in general, I just pointed out that being part of such a system doesn't make you evil.
> Back to the original point, I never claimed that good people can not be religious. But you can't be a good person and a priest of the catholic church.
For the sake of simplicity, let's talk about the scientology church instead. You think that, even not resorting to their peculiar techniques that to me seem brainwashing, none of its member is acting in good faith? Of course they are responsible if their organization messes up even if they are acting in good faith. But questioning the good faith of them all is a too strong assertion. Finally see my point?
> The usual stupid argument that any kind of remote interaction is automatically a support action.
Ok, then no really good people work to acquire money. This is not simple interaction as "getting money to live by" and still it is a wrong generalization.
As for bankers: ideally banks should provide the means for people to succeed, a banker who believes the ideals is not evil. Probably he's an "useful idiot".
So, maybe good priests are useful idiots too if the religion was a scam to begin with, they are not if the religion has been infiltrated by false prophets later.
In other words, if you define "eternity" as "infinitely long time" instead of the more general "out of time constraints" you make an arbitrary assumption. Grow up.
I would decouple the fear of death from the belief in the supernatural. Philosophically I am interested in the supernatural even if I am perfectly fine with the idea of not existing after my biological death (if my predecessors had been immortal there would have been no resources for me to exist so I can't possibly complain can I). It's a matter of getting to the truth, not to find some comfort. And I think many people who were later converted to a religion lived in harsh realities where death was so commonplace they were used to it.
Back to topic. Are you sure you fear death? If some technological means are able to give some of us immortality (immortality for all would require infinite resources), do you think humans will select the best people and let them live forever or that they will behave as usual so that those with less scruples will get on top of all the others? You'd end up with a bunch of paranoid criminals for a long time. They would become paranoid because in infinite times even remotely possible risks become actual (autocombustion, for instance, or getting gamma rays from a stellar explosion). I'd rather do my show here for a while and get lost later, thank you.
cool but a camera equipped with autofocus and exposure and white balance surely can detect you're feeding it a fake, if it checks for it of course. Unless of course you completely reverse engineer the camera and simulate the effects of adjustments in the projected scam, which if the camera employed fuzzy logic is not doable.
Maybe a partial retouch over a genuine scene is feasible, but its usefulness is kinda limited.
> We spend billions on creating pain and suffering. Terrorists recruit those who have been affected by (directly or indirectly) that pain and suffering.
I'd add that the practice of jailing suspects, waterboarding them for a few years, and then release them, as opposed to spy on them until they become culprits instead of suspect and grind them with more specialized tools than torture, smells of terrorist factory.
Freedom of expression is important, but it can be a nice diversion when your Freedom of action is getting limited one day after another. The entire phenomenon known as globalization is more precisely creating a more interdependent world. Pollution is making you require infrastructure for things that used to be free like water, not to mention health and reproduction capacity. If you are into software you might recall the issue of patents. And so on.
The corageous people and media outlets that defend freedom are doing a great job for us, but I suspect they are often tools to balance powers so that political figures stays controllable by those wielding financial power.
I use dnsmasq myself often. I thought that people in organizations that fear government censorship are better with a hosts file on each computer than with a number of dns caches. The response can still be spoofed or the servers DoSed. Git can do signed commits and updates over ssh. Also one could exploit virtual hosting configuration and gave a server that returns normal content if accessed through its normal domain, and special content if accessed through an entry in the hosts file (good against casual surfers and bots, useless against a determined attack)
Slashdot Mirror
Timing of this study is really peculiar. And anyway protests threatening your rights is true but irrelevant. All that matters is if the achievement of the protest offsets the problem it creates. I do not believe much in protests or even leaks, I think they make a change only when there's someone organized behind it, and organized guys very rarely represent the silent majority. But the study is stupid. Since I am in the scope of godwin's law, it's like saying fighting hitler got people killed.
We don't get energy from the sun directly so we kill other stuff. :) ) to be human vs. plants so we don't bear responsibility for our needing to survive through others. Just try not to squander resources so that all the stuff that died and will die because of us didn't do it in vain. If you're Christian there's the sin of gluttony no? :D
Veg*ans split hairs on why killing vegetables is different than killing the rest. A life form is a life form. My position is we didn't choose (or recall we did, at least
Nonetheless veg*ans have good points on the effect of what we eat for our health.
Because natural stuff is coming from a system that evolved with humans since they populated the planet. Manufactured stuff isn't bad by default: but since artificial stuff is not tested for all the interactions with the substances that are already present in the environment to see long term effects, and it's produced in the name of profit (if you're less superficial in your view of society it's in the name of control), I'd go for natural stuff given the choice.
Of course natural stuff can be manufactured by the same people and with the same motivations as artificial stuff so the distinction is really between stuff made with love and stuff that screws people over but being natural is a factor not to overlook.
Skynet is frightening, almost worse than a human controlled central network which we are building anyway.
Easy one, it happened the first time a yahoo user was able to find a supermodels site.
Shirley you should wait for other potential NDAs to expire, before calling it an incident...
A hardware failure bringing down the site of a corporation who also is a cloud provider it's pretty bad PR, there should be no single point of failure in a proper cloudy system :)
> Enlighten me, which money in widespread use is not issued from a central bank?
Enlighten me, when did I say a Strict subset?
And the widespread use of central bank issued money just makes my objection stronger...
> Again, I am not talking about members of any religion. I am talking about priests, always have in this entire discussion.
Then I further object that Priests are not the equivalent of the bankers. They are the equivalent of the bankers plus the director of a branch, the guy at the counter and the janitor.
> Actually, I wanted folks to think about why .NET was also not a good idea.
Problem, slashfags?
Because it needed to market it as an alternative to the multiplatform java. If .NET became dominant you'd see the extend and extinguish phase.
> do you think the less rational religious types will concur?
it is a matter of being rational or not, then.
Religion aside, prejudices aside, having a child from 2 fathers is a technology achievement.If it becomes a widespread practice it's another step in the growing dependence on a system for things we were able to do on our own. Note that I have nothing against technology being used to assist reproduction. But I bet that misuse of this tech will happen just like it happened with all the other tech, and I fear that misuse will be the prevalent one.
> No it isn't. You equate "money" with "central bank" and that equation is false.
"money issued from central banks" is a subset of money. I never equated that to money in general, I just pointed out that being part of such a system doesn't make you evil.
> Back to the original point, I never claimed that good people can not be religious. But you can't be a good person and a priest of the catholic church.
For the sake of simplicity, let's talk about the scientology church instead. You think that, even not resorting to their peculiar techniques that to me seem brainwashing, none of its member is acting in good faith?
Of course they are responsible if their organization messes up even if they are acting in good faith. But questioning the good faith of them all is a too strong assertion. Finally see my point?
Tom: Real good people don't support evil systems.
me: Real good people don't use money issued from central banks, then.
Tom: any kind of remote interaction is not automatically a support action.
So I substituted "interacting" with "actively supporting" the system. Therefore
Me: no really good people work to acquire money.
It's simply a corollary of your thesis to make its flaw evident.
Then you say: In fact, people committing evil acts in the honest belief that they are doing something good are the worst kind.
But then you are discussing actions, and saying evil is who evil does is a good definition I don't argue with it.
> The usual stupid argument that any kind of remote interaction is automatically a support action.
Ok, then no really good people work to acquire money. This is not simple interaction as "getting money to live by" and still it is a wrong generalization.
As for bankers: ideally banks should provide the means for people to succeed, a banker who believes the ideals is not evil. Probably he's an "useful idiot".
So, maybe good priests are useful idiots too if the religion was a scam to begin with, they are not if the religion has been infiltrated by false prophets later.
> Real good people don't support evil systems.
Real good people don't use money issued from central banks, then. I think I'll find some in africa.
In other words, if you define "eternity" as "infinitely long time" instead of the more general "out of time constraints" you make an arbitrary assumption. Grow up.
I would decouple the fear of death from the belief in the supernatural. Philosophically I am interested in the supernatural even if I am perfectly fine with the idea of not existing after my biological death (if my predecessors had been immortal there would have been no resources for me to exist so I can't possibly complain can I). It's a matter of getting to the truth, not to find some comfort. And I think many people who were later converted to a religion lived in harsh realities where death was so commonplace they were used to it.
Back to topic. Are you sure you fear death? If some technological means are able to give some of us immortality (immortality for all would require infinite resources), do you think humans will select the best people and let them live forever or that they will behave as usual so that those with less scruples will get on top of all the others? You'd end up with a bunch of paranoid criminals for a long time. They would become paranoid because in infinite times even remotely possible risks become actual (autocombustion, for instance, or getting gamma rays from a stellar explosion).
I'd rather do my show here for a while and get lost later, thank you.
cool but a camera equipped with autofocus and exposure and white balance surely can detect you're feeding it a fake, if it checks for it of course. Unless of course you completely reverse engineer the camera and simulate the effects of adjustments in the projected scam, which if the camera employed fuzzy logic is not doable.
Maybe a partial retouch over a genuine scene is feasible, but its usefulness is kinda limited.
The most interesting behavior that i recall in those arcades was crush roller's. Only 2 "ghosts" but damn clever.
Too heavy doses of windows, I guess?
If they had to gain they would oppose the patent system. Instead they embraced it. They likely have done assessments.
too cheap, did no har.. hnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng
> We spend billions on creating pain and suffering. Terrorists recruit those who have been affected by (directly or indirectly) that pain and suffering.
I'd add that the practice of jailing suspects, waterboarding them for a few years, and then release them, as opposed to spy on them until they become culprits instead of suspect and grind them with more specialized tools than torture, smells of terrorist factory.
Freedom of expression is important, but it can be a nice diversion when your Freedom of action is getting limited one day after another.
The entire phenomenon known as globalization is more precisely creating a more interdependent world. Pollution is making you require infrastructure for things that used to be free like water, not to mention health and reproduction capacity. If you are into software you might recall the issue of patents. And so on.
The corageous people and media outlets that defend freedom are doing a great job for us, but I suspect they are often tools to balance powers so that political figures stays controllable by those wielding financial power.
I use dnsmasq myself often. I thought that people in organizations that fear government censorship are better with a hosts file on each computer than with a number of dns caches. The response can still be spoofed or the servers DoSed. Git can do signed commits and updates over ssh.
Also one could exploit virtual hosting configuration and gave a server that returns normal content if accessed through its normal domain, and special content if accessed through an entry in the hosts file (good against casual surfers and bots, useless against a determined attack)