"someone who buys the privilege of gorging at a cannibalistic feast."
Actually, that's two different people entirely, investors have always employed raiders to ge on and salvage what's left of a failed company. Nothing's really changed except media perception.
Oh good. Shit, I thought someone might actually QUESTION modern Science!
No, they're questioning intelligent design, which has many more fundamental flaws in it than "lightning striking rocks". In my opinion if you can accept an entity that no one has ever seen or heard except by third party reports is behind EVERYTHING that happens in the universe AND still has time to stay hidden, 'lightning hitting rocks is just as acceptable.
Intelligent design answers more the 'why' than the 'how' that Evolution does. It's entirely possible to believe both at the same time, in fact.
No, ID answers nothing, At best It dresses up an opinion to make it look like a reasonable emperical observation. Yes, you can believe in both, but ID adds unusable baggage to the questions it attempts to address. There is a reason philospophy and hard science are usually separate. ID is attempt to not only bridge the science/philo gap, which has been done much more elagantly by others (see Alan Watts & Carl Sagan), but impose a completely un-empirical & subjective notion into the science side. Its a group of people playing dress up (as scientists) and going "see, we can do science too". But if you're going to attempt to answer some hard questions abot the universe you don't do it by burning some insense and appealing to some sky ghost to help you feel batter about your place in the universe.
...calling people who do 'stupid' or saying they 'reject the scientific method'
Ok, but if they continue to use useless or unsound scientific methods to put forward fanciful notions about theory that many serious researchers are spending a considerable amount of their lives trying to unravel don't expect those nutbags to command a lot of respect.
Firing him for believing in ridiculous fairy tales is not good, but there's simply no way to keep the guy's colleagues from not taking him seriously, which would be the same as firing him. If so we might as well entertain the idea of retaining people who aren't cut out for the job by law, I hopoe we don't go Britain's route and start legislating in some of their more rediculous libel laws.
I've never heard of it either. That so I of course don't know how badly or well the app is written. The developer says it came down to the bottom line, the android version was a money loser.I'm not going to argue with him. But plenty of other developers seem to be ok with android, so I dunno. Weather or not the not the code was good, I think there is a point to be made the android's hard abstraction layer might need some work. Or perhaps the 3rd party hardware companies are not following their guidlines closely enough.
The law in my state is very clear on home intrusion. Yes, I would consider a prosecutor's mucking with the clear evidence of that a problem, with an expectation of complication, as that law is written. If I am allowed to defend myself in my own home expect to excersise that right without years of hassle from prosecutors making spend my life savings defending my self from bogus accusations. People accuse people of crimes, that's the nature of crime and punishement in english common law. The accused is accused by a third party, there's a clear chain of culpability. How clear is it when a man points to a problem, and says "Here is". Just as clear as far as can see. But NOT to the court. Why? Automatic processes out of the control of ordinary people, or even those in charge. Its the nature of government. Now; look at a father's SHOWING that there is a clear violation of statuate that he didn't create, but their removal of his custodial rights to HIS child pursuiant to some PERCIEVED illegalty based on that erroneous presumption and a clear PROBLEM with the system.
Ot are you going to argue some angle that makes taking the man's daughter away by the state reasonable? I see that if I kill a home intruder is going to cause some paperwork. The problem is the unforseen consequences the state machine doesn't have code for. I have a problem with that. I'm happy to notice that you can rest easy at night knowing that big brother is looking after you, however.
I agree,. There's nothing to be gained from alerting any athorities about anything, ever. I don't see anyway of not doing this if you kill a home intruder, just be prepared for a lengthy intrusion in your life, even if you are found not guilty of murder, which a prosecutor is sure to do regardless of the circumstances. Oh- woe to you if you have a past criminal record then find yourself in completely innocent circumstances.
Loved the Amber Chronicles. Also a great read, and Amber reminds me of them for some reason, the three volume Historical Illuminatus Chronicles by Robert Anton Wilson.
By Larry Niven Jerry Pournelle, more of a fantasy story, but so good. And The Killing Star, by Charles Pellegrino and George Zebrowski. After aliens destroy the Earth with relativistic bombs they explain to the last human that because all civilizations are potentially dangerous, and there's really nothing to lose by exterminating them before they get too strong, it was the logical choice. Excellent read.
Are you inadvertently blending the Internet with the World Wide Web?
Having just explained the difference between the two in another post which you obviously haven't seen, and having been aware of the "internet" since '79 do you really think I'm doing that?
This is my objection. You're confusing "internet" with "bbs". The two are NOT interchangable. "internet" != "bbs". Two different things intirely. Connecting to the internet uses an ip stack, connecting to a bbs uses a much simpler, serial protocol. Its not even a stack, its a serial handshake between two computers. No addressing, no other nodes (except in special lan setups), no protocols other than serial transfer ones. No ftp, not https, no dns. Don't confuse the internet with anything having to do with connecting to a bbs.
Yeah, Morris worm. Whatever. Haven't given it much thought until now, and that was 25 years ago. Excuse my crufty memory. So how many nodes (websites) were there, roughly, in 1991? Was it as rich a panoply of nonsense like today? I don't see how it could have been.
But did they know about it? I don't recall the term "internet" being in the media until the early or mid-90's, and in the 80's it most certainly was not the "internet". Also- don't forget that the domain name system wasn't in place until 91 or so, this was when the first browser, Mosiac, was created. If you were dialing into the "internet" you were connecting via telnet, or possibly gopher (remember gopher?), and addressing nodes (computers) via ip address. As for being publiclly available, sure. Infact a local Ralstan Purina distributor maintained a dial-up pop that I frequented, a friend in the company gat me the passwords and numbers. But again, who outside of academia or that business knew anything about it? I can tell you, in Northern California in the 80's, I'm wasn't aware of any publically available dial-up POP nodes, not in the 80's. There may have been some, but as an ARPAnet aware student I didn't know about them.
Dial-up internet? 20 years ago? 1992? Are you talking about bbs'? That wasn't the internet. That was you connecting to a bbs. Two computers. Or Compuserv, AOL? Memeory sketchy, but I don't think the internet was what it is until several years later. Unless you were a student at a participating campus/institution, I doubt anyone knew about the "internet". I know, I was there (CSU Chico, CA, '86 alum, we had telerays and heathkit h-19 connected to the CSU system in Butte Hall. Special permission needed to access ARPANet). Might not have even been publicly accessble then. The internet wasn't really known to the public at large until '95 or so. Btw; the first true "virus" scare (which was real, btw) was the Tappen worm, that was about '88. And it only scared users in acedemia, since the "internet" (ARPAnet, at the time) was only available to universities, the military, selected think tanks, etc.
We spent thousands of years with no privacy whatsoever.
INCORRECT. We've spent thousands of years in relative obscurity, one had to make a monumental effort to be noticed; fame has always gone hand-in-hand with wealth, as one of those rare, difficult acheivables. Well, the price of fame has plummeted like a rock. We've never needed to be really concerned with privacy, getting information up to now has been realtively expensive, so privacy was easy. We now live in a different age, and privacy is the commodity. Your looking at the situation with an inverse lens. If you don't value your privacy you're a fool. Just becuase something can be had on the cheap doesn't mean its not valuable. Just ask google, making scratch on your information must be lucrative.
Slashdot Mirror
"someone who buys the privilege of gorging at a cannibalistic feast."
Actually, that's two different people entirely, investors have always employed raiders to ge on and salvage what's left of a failed company. Nothing's really changed except media perception.
Oh good. Shit, I thought someone might actually QUESTION modern Science!
No, they're questioning intelligent design, which has many more fundamental flaws in it than "lightning striking rocks". In my opinion if you can accept an entity that no one has ever seen or heard except by third party reports is behind EVERYTHING that happens in the universe AND still has time to stay hidden, 'lightning hitting rocks is just as acceptable.
Intelligent design answers more the 'why' than the 'how' that Evolution does. It's entirely possible to believe both at the same time, in fact.
No, ID answers nothing, At best It dresses up an opinion to make it look like a reasonable emperical observation. Yes, you can believe in both, but ID adds unusable baggage to the questions it attempts to address. There is a reason philospophy and hard science are usually separate. ID is attempt to not only bridge the science/philo gap, which has been done much more elagantly by others (see Alan Watts & Carl Sagan), but impose a completely un-empirical & subjective notion into the science side. Its a group of people playing dress up (as scientists) and going "see, we can do science too". But if you're going to attempt to answer some hard questions abot the universe you don't do it by burning some insense and appealing to some sky ghost to help you feel batter about your place in the universe.
...calling people who do 'stupid' or saying they 'reject the scientific method'
Ok, but if they continue to use useless or unsound scientific methods to put forward fanciful notions about theory that many serious researchers are spending a considerable amount of their lives trying to unravel don't expect those nutbags to command a lot of respect.
Firing him for believing in ridiculous fairy tales is not good, but there's simply no way to keep the guy's colleagues from not taking him seriously, which would be the same as firing him. If so we might as well entertain the idea of retaining people who aren't cut out for the job by law, I hopoe we don't go Britain's route and start legislating in some of their more rediculous libel laws.
Moebius helped make Heavy Metal, his stuff was so great. I used to wish I could draw like that guy while reading the mag in the early 80's.
I've never heard of it either. That so I of course don't know how badly or well the app is written. The developer says it came down to the bottom line, the android version was a money loser.I'm not going to argue with him. But plenty of other developers seem to be ok with android, so I dunno. Weather or not the not the code was good, I think there is a point to be made the android's hard abstraction layer might need some work. Or perhaps the 3rd party hardware companies are not following their guidlines closely enough.
The walls of your house create an expectation of privacy, and that privacy is protected by the constitution.
Yeah, the thought police will respect that.
The law in my state is very clear on home intrusion. Yes, I would consider a prosecutor's mucking with the clear evidence of that a problem, with an expectation of complication, as that law is written. If I am allowed to defend myself in my own home expect to excersise that right without years of hassle from prosecutors making spend my life savings defending my self from bogus accusations. People accuse people of crimes, that's the nature of crime and punishement in english common law. The accused is accused by a third party, there's a clear chain of culpability. How clear is it when a man points to a problem, and says "Here is". Just as clear as far as can see. But NOT to the court. Why? Automatic processes out of the control of ordinary people, or even those in charge. Its the nature of government. Now; look at a father's SHOWING that there is a clear violation of statuate that he didn't create, but their removal of his custodial rights to HIS child pursuiant to some PERCIEVED illegalty based on that erroneous presumption and a clear PROBLEM with the system. Ot are you going to argue some angle that makes taking the man's daughter away by the state reasonable? I see that if I kill a home intruder is going to cause some paperwork. The problem is the unforseen consequences the state machine doesn't have code for. I have a problem with that. I'm happy to notice that you can rest easy at night knowing that big brother is looking after you, however.
I agree,. There's nothing to be gained from alerting any athorities about anything, ever. I don't see anyway of not doing this if you kill a home intruder, just be prepared for a lengthy intrusion in your life, even if you are found not guilty of murder, which a prosecutor is sure to do regardless of the circumstances. Oh- woe to you if you have a past criminal record then find yourself in completely innocent circumstances.
Loved the Amber Chronicles. Also a great read, and Amber reminds me of them for some reason, the three volume Historical Illuminatus Chronicles by Robert Anton Wilson.
By Larry Niven Jerry Pournelle, more of a fantasy story, but so good. And The Killing Star, by Charles Pellegrino and George Zebrowski. After aliens destroy the Earth with relativistic bombs they explain to the last human that because all civilizations are potentially dangerous, and there's really nothing to lose by exterminating them before they get too strong, it was the logical choice. Excellent read.
1 in 625 chance it takes out Congress. And Ellen DeGeneres. And Larry Ellison. So worth it.
The world is divided in two categories: those with a loaded gun and those who dig. You dig.
The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly?
...like a talker.
Oh yeah, usenet. I was a big user until the www took off.
Get off of my lawn.
Are you inadvertently blending the Internet with the World Wide Web?
Having just explained the difference between the two in another post which you obviously haven't seen, and having been aware of the "internet" since '79 do you really think I'm doing that?
Internet use had spread well beyond BBS.
This is my objection. You're confusing "internet" with "bbs". The two are NOT interchangable. "internet" != "bbs". Two different things intirely. Connecting to the internet uses an ip stack, connecting to a bbs uses a much simpler, serial protocol. Its not even a stack, its a serial handshake between two computers. No addressing, no other nodes (except in special lan setups), no protocols other than serial transfer ones. No ftp, not https, no dns. Don't confuse the internet with anything having to do with connecting to a bbs.
Yeah, Morris worm. Whatever. Haven't given it much thought until now, and that was 25 years ago. Excuse my crufty memory. So how many nodes (websites) were there, roughly, in 1991? Was it as rich a panoply of nonsense like today? I don't see how it could have been.
RIGHT on point. As for the jammer, put me down for one. If you're using a 3G connection on your tablet, don't sit near a talker. Just sayin'.
But did they know about it? I don't recall the term "internet" being in the media until the early or mid-90's, and in the 80's it most certainly was not the "internet". Also- don't forget that the domain name system wasn't in place until 91 or so, this was when the first browser, Mosiac, was created. If you were dialing into the "internet" you were connecting via telnet, or possibly gopher (remember gopher?), and addressing nodes (computers) via ip address. As for being publiclly available, sure. Infact a local Ralstan Purina distributor maintained a dial-up pop that I frequented, a friend in the company gat me the passwords and numbers. But again, who outside of academia or that business knew anything about it? I can tell you, in Northern California in the 80's, I'm wasn't aware of any publically available dial-up POP nodes, not in the 80's. There may have been some, but as an ARPAnet aware student I didn't know about them.
dial up internet
Dial-up internet? 20 years ago? 1992? Are you talking about bbs'? That wasn't the internet. That was you connecting to a bbs. Two computers. Or Compuserv, AOL? Memeory sketchy, but I don't think the internet was what it is until several years later. Unless you were a student at a participating campus/institution, I doubt anyone knew about the "internet". I know, I was there (CSU Chico, CA, '86 alum, we had telerays and heathkit h-19 connected to the CSU system in Butte Hall. Special permission needed to access ARPANet). Might not have even been publicly accessble then. The internet wasn't really known to the public at large until '95 or so.
Btw; the first true "virus" scare (which was real, btw) was the Tappen worm, that was about '88. And it only scared users in acedemia, since the "internet" (ARPAnet, at the time) was only available to universities, the military, selected think tanks, etc.
even their search engine is based on the older search engines
You wanna qualify that statement?
We spent thousands of years with no privacy whatsoever.
INCORRECT. We've spent thousands of years in relative obscurity, one had to make a monumental effort to be noticed; fame has always gone hand-in-hand with wealth, as one of those rare, difficult acheivables. Well, the price of fame has plummeted like a rock.
We've never needed to be really concerned with privacy, getting information up to now has been realtively expensive, so privacy was easy. We now live in a different age, and privacy is the commodity. Your looking at the situation with an inverse lens.
If you don't value your privacy you're a fool. Just becuase something can be had on the cheap doesn't mean its not valuable. Just ask google, making scratch on your information must be lucrative.
"He's heading for that small moon..." ...in th sky. Go easy, 'bro. Loved your work.