Answer 3: Because there's widespread disagreement about (i) what constitutes a problem and (ii) what would constitute an answer to any paricular problem. People frequently pursue the answers to the problems they see, not to satisfy the desires of anyone else.
``That said, as an semi-experience Linux user, I still have no idea if I am really safe under Linux. Maybe that's because I have not put much effort into it."
I think the idea is that, although this is not the ideal set of circumstances, the kinds of default setups of various GNU/Linux distros makes you better off than an equivalent Windows user. That is, part of the equation here is the security philosophy and practices that each OS relies on out of the box makes a big difference in terms of the security for semi-experienced users.
Whether this translates into a definitive answer to the question ``Which is more secure, Windows or GNU/Linux (or *BSD or . ..)?" is a different question altogether.
Now, perhaps you don't think that the White House, Karl Rove, or any of the people who subsequently defended Rove's comments are conservative (I'm actually NOT sure that I would consider the current administration conservative in the traditional sense of the term), but this does seem to be a case where the stereotype is worn as a badge of honor. (In this case (Rove's comments and defense by Bush, DeLay, etc.) by people too cowardly to actually go fight a war themselves.
``Example question, since I know you're curious: You have triple redundant storage of certain critical data. Write a subroutine that takes three 32 bit integers and produces a result where each bit is "voted on" by the corresponding bit in the three inputs."
My ph.d. isn't in CS (I don't do any programming) but I think the answer is ``shoot the hostage."
Yeah, but given how bad this dupe is, we should be anticipating a triplicate post; would that be a sixth degree felony or a ninth?
People have suggested that the editors aren't "taking a passing interest in the site", but I think that we all need to be worried that there's some early onset dementia. Or they thought Memento was such a cool movie that they intentionally damaged their brains. . . .
I worry about slashdotting the site, but the secret I found was NOT searching for ringtones. (Strangely enough.) I searched for ``old fashioned telephone" (maybe with `ring') and found a website that specializes in free sounds for powerpoint presentations. The ring I got is high quality, and is the european style "ring-ring. . . ring-ring" tone with old fashioned bells.
The only problem with your list of axioms is that (6) is completely unrelated to (1)-(5), and it does ALL the heavy lifting.
And, actually, (6) is likely false; we frequently cause pain in other in a justified fashion without being provoked. For example, teachers give grades, doctors give shots to kids, pedestrians get hit when they walk in front of cyclists (without enough room for the cyclist to stop), etc. Now maybe your definition of `provoke' includes `giving consent' and `innocently erring'---but then your argument isn't nearly as simple as you want to let on.
Nothing like an anonymous coward deciding what we should and shouldn't want. . . . Too bad you didn't leave your email address so that we can all ask you for advice about how to run our lives.
FYI: In order to get a plain old ''phone ringing" ring tone on my phone, I had to download it and install it on my computer. At least the bluetooth wasn't crippled. (And MAN, it was hard finding an mp3 file of an old fashioned phone ringing that didn't totally suck.)
I find myself sympathetic with this sort of response (after all, much of ESR's libertarianism is knee-jerk on a good day), but I think that there are two reasons not to want him to shut up:
(1) He makes an important point, even if it doesn't lead to the ``we doan need no steenkin' GPL" conclusion. The popularity of the linux kernel has a lot to do with community structure and excellent timing (w/re: technological advances). I think it is a bit much to suggest, as ESR seems to, that the GPL was just the window-dressing to make everyone feel right about Linux; it actually represents a fundamental rethinking of some standard conceptions of property. That is, the GPL is the codification of a moral reformation of the notion of (intellectual) property. ESR's suggestion is an interesting one, and it dovetails with his libertarian views about social organization. (Note, I'm not endorsing either his conlcusions about the GPL or his libertarianism. I don't think that the technological/social stuff is sufficient without a proper license---at least currently.)
(2) It can be useful to have creative and smart people articulate views that are unpopular as a check on the tendency toward mental inertia. Given what I say above, there is some use to asking whether the technology and social organization are sufficient to support Free Software independent of the GPL; it, in some sense, asks us to consider what our ideals are in supporting Free Software (if there are any, and if we do).
Actually, the governors of the states where the ``minutemen" have staged their actions have come out explicitly against the actions. And, FWIW, so has the border patrol, which finds that these guys cause more harm than good.
So, I don't think that the ``US" is pro-minutemen, at least as far as official line of relevant goverment bodies are concerned.
Please step away from the keyboard and come out with your hands up. This is the department of homeland security, and we have the place surrounded. We have transportation ready to take you to the re-education camp at Guantanamo Bay.
Not all beliefs about the nature of the world are religious, and if you'd bother to read what I actually wrote, you'd see that there is a reason that atheism is not a *religion.*
If you want to say that the denial of religious truths is a religious truth, knock yourself out. That doesn't make it a religion.
I wish you'd read what I'd written more carefully, since I didn't say that there was proof that all religions are wrong---I said there is no reason to endorse them. Moreover, it doesn't say that we ought to choose atheism because of our faith---i.e. for no reason---but rather because of the preponderance of evidence. So, let me put this simply so that you won't quote me out of context again (feel free to read this slowly and out loud if you're having trouble following this):
Atheism is not a religion because it eschews supernatural explanations; it has no articles of faith, as all of its claims are open for challenge. The openness to challenge doesn't mean that EVERY challenge is a good one. The challenge that, for example, god created the world in six days six thousand years ago is a bad one.
The false presupposition in your comment---in addition to an almost willful misreading of what I've written---here is that all views are equally good, have equal evidence, are equally plausible, etc. Since the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a scientific explanations---one which denies that faith has any epistemic value---one ought to choose that over supernaturalistic explanations. Indeed, it is awfully difficult to see what role reason even plays in religious thought, given that faith is always a trump card.
Are you kidding me? Please tell me that this is a troll.
No? Okay, so here goes:
1. Atheism is not a religion because it has no religious doctrines---it is the denial, in fact, of any religious doctrine.
2. Atheism is not a religion because it has no institutions, no worship, no articles of faith, etc.
3. Finally, atheism is, as I understand it, the view that there are no good reasons for believing in a god, a goddess, many gods, or many goddesses. The arguments in favor of theism fail, and, given the success of the naturalistic worldview embodied in the sciences, it is only rational to deny the veracity of supernatural or theistic explanations. They need not be false so much as utterly irrelevant. (After all, my folks think that there's magic going on in their computer, and have a tough time grasping the whole computer programs just being 1s and 0s represented as electrical current. Their explanation is false, but it is utterly unnecessary, since we know that computers are electrical, and not magical, devices.)
That ain't religion, which has at its core reliance on faith (belief without grounds), revealed truth (i.e. magical texts), and supernatural explanations.
I don't know if you're just trollin', but here's some pertinent info:
1. The Powermac *is* the G5 tower. Go to the apple website (www.apple.com/powermac/) and you'll see a nice cut-away of the G5 tower.
2. You might be thinking of the Performa line, which hasn't been made since roughly the period you mention. I'd be willing to bet that they haven't made the Performa line since *at least* the release of the iMac in 1998.
Slashdot Mirror
Answer 3: Because there's widespread disagreement about (i) what constitutes a problem and (ii) what would constitute an answer to any paricular problem. People frequently pursue the answers to the problems they see, not to satisfy the desires of anyone else.
This calls for a new slogan:
.on YOUR computer.
Windows: Software Installation *SO* simple that anyone can install software . .
``That said, as an semi-experience Linux user, I still have no idea if I am really safe under Linux. Maybe that's because I have not put much effort into it."
.)?" is a different question altogether.
I think the idea is that, although this is not the ideal set of circumstances, the kinds of default setups of various GNU/Linux distros makes you better off than an equivalent Windows user. That is, part of the equation here is the security philosophy and practices that each OS relies on out of the box makes a big difference in terms of the security for semi-experienced users.
Whether this translates into a definitive answer to the question ``Which is more secure, Windows or GNU/Linux (or *BSD or . .
For those just tuning in, go see:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8324598/
Now, perhaps you don't think that the White House, Karl Rove, or any of the people who subsequently defended Rove's comments are conservative (I'm actually NOT sure that I would consider the current administration conservative in the traditional sense of the term), but this does seem to be a case where the stereotype is worn as a badge of honor. (In this case (Rove's comments and defense by Bush, DeLay, etc.) by people too cowardly to actually go fight a war themselves.
``Example question, since I know you're curious: You have triple redundant storage of certain critical data. Write a subroutine that takes three 32 bit integers and produces a result where each bit is "voted on" by the corresponding bit in the three inputs."
My ph.d. isn't in CS (I don't do any programming) but I think the answer is ``shoot the hostage."
Yeah, but given how bad this dupe is, we should be anticipating a triplicate post; would that be a sixth degree felony or a ninth?
People have suggested that the editors aren't "taking a passing interest in the site", but I think that we all need to be worried that there's some early onset dementia. Or they thought Memento was such a cool movie that they intentionally damaged their brains. . . .
Ah, someone who knows my pain!
u nd_clips.htm
I worry about slashdotting the site, but the secret I found was NOT searching for ringtones. (Strangely enough.) I searched for ``old fashioned telephone" (maybe with `ring') and found a website that specializes in free sounds for powerpoint presentations. The ring I got is high quality, and is the european style "ring-ring. . . ring-ring" tone with old fashioned bells.
The url is:
http://www.presentationhelper.co.uk/powerpoint_so
And don't be afraid to rock ``Kung Fu Fighting"; those cats are fast as lightning, after all.
The only problem with your list of axioms is that (6) is completely unrelated to (1)-(5), and it does ALL the heavy lifting.
And, actually, (6) is likely false; we frequently cause pain in other in a justified fashion without being provoked. For example, teachers give grades, doctors give shots to kids, pedestrians get hit when they walk in front of cyclists (without enough room for the cyclist to stop), etc. Now maybe your definition of `provoke' includes `giving consent' and `innocently erring'---but then your argument isn't nearly as simple as you want to let on.
Nothing like an anonymous coward deciding what we should and shouldn't want. . . . Too bad you didn't leave your email address so that we can all ask you for advice about how to run our lives.
FYI: In order to get a plain old ''phone ringing" ring tone on my phone, I had to download it and install it on my computer. At least the bluetooth wasn't crippled. (And MAN, it was hard finding an mp3 file of an old fashioned phone ringing that didn't totally suck.)
It looks like putting something on the web has become the new ``getting a tattoo in a very visible place".
I find myself sympathetic with this sort of response (after all, much of ESR's libertarianism is knee-jerk on a good day), but I think that there are two reasons not to want him to shut up:
(1) He makes an important point, even if it doesn't lead to the ``we doan need no steenkin' GPL" conclusion. The popularity of the linux kernel has a lot to do with community structure and excellent timing (w/re: technological advances). I think it is a bit much to suggest, as ESR seems to, that the GPL was just the window-dressing to make everyone feel right about Linux; it actually represents a fundamental rethinking of some standard conceptions of property. That is, the GPL is the codification of a moral reformation of the notion of (intellectual) property. ESR's suggestion is an interesting one, and it dovetails with his libertarian views about social organization. (Note, I'm not endorsing either his conlcusions about the GPL or his libertarianism. I don't think that the technological/social stuff is sufficient without a proper license---at least currently.)
(2) It can be useful to have creative and smart people articulate views that are unpopular as a check on the tendency toward mental inertia. Given what I say above, there is some use to asking whether the technology and social organization are sufficient to support Free Software independent of the GPL; it, in some sense, asks us to consider what our ideals are in supporting Free Software (if there are any, and if we do).
I read the details on your blog---sounds like quite the unhappy experience.
However, I found the contact info on their website in just a few seconds:
http://store.yahoo.com/cooldrives/info.html
The address, phone, fax, and URL are listed after the warranty info.
Have at 'em.
And you just KNOW that people posting ``I just want a phone" also post ``Apple's single-button mouse is teh 5ux0r5!"
(I keed, I keed. I just want a phone too. But I gotta admit: I kinda like my games and camera.)
Just to add a variation on ``me too" (sorry):
The Motorola V551/Bluetooth option works on GNU/Linux systems as well.
Yeah, because there's NO war going on, and certainly NO censorship of the facts on the ground in Iraq. . . .
You're right, there's absolutely no lesson to be learned from major events in the past.
But I guess this is just ``leftism".
Yeah, you could have saved a LOT of money on atty's fees by coming to /. first!
>What about IP-based URLs?
>(http://127.0.0.1/ is FULL of pornography!)
Dude, the site must be slashdotted! I keep clicking the link and all I get is ``connection refused". Anyone post a cache?
Actually, the governors of the states where the ``minutemen" have staged their actions have come out explicitly against the actions. And, FWIW, so has the border patrol, which finds that these guys cause more harm than good.
So, I don't think that the ``US" is pro-minutemen, at least as far as official line of relevant goverment bodies are concerned.
Dave,
Please step away from the keyboard and come out with your hands up. This is the department of homeland security, and we have the place surrounded. We have transportation ready to take you to the re-education camp at Guantanamo Bay.
Sincerely,
General Anonymous
Head of Re-education
US DOHS
Not to mention that he'll need the render farm for converting all 6 of the Star Wars films to 3-D.
5 220706,00.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004580002-200
> Am I the only one that liked the first two?
No, actuallly you didn't like them either. You're thinking of some other films.
Not all beliefs about the nature of the world are religious, and if you'd bother to read what I actually wrote, you'd see that there is a reason that atheism is not a *religion.*
If you want to say that the denial of religious truths is a religious truth, knock yourself out. That doesn't make it a religion.
Thanks for playing.
I wish you'd read what I'd written more carefully, since I didn't say that there was proof that all religions are wrong---I said there is no reason to endorse them. Moreover, it doesn't say that we ought to choose atheism because of our faith---i.e. for no reason---but rather because of the preponderance of evidence. So, let me put this simply so that you won't quote me out of context again (feel free to read this slowly and out loud if you're having trouble following this):
Atheism is not a religion because it eschews supernatural explanations; it has no articles of faith, as all of its claims are open for challenge. The openness to challenge doesn't mean that EVERY challenge is a good one. The challenge that, for example, god created the world in six days six thousand years ago is a bad one.
The false presupposition in your comment---in addition to an almost willful misreading of what I've written---here is that all views are equally good, have equal evidence, are equally plausible, etc. Since the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a scientific explanations---one which denies that faith has any epistemic value---one ought to choose that over supernaturalistic explanations. Indeed, it is awfully difficult to see what role reason even plays in religious thought, given that faith is always a trump card.
Are you kidding me? Please tell me that this is a troll.
No? Okay, so here goes:
1. Atheism is not a religion because it has no religious doctrines---it is the denial, in fact, of any religious doctrine.
2. Atheism is not a religion because it has no institutions, no worship, no articles of faith, etc.
3. Finally, atheism is, as I understand it, the view that there are no good reasons for believing in a god, a goddess, many gods, or many goddesses. The arguments in favor of theism fail, and, given the success of the naturalistic worldview embodied in the sciences, it is only rational to deny the veracity of supernatural or theistic explanations. They need not be false so much as utterly irrelevant. (After all, my folks think that there's magic going on in their computer, and have a tough time grasping the whole computer programs just being 1s and 0s represented as electrical current. Their explanation is false, but it is utterly unnecessary, since we know that computers are electrical, and not magical, devices.)
That ain't religion, which has at its core reliance on faith (belief without grounds), revealed truth (i.e. magical texts), and supernatural explanations.
I don't know if you're just trollin', but here's some pertinent info:
1. The Powermac *is* the G5 tower. Go to the apple website (www.apple.com/powermac/) and you'll see a nice cut-away of the G5 tower.
2. You might be thinking of the Performa line, which hasn't been made since roughly the period you mention. I'd be willing to bet that they haven't made the Performa line since *at least* the release of the iMac in 1998.