Creationism is not a scientific topic. It's nothing more than a big "nu-uh" to the evidence which overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.
On the other hand, analyzing that statement (you know, testable hypotheses and all that) is very scientific. Is creationism really ignorant of the evidence? Can it fit the evidence? Is there anything that creationism explains better than evolution (or at least that evolution is unable to explain but creationism can just pull a deus ex biblia)?
Does all the evidence overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution? Or, like the non-crazy creationists say, does the evidence only support microevolution - just adaptation, not the origin of species? What about the beginning of life? Does Genesis explain things better than abiogenesis?
(example: We blocked google images because there wasn't an easy way to prevent them from switching off the safe-search mode)
Just add "&safe=vss" to the end of all queries sent to *.google.com. If you have a proxy, there's probably an easy way to do this. Our school district implements this, probably through their Lightspeed Systems' filter.
Also unlike a company where as a rule sane adults realize they can get fired for surfing pornography, I have a few thousand middle and high school kids whose hormones are going nuts and often don't consider or care about the consequences.
Ask your school district if they'd consider implementing a username and password for each student, so they can put violations into the regular disciplinary system for "abuse of resources" or whatever else is in the student rules.
He smiled and answered, "They can monitor everything." Heh.
Key word can. At our school district, although they have VNC on all the machines and they can monitor the Internet traffic, I know that they don't in general. They switched the content filter from a default-allow system to a default-deny system last week because people were finding new proxies faster than the filter software caught them. If they simply watched a random sample of computers - or monitored computers with suspiciously high HTTP traffic to one site only - they could block the proxies manually and get the students in trouble (since the computers are named after the classroom number).
And I use PuTTY all the time - mostly for shell access to my college account (I'm taking a half schedule in college), but occasionally for proxying - and they haven't even blocked the PuTTY home page.
(By the way, I hope I'm not in the same school district as you.)
WTF (that's "What the fuck") is with the warning that the link contains profanity? There's enough profanity on Slashdot that I would think it doesn't need to be stated that you might see some naughty words. I think we're all plenty prepared, seriously, thanks.
Hehe, sorry. Somehow in my mind 1919 became the starting year for WWI (akin to WWII's 1939), not the ending year - meaning that WWI was 1920s. Oops. Versailles was in 1919...should've known that....
So the Malaysian government is inherently immoral? What about the Vatican government? Isn't morality best implemented through an organized relgion?
I really don't care to argue that, but the point here is that your morality differs from mine. To me, a united church and state is unrelated to morality, and at best, moral. To you, the separation of church and state is a moral imperative. So which of us controls the IOC? If I do, how do you say I am wrong, or vice versa?
The best policy is to separate the IOC and morality because it's too hard to arrange a unified definition of morality. Religions have been trying this for thousands of years and have not ceased their wars - do you think the IOC can magically step in and solve the problem?
"Terrorism!" "Security reasons!" "Other buzzword that makes it sound like you aren't a true red-blooded American if you don't comply!"
"Terrorism!" is the modern buzzword, but....
"Pinkoes!" - 1950s
"A Jap's a Jap!" - 1940s
"Over there!" - 1920s
"Rebels!" - 1860s
"Laissez-faire!" - mid-1800s
"Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite!" - 1790s
"For the Holy Land!" - 1200s
"Chivalry!" - 1000s
"Carthago delenda est!" - 100s BC
"The Mandate of Heaven!" - 900s BC
It isn't just the current administration of the United States. We've been abusing buzzwords to justify often-questionable actions, almost since the dawn of mankind.
The Olympics contracts with its host nations. If the host nation wants the Olympics, it has to follow the Olympics' rules. If they don't, they won't get the Olympics.
Part of the criteria for locating the Olympics, and inviting athletes, should include the kind of morality I was talking about.
I understand that. But there are no checks and balances to ensure that the morality they implement is the morality you were talking about. What prevents them from saying that any host nation that wants the Olympics, must, e.g., not have a state establishment of Islam?
That's one of those borderline morality issues. If you put in morality, then you'd probably refuse the Olympics from Palestine while Hamas is in power, but should you also refuse the Olympics from Malaysia?
If you say that you wont host an Olympics in a state that commits acts of war against other sovereign states, then whoops, there goes the Denver Olympics. How does the IOC know that the US is "right" and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan is "wrong"? Or what about Iraq? They weren't guilty of much of the original reasons that the US went to war, but Uday was the chair of the Olympics committee, and he tortured underperforming athletes. Where do you draw the line? And more importantly, who draws the line? Qui custodiet ipsos custodies?
The Olympics should have a sense of law unto itself.
And who determines this? Since this is a private company, what you're essentially suggesting is that the Olympics implement its own dictatorship over whatever area hosts the Olympics. What will prevent their "sense of law" from encouraging spammers but banning blacks? Public backlash? It hasn't seemed to do much against the corrupt advertising bargains.
Given that they drug test for recreational narcotics, they are most definitely pushing their morality upon others.
So marijuana is just a recreational drug and has no medicinal or healing value, right? 'Cause if it did, then it ought to be banned by the Olympics, but you say it shouldn't....
If Jesse Owens was allowed to compete in the Berlin Olympics near the height of Nazi power, then I don't think any Olympic committee has authority to enforce a morality unrelated to sporting itself. An Olympic spammer in an online nation is no guiltier than a black Olympian in a racist nation.
(Please don't misinterpret this as saying that Jesse Owens was somehow wrong.)
Slashdot is a news digest and discussion forum which the editors prefer to run like it's a cute little personal blog, rather than one of the most popular news sites on the Internet.
Maybe that's why it's one of the most popular news sites on the Internet. You've got a human element making sure that the balance of stories appeals to us.
Doing good things does not give you the right to do bad things without being criticised for it.
How is protecting their trademark a bad thing? If you see a Red Cross on the side of a vehicle or building, ideall you should know that you can run in there and get some medical care or other assistance and be protected, even if you're Osama bin Laden and the Red Cross truck is in Washington, DC.
The more that people use generic red crosses just to symbolize emergencies or ambulances in general, the less that people will trust a real Red Cross outfit. The abuse of the Red Cross symbol - rightly the property of the organization - impedes its humanitarian goals.
Don't tell me you can't use Linux for DRM software if you can use Linux in a child porn video lab.
This is not a straw man. GNU has in the past rejected all moral embargos on the use of free software. See their condemnation of the Hacktivismo license, which prevents the software being used by authoritarian governments and spyware makers:
Because it restricts what jobs people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways what jobs modified versions of the program can do, it is not a free software license.
If we were ever going to make an exception to our principles of free software, here would be the place to do it.
As for restricting the use of the software by governments that violate human rights, this is likely to be ineffective. There are many other programs they can use. Also, at least under US law, a copyright-based source license can't restrict use of the program; such a restriction is not enforcible anyway. Meanwhile, they can simply decide they are exempt from the restrictions.
So why is DRM a greater crime than the rest of these? Is not DRM a "use of the program"? Won't companies that make DRM be unwilling to use open-source modules anyway - or at least not re-release the source?
I really think that here is an example of the GNU's political fight (DRM and software patents are evil) outweighing their moral fight (restrictions on software are evil).
Why can't they just log in and connect to the HTTPS Wikipedia server? Don't logged-in users get past most IP blocks, and HTTPS connections get past most Internet filters?
(Yes, the HTTPS server hexists, and if you look you can find the link, but I'm not going to post the link here, because it points to a single server out of the rotation - only people with a need should connect to it.)
Slashdot Mirror
Creationism is not a scientific topic. It's nothing more than a big "nu-uh" to the evidence which overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.
On the other hand, analyzing that statement (you know, testable hypotheses and all that) is very scientific. Is creationism really ignorant of the evidence? Can it fit the evidence? Is there anything that creationism explains better than evolution (or at least that evolution is unable to explain but creationism can just pull a deus ex biblia)?
Does all the evidence overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution? Or, like the non-crazy creationists say, does the evidence only support microevolution - just adaptation, not the origin of species? What about the beginning of life? Does Genesis explain things better than abiogenesis?
(example: We blocked google images because there wasn't an easy way to prevent them from switching off the safe-search mode)
Just add "&safe=vss" to the end of all queries sent to *.google.com. If you have a proxy, there's probably an easy way to do this. Our school district implements this, probably through their Lightspeed Systems' filter.
Also unlike a company where as a rule sane adults realize they can get fired for surfing pornography, I have a few thousand middle and high school kids whose hormones are going nuts and often don't consider or care about the consequences.
Ask your school district if they'd consider implementing a username and password for each student, so they can put violations into the regular disciplinary system for "abuse of resources" or whatever else is in the student rules.
He smiled and answered, "They can monitor everything." Heh.
Key word can. At our school district, although they have VNC on all the machines and they can monitor the Internet traffic, I know that they don't in general. They switched the content filter from a default-allow system to a default-deny system last week because people were finding new proxies faster than the filter software caught them. If they simply watched a random sample of computers - or monitored computers with suspiciously high HTTP traffic to one site only - they could block the proxies manually and get the students in trouble (since the computers are named after the classroom number).
And I use PuTTY all the time - mostly for shell access to my college account (I'm taking a half schedule in college), but occasionally for proxying - and they haven't even blocked the PuTTY home page.
(By the way, I hope I'm not in the same school district as you.)
You're still avoiding the question. How do you tell whether what they figured is "what's right" or not? Who replaces them?
So finally we have proof that the 9-year-old Slashdotter is not just a stereotype.
You haven't answered the real question. It doesn't matter exactly what you say or what I say. Who gets to tell the IOC who's right?
Bad axe in apple tree
I tried to write a
Haiku but I came out one
Syllable short
WTF (that's "What the fuck") is with the warning that the link contains profanity? There's enough profanity on Slashdot that I would think it doesn't need to be stated that you might see some naughty words. I think we're all plenty prepared, seriously, thanks.
I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Are you listening?
Humor.
"Over there!" - 1920s (sic)
Hehe, sorry. Somehow in my mind 1919 became the starting year for WWI (akin to WWII's 1939), not the ending year - meaning that WWI was 1920s. Oops. Versailles was in 1919...should've known that....
So the Malaysian government is inherently immoral? What about the Vatican government? Isn't morality best implemented through an organized relgion?
I really don't care to argue that, but the point here is that your morality differs from mine. To me, a united church and state is unrelated to morality, and at best, moral. To you, the separation of church and state is a moral imperative. So which of us controls the IOC? If I do, how do you say I am wrong, or vice versa?
The best policy is to separate the IOC and morality because it's too hard to arrange a unified definition of morality. Religions have been trying this for thousands of years and have not ceased their wars - do you think the IOC can magically step in and solve the problem?
"Terrorism!" "Security reasons!" "Other buzzword that makes it sound like you aren't a true red-blooded American if you don't comply!"
"Terrorism!" is the modern buzzword, but....
"Pinkoes!" - 1950s
"A Jap's a Jap!" - 1940s
"Over there!" - 1920s
"Rebels!" - 1860s
"Laissez-faire!" - mid-1800s
"Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite!" - 1790s
"For the Holy Land!" - 1200s
"Chivalry!" - 1000s
"Carthago delenda est!" - 100s BC
"The Mandate of Heaven!" - 900s BC
It isn't just the current administration of the United States. We've been abusing buzzwords to justify often-questionable actions, almost since the dawn of mankind.
109% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
At least 9% of respondents picked two or more reasons.
100% of respondents were picked because they don't have broadband. The article's phrase "45% of Americans" is misleading.
The Olympics contracts with its host nations. If the host nation wants the Olympics, it has to follow the Olympics' rules. If they don't, they won't get the Olympics.
Part of the criteria for locating the Olympics, and inviting athletes, should include the kind of morality I was talking about.
I understand that. But there are no checks and balances to ensure that the morality they implement is the morality you were talking about. What prevents them from saying that any host nation that wants the Olympics, must, e.g., not have a state establishment of Islam?
That's one of those borderline morality issues. If you put in morality, then you'd probably refuse the Olympics from Palestine while Hamas is in power, but should you also refuse the Olympics from Malaysia?
If you say that you wont host an Olympics in a state that commits acts of war against other sovereign states, then whoops, there goes the Denver Olympics. How does the IOC know that the US is "right" and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan is "wrong"? Or what about Iraq? They weren't guilty of much of the original reasons that the US went to war, but Uday was the chair of the Olympics committee, and he tortured underperforming athletes. Where do you draw the line? And more importantly, who draws the line? Qui custodiet ipsos custodies?
The Olympics should have a sense of law unto itself.
And who determines this? Since this is a private company, what you're essentially suggesting is that the Olympics implement its own dictatorship over whatever area hosts the Olympics. What will prevent their "sense of law" from encouraging spammers but banning blacks? Public backlash? It hasn't seemed to do much against the corrupt advertising bargains.
Given that they drug test for recreational narcotics, they are most definitely pushing their morality upon others.
So marijuana is just a recreational drug and has no medicinal or healing value, right? 'Cause if it did, then it ought to be banned by the Olympics, but you say it shouldn't....
What's the story now?
Leaving aside your over-the-top comparison of spammers to nazis
Foul. False invocation of Godwin's Law. I compared spammers to blacks. To the targets of Nazis.
I found them all to be contemptible
Ten-yard penalty for a group ad hominem.
If Jesse Owens was allowed to compete in the Berlin Olympics near the height of Nazi power, then I don't think any Olympic committee has authority to enforce a morality unrelated to sporting itself. An Olympic spammer in an online nation is no guiltier than a black Olympian in a racist nation.
(Please don't misinterpret this as saying that Jesse Owens was somehow wrong.)
Slashdot is a news digest and discussion forum which the editors prefer to run like it's a cute little personal blog, rather than one of the most popular news sites on the Internet.
Maybe that's why it's one of the most popular news sites on the Internet. You've got a human element making sure that the balance of stories appeals to us.
landsharks^M^M^M^M lawyers
What's a landshark
lawyer?
what does this have to do with online?
what does this have to do with rights?
what does this have to do with me?
It's a regular business dealing that's only interesting for involving really old IP.
Doing good things does not give you the right to do bad things without being criticised for it.
How is protecting their trademark a bad thing? If you see a Red Cross on the side of a vehicle or building, ideall you should know that you can run in there and get some medical care or other assistance and be protected, even if you're Osama bin Laden and the Red Cross truck is in Washington, DC.
The more that people use generic red crosses just to symbolize emergencies or ambulances in general, the less that people will trust a real Red Cross outfit. The abuse of the Red Cross symbol - rightly the property of the organization - impedes its humanitarian goals.
Don't tell me you can't use Linux for DRM software if you can use Linux in a child porn video lab.
This is not a straw man. GNU has in the past rejected all moral embargos on the use of free software. See their condemnation of the Hacktivismo license, which prevents the software being used by authoritarian governments and spyware makers:
Because it restricts what jobs people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways what jobs modified versions of the program can do, it is not a free software license.
If we were ever going to make an exception to our principles of free software, here would be the place to do it.
As for restricting the use of the software by governments that violate human rights, this is likely to be ineffective. There are many other programs they can use. Also, at least under US law, a copyright-based source license can't restrict use of the program; such a restriction is not enforcible anyway. Meanwhile, they can simply decide they are exempt from the restrictions.
So why is DRM a greater crime than the rest of these? Is not DRM a "use of the program"? Won't companies that make DRM be unwilling to use open-source modules anyway - or at least not re-release the source?
I really think that here is an example of the GNU's political fight (DRM and software patents are evil) outweighing their moral fight (restrictions on software are evil).
Why can't they just log in and connect to the HTTPS Wikipedia server? Don't logged-in users get past most IP blocks, and HTTPS connections get past most Internet filters?
(Yes, the HTTPS server hexists, and if you look you can find the link, but I'm not going to post the link here, because it points to a single server out of the rotation - only people with a need should connect to it.)
British punctuation punctuation Nazi says, 'Grammar'.
I'm wondering if BMW is actually at fault here, or if they were using a Search Engine Optimization company
What's the difference?