In terms of threats/exhortions the US has repeatedly threatened to bomb and attack countries unless their demands are met. This is a standard tactic of any military organization / State with sufficient muscle and is no different in principle from terrorist demands.
The US military attempts as much as possible to avoid civilian casualties. They are not perfect, but that is their goal. Terrorists attempt to maxamize civilian casualties to inflict fear on a population. Whatever you think about the US in general, or our recent actions in specific, there IS a clear moral distinction between the US military and terrorists.
What a lame presentation. You forgot to add sound effects. Every time something enters, there should be a wooooshhhhhh, and all the text should use the typewriter clacking noise. Then you have a real presentation.
I second this. Would a slashdot editor please explain Roland's affiliation with slashdot? Is he just better at writing article submissions than everyone else? Or is there some sort of deal between him and slashdot? And either way, does it bother the slashdot editors that somehow, this system allows people to pay to make the front page of slashdot?
I didn't mean my post as a criticism of you. At least not directly. Because in general, you are right - there is a very strong groupthink here on slashdot (and on just about any online forum I have ever seen). I was genuinely curiously why the original poster was modded up.
Wow, I just checked again, the post is now at 2. I guess I spoke too soon.
Let's see how long it takes for you to get modded down as "offtopic", "flamebait", or "troll," though, because appearantly, at slashdot, we subscribe to the last definition of evil and anything that challenges that assumption MUST be wrong.
The grandparent post is now at +5 insightful. Why?
What do you do when one of the "virtual hard drives" fail? The whole point in RAID is that you can just throw out the failed hard drive, and put a new one in, and everything will be rebuilt automatically. You can't do that in your raid-in-a-box hard drive.
'Global Warming' is a multi-billion dollar a year industry around the world: if you wouldn't believe McDonalds if they said that their meals are good for you, why would you believe the global warming industry?
Scientists are different. You don't go into science to make money, or to get power. You go into science because you have a fundamental desire to understand the truth about the world we live in.
I am glad you posted, though. I have always had a hard time understanding how anyone can dismess global warming, considering that 95% of the climate scientists agree that global warming is real. Now I understand. You think that scientists are a type of business-people who are just looking about for their own self interests. You are wrong.
I am not sure what I can say to persuade you otherwise, except that you should talk to some people who do science for a living. Ask them if they would rather have billions of dollars, or discover a fundamental law of nature. Or consider this: somewhere around 80% of scientists (or maybe physicists) believe in global warming, even though they don't study climate science. Why? Because they understand science and how scientists think.
I am sure that there are many scientists out there who are just trying to help their careers. But that vast majority of scientists would rather lose their job than publish dishonest work. To suggest that being a scientist is just like running a McDonalds proves that you have no idea what science is all about.
Google doesn't "pick" the best news articles or search results, it basically sorts them by popularity.
Semantics. The articles that make the front page are "picked", whether it is by a human or a computer. I realize that Mr. Google is not personally reading every news source and deciding what to highlight.
If an article discusses a particular search result more deeply, that article rises to the top of its search results.
Maybe this is the intent, but currently, Google News does a terrible job of putting the in-depth articles at the top.
When you can give us a workable definition of "properly", I'll consider your arguments
Working Definition of Properly (In the Context of Orginization of News Stories): The organization of news stories is considered to be properly done when the most informative and thorough articles are ranked highest.
Working Definiton of Informative and Thorough: The most informative and thorough news articles are those which cover the most aspects of a story, and provide the most detail. In general, this implies that a longer article will be more informative and thorough, although exceptions are possible. In addition, providing insight into a story from multiple ideological viewpoints will contribute to the thoroughness of a story, and illogical and poorly formed arguments will detract from the informativeness of an article.
Now will you consider my arguments? All I am saying is that quite often, I find that Google sucks at picking good articles to present. You don't need any intellectual arguments about absolute criteria for determining the value of an article to understand that simple concept.
I think his point is somewhat valid - I really don't feel that Google News does a very good job of picking the best articles on a subject to make the front page. Quite often, I will want to read about a story, and the couple of sources listed on the front page will all be two paragraph summaries that provide absolutely no detail. I often have to search through the list of sources to find a decent story.
I really don't know why this is. Maybe it is just really hard to properly organize news. Considering how good of a job Google did with web search, I would expect more out of them. Maybe we just need some startup with brand new ideas to revolutionize the news aggregration business.
All that said, the article submitter (Salkever) did sound like a whiny jerk. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with computer aggregrated search results - Google has just been doing a pretty poor job of it so far.
So let me get this straight: it looks just like a typical gnu/linux desktop (circa 1998), but it has less compatibility with current software and less functionality due to the removal of x-windows?
The developers should give it their best, but I see no reason to expect this to have better luck than gnu/linux in taking away windows marketshare.
Of all the typical reasons that gnu/linux is not yet the dominant OS (inertia, user familiarity with windows, games, office software, simplicity), I don't see any that Syllable does better than GNOME on gnu/linux.
The government doesn't need any more power to stop terrorism, they just need to get rid of the bureacracy, which is why this new intelligence office is total BS: they are trying to fight the problem of too much bureacracy with.....MORE bureacracy
Ummm, you do realize that a major portion of the PATRIOT act is devoted to breaking down the barriers between different arms of the government - so now the IRS can talk to the CIA and the FBI about you.
Before you get too excited - those barriers were put in place to protect your civil liberties, The more freely information flows between different parts of the government, the closer we are to a big brother state - almost by definition.
Me: Donated a very large sum of money to a company that committed the legal equivalent of a suicide bombing against linux.
You: Or, in other terms, decided that it was cheaper to pay SCO a little money to ensure that SCO wouldn't bother them or their customers again. It certainly was a lot less expensive than the strategy that IBM is pursuing, for example.
Maybe that was a good business decision, but surely you can understand that "we took the cheapest way out, even if it meant supporting a company bent on the destruction of gnu/linux" doesn't generate goodwill.
Of course, I will probably never be in the position to buy a piece of Sun hardware, so it probably doesn't matter to you what I think.
Me: just about every action they have taken recently has been intended to destroy my ability to use gnu/linux, my operating system of choice.
You: {list of things Sun has done to help gnu/linux}
Okay, I was unfair. Sun has done things to help gnu/linux, while at the same time doing some things to try and destroy it. The way I see it, they are investing in things that are useful to them whether gnu/linux takes off or not - such as OpenOffice (they need this to compete with Microsoft on the desktop, whether the OS is gnu/linux or solaris) and linux compatibility in solaris (which would allow easy migration of gnu/linux servers to Sun for CEO's that are worried about the legal liabilities of running gnu/linux).
That is the pissiest, most self-righteous, pathetic, linux-weiner-fanboy post I have read in ages.
That is totally unfair. I am not pathetic.
If you read the above post and found yourself agreeing that SCO's lawsuit is just as bad as butchering innocents...
If you got that out of the post, you totally misread it. I used an analogy which demonstrated similarities between SCO and suicide bombers: they both are willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of a bigger cause, and, in my "pathetic" opinion, are being duped into doing so by more powerful leaders (Microsoft and Al Qaeda, respectively). Of course they are not morally equivalent.
or that Bill Gates is truly evil
Of course Bill Gates is not truly evil. There are very few people in the world who are truly evil, and they don't end up running large companies. But most evil in the world comes from average people. People who are faced with choices, and choose money or power or something equally compelling, without regard for the harm they are doing the rest of the world. Bill Gates could arguably fit into that catagory.
On the other hand, if the OP was a troll...
I assure you, I am not a troll
...(as the use of the preposterous phrase "gnu/linux" suggests), nice work - you got me!
The fact that you think that the name "gnu/linux" is perposterous makes me think I have wasted my time arguing with you. I can understand not liking the name for practical reasons, but there is nothing preposterous about it.
I still don't understand why the common culture at Slashdot is to bash Sun at all costs
Maybe this will help:
1) Donated a very large sum of money to a company that committed the legal equivalent of a suicide bombing against linux.
2) Sold their soul to the devil (Microsoft) in return for temporary bankrucpy prevention.
Sun is a company, and they have the right to behave as they want, but I don't have to like the fact that just about every action they have taken recently has been intended to destroy my ability to use gnu/linux, my operating system of choice.
Your fears only make sense in an envirornment where the billion dollar lawsuit against the company exits. Under a Libertarian leadership thing such as that wont exist.
I love it. In a libertarian system, nothing bad will happen. Did you know that under communism, there is no inequality? And in an Islamist state, man will once again be fully united with nature, and there will be no unrest?
You are in the dark. Bush performed well beyond the minimum requirements for years before he took a leave of absense, which was very commonly done.
It was? Do you have some source on this?
The ANG had a glut of pilots at the time and were aggressively trying to get rid of them.
Agressively trying to get rid of them? Once again, could you provide some sort of source?
Oh, you didn't know that? I guess your lefty sources didn't give you the relevant facts, did they?
I read both lefty and righty sources, and I have never seen any mention of these "facts". I am very interested though - could you please provide some links or magazine names or something so that I can check them out?
This entire episode is a classic example of left-wing media distortion. It's sad that so many of you here at slashdot fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
Right now, I have the primary sources (Bush's documents) the secondary sources (the left and right wing press), and the tertiary sources (the mainstream news media) all saying one thing: Bush did not fulfill his duties. I have one random person on slashdot (RussP) saying that the Air National Guard was trying to get rid of Bush, not the other way around. You are going to have to provide more information then you have so far if you want to change any opinions.
I wonder how many of these people believe Dan Rather when he says, OK, the documents were phoney but the story behind them is true. What kind of baloney is that?
I believe that. It is hard not to. There was absolutely nothing new in the documents - they simply stated facts about Bush's service that were already known. So unless you think that the previous documents released by the White House are also false, you have to belive that the documents are phoney but the story behind them is true.
For the record, I believe Dan Rather should be fired for his bias and it was absolutely unacceptable for CBS to run the story. As a liberal, I hate dishonesty committed by the left even more then dishonesty committed by the right.
Can you pay to get your story on Slashdot these days?
For the record, yes, you can pay to get a story on slashdot, which is how this one got on here. You pay Roland, and he writes up a submission that the slashdot editors will accept. Indirect, but it is still paying to get a story on slashdot. And it is despicable.
For the record, everything the parent said is COMPLETELY WRONG. I am not sure if he is a troll or an idiot, but either way, that comment is NOT infomative.
Unfortunately, that critique is not devastating, although it is systematic. The author points out every logical fallacy used by Enderle, but never makes the case that Enderle is wrong. It is good to point out why Enderle's case is not what he is claiming, but it would have been much better to then show exactly why he is wrong. It is not like Enderle is the prosecuter, and it is just necessary to introduce reasonable doubt to win. There is a very strong and convincing case to be made that not only is Enderle a moron, he is an incorrect moron. I wish the author had made that case.
Slashdot Mirror
In terms of threats/exhortions the US has repeatedly threatened to bomb and attack countries unless their demands are met. This is a standard tactic of any military organization / State with sufficient muscle and is no different in principle from terrorist demands.
The US military attempts as much as possible to avoid civilian casualties. They are not perfect, but that is their goal. Terrorists attempt to maxamize civilian casualties to inflict fear on a population. Whatever you think about the US in general, or our recent actions in specific, there IS a clear moral distinction between the US military and terrorists.
What a lame presentation. You forgot to add sound effects. Every time something enters, there should be a wooooshhhhhh, and all the text should use the typewriter clacking noise. Then you have a real presentation.
And yes, it turns out joe blow does want Linux and OpenOffice in his blackberry.
Apparently joe is a sadist - I can't think of anything more painful than running openoffice on a blackbury.
I second this. Would a slashdot editor please explain Roland's affiliation with slashdot? Is he just better at writing article submissions than everyone else? Or is there some sort of deal between him and slashdot? And either way, does it bother the slashdot editors that somehow, this system allows people to pay to make the front page of slashdot?
Actually, you forgot Poland.
I didn't mean my post as a criticism of you. At least not directly. Because in general, you are right - there is a very strong groupthink here on slashdot (and on just about any online forum I have ever seen). I was genuinely curiously why the original poster was modded up.
Wow, I just checked again, the post is now at 2. I guess I spoke too soon.
Let's see how long it takes for you to get modded down as "offtopic", "flamebait", or "troll," though, because appearantly, at slashdot, we subscribe to the last definition of evil and anything that challenges that assumption MUST be wrong. The grandparent post is now at +5 insightful. Why?
What do you do when one of the "virtual hard drives" fail? The whole point in RAID is that you can just throw out the failed hard drive, and put a new one in, and everything will be rebuilt automatically. You can't do that in your raid-in-a-box hard drive.
Perception is reality.
No it is not.
You must not be a scientist.
'Global Warming' is a multi-billion dollar a year industry around the world: if you wouldn't believe McDonalds if they said that their meals are good for you, why would you believe the global warming industry?
Scientists are different. You don't go into science to make money, or to get power. You go into science because you have a fundamental desire to understand the truth about the world we live in.
I am glad you posted, though. I have always had a hard time understanding how anyone can dismess global warming, considering that 95% of the climate scientists agree that global warming is real. Now I understand. You think that scientists are a type of business-people who are just looking about for their own self interests. You are wrong.
I am not sure what I can say to persuade you otherwise, except that you should talk to some people who do science for a living. Ask them if they would rather have billions of dollars, or discover a fundamental law of nature. Or consider this: somewhere around 80% of scientists (or maybe physicists) believe in global warming, even though they don't study climate science. Why? Because they understand science and how scientists think.
I am sure that there are many scientists out there who are just trying to help their careers. But that vast majority of scientists would rather lose their job than publish dishonest work. To suggest that being a scientist is just like running a McDonalds proves that you have no idea what science is all about.
Google doesn't "pick" the best news articles or search results, it basically sorts them by popularity.
Semantics. The articles that make the front page are "picked", whether it is by a human or a computer. I realize that Mr. Google is not personally reading every news source and deciding what to highlight.
If an article discusses a particular search result more deeply, that article rises to the top of its search results.
Maybe this is the intent, but currently, Google News does a terrible job of putting the in-depth articles at the top.
When you can give us a workable definition of "properly", I'll consider your arguments
Working Definition of Properly (In the Context of Orginization of News Stories): The organization of news stories is considered to be properly done when the most informative and thorough articles are ranked highest.
Working Definiton of Informative and Thorough: The most informative and thorough news articles are those which cover the most aspects of a story, and provide the most detail. In general, this implies that a longer article will be more informative and thorough, although exceptions are possible. In addition, providing insight into a story from multiple ideological viewpoints will contribute to the thoroughness of a story, and illogical and poorly formed arguments will detract from the informativeness of an article.
Now will you consider my arguments? All I am saying is that quite often, I find that Google sucks at picking good articles to present. You don't need any intellectual arguments about absolute criteria for determining the value of an article to understand that simple concept.
I think his point is somewhat valid - I really don't feel that Google News does a very good job of picking the best articles on a subject to make the front page. Quite often, I will want to read about a story, and the couple of sources listed on the front page will all be two paragraph summaries that provide absolutely no detail. I often have to search through the list of sources to find a decent story.
I really don't know why this is. Maybe it is just really hard to properly organize news. Considering how good of a job Google did with web search, I would expect more out of them. Maybe we just need some startup with brand new ideas to revolutionize the news aggregration business.
All that said, the article submitter (Salkever) did sound like a whiny jerk. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with computer aggregrated search results - Google has just been doing a pretty poor job of it so far.
It isn't a lie to have been honestly wrong about something.
It is a lie to claim that you know something, when you really don't know it.
There is a big difference between "We are pretty sure Saddam has WMDs" and "We know Saddam has WMDs".
So let me get this straight: it looks just like a typical gnu/linux desktop (circa 1998), but it has less compatibility with current software and less functionality due to the removal of x-windows?
The developers should give it their best, but I see no reason to expect this to have better luck than gnu/linux in taking away windows marketshare.
Of all the typical reasons that gnu/linux is not yet the dominant OS (inertia, user familiarity with windows, games, office software, simplicity), I don't see any that Syllable does better than GNOME on gnu/linux.
The government doesn't need any more power to stop terrorism, they just need to get rid of the bureacracy, which is why this new intelligence office is total BS: they are trying to fight the problem of too much bureacracy with.....MORE bureacracy
Ummm, you do realize that a major portion of the PATRIOT act is devoted to breaking down the barriers between different arms of the government - so now the IRS can talk to the CIA and the FBI about you.
Before you get too excited - those barriers were put in place to protect your civil liberties, The more freely information flows between different parts of the government, the closer we are to a big brother state - almost by definition.
Me: Donated a very large sum of money to a company that committed the legal equivalent of a suicide bombing against linux.
You: Or, in other terms, decided that it was cheaper to pay SCO a little money to ensure that SCO wouldn't bother them or their customers again. It certainly was a lot less expensive than the strategy that IBM is pursuing, for example.
Maybe that was a good business decision, but surely you can understand that "we took the cheapest way out, even if it meant supporting a company bent on the destruction of gnu/linux" doesn't generate goodwill.
Of course, I will probably never be in the position to buy a piece of Sun hardware, so it probably doesn't matter to you what I think.
Me: just about every action they have taken recently has been intended to destroy my ability to use gnu/linux, my operating system of choice.
You: {list of things Sun has done to help gnu/linux}
Okay, I was unfair. Sun has done things to help gnu/linux, while at the same time doing some things to try and destroy it. The way I see it, they are investing in things that are useful to them whether gnu/linux takes off or not - such as OpenOffice (they need this to compete with Microsoft on the desktop, whether the OS is gnu/linux or solaris) and linux compatibility in solaris (which would allow easy migration of gnu/linux servers to Sun for CEO's that are worried about the legal liabilities of running gnu/linux).
That is the pissiest, most self-righteous, pathetic, linux-weiner-fanboy post I have read in ages.
...
...(as the use of the preposterous phrase "gnu/linux" suggests), nice work - you got me!
That is totally unfair. I am not pathetic.
If you read the above post and found yourself agreeing that SCO's lawsuit is just as bad as butchering innocents
If you got that out of the post, you totally misread it. I used an analogy which demonstrated similarities between SCO and suicide bombers: they both are willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of a bigger cause, and, in my "pathetic" opinion, are being duped into doing so by more powerful leaders (Microsoft and Al Qaeda, respectively). Of course they are not morally equivalent.
or that Bill Gates is truly evil
Of course Bill Gates is not truly evil. There are very few people in the world who are truly evil, and they don't end up running large companies. But most evil in the world comes from average people. People who are faced with choices, and choose money or power or something equally compelling, without regard for the harm they are doing the rest of the world. Bill Gates could arguably fit into that catagory.
On the other hand, if the OP was a troll...
I assure you, I am not a troll
The fact that you think that the name "gnu/linux" is perposterous makes me think I have wasted my time arguing with you. I can understand not liking the name for practical reasons, but there is nothing preposterous about it.
I still don't understand why the common culture at Slashdot is to bash Sun at all costs
Maybe this will help:
1) Donated a very large sum of money to a company that committed the legal equivalent of a suicide bombing against linux.
2) Sold their soul to the devil (Microsoft) in return for temporary bankrucpy prevention.
Sun is a company, and they have the right to behave as they want, but I don't have to like the fact that just about every action they have taken recently has been intended to destroy my ability to use gnu/linux, my operating system of choice.
Your fears only make sense in an envirornment where the billion dollar lawsuit against the company exits. Under a Libertarian leadership thing such as that wont exist.
I love it. In a libertarian system, nothing bad will happen. Did you know that under communism, there is no inequality? And in an Islamist state, man will once again be fully united with nature, and there will be no unrest?
You are in the dark. Bush performed well beyond the minimum requirements for years before he took a leave of absense, which was very commonly done.
It was? Do you have some source on this?
The ANG had a glut of pilots at the time and were aggressively trying to get rid of them.
Agressively trying to get rid of them? Once again, could you provide some sort of source?
Oh, you didn't know that? I guess your lefty sources didn't give you the relevant facts, did they?
I read both lefty and righty sources, and I have never seen any mention of these "facts". I am very interested though - could you please provide some links or magazine names or something so that I can check them out?
This entire episode is a classic example of left-wing media distortion. It's sad that so many of you here at slashdot fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
Right now, I have the primary sources (Bush's documents) the secondary sources (the left and right wing press), and the tertiary sources (the mainstream news media) all saying one thing: Bush did not fulfill his duties. I have one random person on slashdot (RussP) saying that the Air National Guard was trying to get rid of Bush, not the other way around. You are going to have to provide more information then you have so far if you want to change any opinions.
I wonder how many of these people believe Dan Rather when he says, OK, the documents were phoney but the story behind them is true. What kind of baloney is that?
I believe that. It is hard not to. There was absolutely nothing new in the documents - they simply stated facts about Bush's service that were already known. So unless you think that the previous documents released by the White House are also false, you have to belive that the documents are phoney but the story behind them is true.
For the record, I believe Dan Rather should be fired for his bias and it was absolutely unacceptable for CBS to run the story. As a liberal, I hate dishonesty committed by the left even more then dishonesty committed by the right.
Can you pay to get your story on Slashdot these days?
For the record, yes, you can pay to get a story on slashdot, which is how this one got on here. You pay Roland, and he writes up a submission that the slashdot editors will accept. Indirect, but it is still paying to get a story on slashdot. And it is despicable.
For the record, everything the parent said is COMPLETELY WRONG. I am not sure if he is a troll or an idiot, but either way, that comment is NOT infomative.
Unfortunately, that critique is not devastating, although it is systematic. The author points out every logical fallacy used by Enderle, but never makes the case that Enderle is wrong. It is good to point out why Enderle's case is not what he is claiming, but it would have been much better to then show exactly why he is wrong. It is not like Enderle is the prosecuter, and it is just necessary to introduce reasonable doubt to win. There is a very strong and convincing case to be made that not only is Enderle a moron, he is an incorrect moron. I wish the author had made that case.