Is it just me, or is anyone else sick of the whole "Obligatory" Futurama or Simpsons reference to every single article that may come anywhere near a reason to make one.
Sometimes, but when TFP says "alcohol-powered robots can't be far behind", NOT posting a Bender reference would just be stupid. There is stretching to make a reference, and there is placing the ball on a freakin tee.
Which in the same breath started rambling about ***COLUMBINE*** of all things. ***COLUMBINE*** (i need more stars).
Yeah, but in the next sentence he explicity states that he is in no way threatening any kind of harm. From what I can understand, this post was in retaliation to the administration coming down on him and his family for posts prior to this one.
The kids at Columbine did what they did because they were bullied. In my opinion you are the real threat here. None of us ever put in our xanga's that they were going to kill or bring harm to any one. we voiced our opinions. you are the real threat here. you are depriving us of our right to learn. now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
The school is doing a classic CYA. Threatening expulsion immediately puts the onus of fault on the kid in the eyes of the public.
This makes me so mad. Freedom of speech hardly exists in this country. This is the same thing a kid would write in his/her diary at home throughout the centuries, but because it's now available to a wider audience, the school thinks that they have the right to action.
Incorrect. INCORRECT. I hope to God that the courts do the right thing here and set a precedent that dictates that once school is out, the administration has absolutely no right or say over a child's actions. If schools complain that they can't be discipliarians and teach at the same time and they need the parent's to step up, then stop trying to be disciplinarians in off time.
This is the state trying to raise your kids by administering discipline for any transgression at any time. Be very afraid of this.
after Christianity was adopted as state religion by the Roman Empire the tune changed
After Christianity was adopted as state religion, Rome systematically broke every commandment in the Bible to further its own prosperity. Religion became the calling card to control people - the Holy Church at that time can hardly be considered a beacon of Christianity.
It's interesting that there is so very little against slavery, especially considering that at the time of Jesus' life all Jews still strongly respected Moses' leading the Jews out of slavery.
Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that the New Testament does, however, establish certain treatment guidelines for the slave-master relationship, condeming harsh treatment. This follows the old testament where by slaves were considered members of the family and treated as such. Just a few quotes:
"And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." Col 3:22
"Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven." 1 Tim 6:1
It's interesting only in that it sets up a system whereby all are equal in final judgement, no matter what your earthly bind. Unfortunately, it appears it does not explicitly condem slavery.
Although, in the Epistle to Philemon, Philemon's slave Onesimus has run away, met Paul, converted to Christianity, and it is in that belief that Paul seeks to reconcile the two men, "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother" (vs 16).
So who knows. Just look to the Gnostic Gospels to see how the true message of the Bible may have been defiled in its early life in order to push a doctrine.
I don't know where the New Testament promotes slavery, although it definately takes a male-centric approach.
But I fully agree with you - the same can be said of other religions, etc. My point was that keeping the debate quiet by censoring certain viewpoints was wrong. Especially in regards to TFA, which talks about censoring negative views towards Islam, but speaks nothing of censoring negative views on Christianity.
I see censorship as being wrong as an absolute. While I'm sure you can think of a scenario where I would be for it (showing five year olds DVDA action, for instance) in terms of censoring free speech, I will always be against it, no matter how much I disagree with the viewpoint.
I know this is a talking point, but it's absolutely false. In fact, the more educated and well-paid people are, the tendency is that they become more conservative.
Actually, they tend to be more fiscally and militarily conservative. But after reaching a certian point many well-paid people become philanthropic, which actually tends towards social liberalism.
Point is, I'm tired of having to label a person one thing or the other when the majority of the country would be supremely surprised to find out that their views actually plant themselves somewhere in the middle.
Check out this Political Compass to see where you REALLY land. I ended up being much more liberal than I suspected. Taking the quiz was really eye-opening about how I'm actually much more center than I am right.
I can't find it in my heart to feel sorry for a Nazi skinhead who's beaten up in jail
Depends on why he's in jail...
and I can't find it in my heart to feel sorry for a racist jackass whose blog has been "censored" from Google News.
Sigh... once again... the first amendment does not protect your right to hear what you want, but other people's right to say what you don't want to hear.
Censorship in any form is really touchy. Not hearing each side of an argument is rediculous, especially when labeling one side "racist" by default.
Like this, for instance (warning - inflaming material ahead.) There is evidence in the Holy Quran that (among other sexism) slavery of women is allowed, and sex outside of the marriage with any woman who is deemed a slave is acceptable.
By today's standards this is attrocious - slavery alone, aside from deeming someone sexual property - and even mentioning that this exists in the Quran is considered by many a racist tirade the effort of which is simply to put down a race of people or Islam as a whole.
But the fact is, by censoring me, you're closing your eyes to simple fact, and branding me a racist for believing that Islam could support such acts in an effort to discredit Islam.
Of course, the Quran doesn't say anything about forcing one's self on slave women and the article I've linked to proports that the Quran supports rape in an attempt to show how Christianity is better. It does show some support or understanding of the times that slavery exists... The debate is unsolvable, but by censoring one side, you're closing the argument or debate all together.
And that, my friends, is unacceptable in a free society. The exchange of ideas cannot be the exchange of "acceptable" ideas, or free society is no longer free.
And so I can be modded down, but hearing what you don't want to hear is no reason to censor anyone.
That statement is ridiculous - it should be the opposite. "Somebody tell me again why corporations should be able to break the law when regular citizens get busted for it."
Both are equally rediculous in the simple fact that corporations are afforded the rights of a human being but are held to different, much lower, much more forgiving standards.
GP post is worded well to show the rediculous nature of this unbalance. Not that Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Co. isn't rediculous itself.
Well color me uneducated! F-ing public schools! I hate that things I take for granted - like basic principles taught to me in grade school or high school science classes - are often incorrect in their own right.
I know I should question everything I am taught - but if I were to question every single thing I was taught as a younster I'd need to live to 150 years old.
So I guess I'll go ahead assuming that 2+2=4, but when my kid comes home and tell me that glass is a liquid, I'm gonna have to have a sit down with him. Sigh.
IMO, the US government has no right to patent anything unless that property is placed into the public domain. We, the people, paid for this right.
I agree, but remember that it's often "We the People" vs. the corporate culture. So why not make large corps pay a little back into the general coffers for access to R&D that did in fact come from us?
Release it into the public domain and sure you and I can use the patent for hydrogen micro balls whatever... but it's Exxon that will benefit financially from a free patent.
Maybe you should try to actually find out what quantum computing actually is, and what it can actually do, instead of parroting popular-science nonsense.
Another remarkable discovery was made by Lov Grover of Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, who in 1996 invented a quantum searching algorithm4 (see Physics Today, October 1997, page 19). To find one particular item among N objects requires checking O(N) items classically. With Grover's algorithm, a quantum computer need only look up items O(N ) times. It can be used to radically speed up the exhaustive key search of DES (that is, trying all 256 possibilities).
If a quantum computer is ever constructed in the future, much of conventional cryptography will fall apart! To provide the same security, the key lengths of symmetric schemes like DES would have to be doubled due to Grover's algorithm. The most commonly used public key schemes are RSA and others based on discrete logarithms or elliptic curves; Shor's algorithm breaks all of them. Even if it is decades until a sufficiently large quantum computer can be built, this is a matter of current concern: Some data, such as nuclear weapons designs, will still need to remain secret, and it is important that today's secret messages cannot be decoded tomorrow.
So how about you bone up on what the potential of quantum computing is, before making crazy statements and trolling like a big fat trolley-mc-troll.
What about simply patenting so that they can license the patent all around, equally to all, instead of private corporations that charge exhorbinant patent licensing fees or file for injunctions against competition?
This to me is hardly a bad thing. Prevent private sector from patenting and then denying all others the use of tax-dollar-funded R&D, and even try to recoup some of that R&D cost by offering the tech at a small licensing fee.
Sounds both socially and fiscally responsible by the government to me.
for now... quantum computing promises the ability to break these virtually unbreakable keys while i'm getting a cup of coffee. if it can be made, it can be broken. it's a universal truth. if we can't break it now, we'll be able to break it later - and you better believe the NSA will be able to break it before you know they can.
There is no right to purchase tickets for a concert or event. I seriously don't see why there should be any controversy over this - if Ticketmaster (or anybody) can get $1,500 for a ticket then they should be allowed to get $1,500 for a ticket. That simple.
I disagree, especially for any event held at a sports arena paid for out of tax-payer bucks. Do I expect that I should, for a reasonable fee, be allowed to watch an event at a stadium that my tax dollars helped fund? Yes. Yes I do.
It seems like an awful risk for Wired News, opening themselves to being sued by AT&T... knowing the US... they just placed a sign reading "sue us"!
And for that, I have incredible respect for their editors, allowing such actions to continue, indeed showing that they are willing to take a stand against the assault on press freedoms that have been a regular marching call of the current administration.
Not that I didn't have a lot of respect for Wired before... but if there is a preemtive legal fund, let me know where to contribute.
I know/. probably isn't the right place to say "Thank You" to Wired, but I'll do it here first, and then email them next.
So, just exactly how am I supposed to figure out if I like a particular "secret, activity, or program" if I'm not allowed to even know such secret, activity, or program exists?
There is very very little in the government that secrecy helps. Specifics are often kept secret, like HOW we spy on someone, but that's a very small subset of the billions of classified documents that need not be. An open society will always be better protected than a closed one, if history has taught us nothing.
the right that Americans would like to see
American's want the right for the govn't to unequivicolly shut down any information on illegal activities it promotes against the very citizens it proports to protect? Can I meet even one of these Americans, please?
Some countries/areas already outlaw certain knives while allowing other, potentially just as deadly knives (chef's knives) to be carried around.
This is easy to break down. It's all about one thing - the next election. Perception is huge, and instead of governing for the common good, people govern for the incumbant good.
Take knives for example. Giant chef knives have the perception of being used to cook yummy food. Crazy blade shape dragon jewel encrusted lock blade half-the-size-of-chef-knives type knives carry the perception of being used only to harm others.
So lawmaker X decides to latch on to that perception and propose a bill that outlaws the greater of the two perceived evils and then brag about how he is a champion of the people come next election cycle.
This is one thing term limits are meant to stay off... to whatever effectiveness. Point is, outlawing "hacking" tools like this is simply a grab for the spotlight. Who cares if the details are ironed out. See, the likelyhood is it won't make it out of committe, but come election time, Mr. X can say "I proposed a bill that would have made it safer to surf the internet, but my opponent Mr. Y (a former network admin, but we won't mention that) STOOD AGAINST this potentially LIFE SAVING measure!!"
Politics, pure and simple.
Re:Summary: Creative says "Waaaaaaaah"
on
Apple Sues Creative
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"It's incredibly embarrassing," said industry analyst Rob Enderle. "That just makes it look like someone at Apple wasn't on the ball in terms of filing the patent at the right time."
I know... God forbid they spent their time innovating instead of patenting. Don't they know how the world works now??
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes, but when TFP says "alcohol-powered robots can't be far behind", NOT posting a Bender reference would just be stupid. There is stretching to make a reference, and there is placing the ball on a freakin tee.
Which in the same breath started rambling about ***COLUMBINE*** of all things. ***COLUMBINE*** (i need more stars).
Yeah, but in the next sentence he explicity states that he is in no way threatening any kind of harm. From what I can understand, this post was in retaliation to the administration coming down on him and his family for posts prior to this one.
The kids at Columbine did what they did because they were bullied. In my opinion you are the real threat here. None of us ever put in our xanga's that they were going to kill or bring harm to any one. we voiced our opinions. you are the real threat here. you are depriving us of our right to learn. now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
The school is doing a classic CYA. Threatening expulsion immediately puts the onus of fault on the kid in the eyes of the public.
This makes me so mad. Freedom of speech hardly exists in this country. This is the same thing a kid would write in his/her diary at home throughout the centuries, but because it's now available to a wider audience, the school thinks that they have the right to action.
Incorrect. INCORRECT. I hope to God that the courts do the right thing here and set a precedent that dictates that once school is out, the administration has absolutely no right or say over a child's actions. If schools complain that they can't be discipliarians and teach at the same time and they need the parent's to step up, then stop trying to be disciplinarians in off time.
This is the state trying to raise your kids by administering discipline for any transgression at any time. Be very afraid of this.
Just like saying "No" to installing Sony's DRM on CD stopped the rootkit from being installed.
Oh... wait...
After Christianity was adopted as state religion, Rome systematically broke every commandment in the Bible to further its own prosperity. Religion became the calling card to control people - the Holy Church at that time can hardly be considered a beacon of Christianity.
It's interesting that there is so very little against slavery, especially considering that at the time of Jesus' life all Jews still strongly respected Moses' leading the Jews out of slavery.
Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that the New Testament does, however, establish certain treatment guidelines for the slave-master relationship, condeming harsh treatment. This follows the old testament where by slaves were considered members of the family and treated as such. Just a few quotes:
"And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." Col 3:22
"Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven." 1 Tim 6:1
It's interesting only in that it sets up a system whereby all are equal in final judgement, no matter what your earthly bind. Unfortunately, it appears it does not explicitly condem slavery.
Although, in the Epistle to Philemon, Philemon's slave Onesimus has run away, met Paul, converted to Christianity, and it is in that belief that Paul seeks to reconcile the two men, "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother" (vs 16).
So who knows. Just look to the Gnostic Gospels to see how the true message of the Bible may have been defiled in its early life in order to push a doctrine.
See, isn't this nice? True, open discourse?
Johnny 5, disassemble?
I'm sorry, but this really isn't that far off from this.
* buries head in shame *
duh...
Especially when - from the screen shots anyway - half of that 4" is taken up by stats.
Bon Echo has built in spell checking. Until then, please refer to my sig.
I don't know where the New Testament promotes slavery, although it definately takes a male-centric approach.
But I fully agree with you - the same can be said of other religions, etc. My point was that keeping the debate quiet by censoring certain viewpoints was wrong. Especially in regards to TFA, which talks about censoring negative views towards Islam, but speaks nothing of censoring negative views on Christianity.
I see censorship as being wrong as an absolute. While I'm sure you can think of a scenario where I would be for it (showing five year olds DVDA action, for instance) in terms of censoring free speech, I will always be against it, no matter how much I disagree with the viewpoint.
What? YOU get an education! She was evicted from her home because she was recieving death threats!
Geeze...
Actually, they tend to be more fiscally and militarily conservative. But after reaching a certian point many well-paid people become philanthropic, which actually tends towards social liberalism.
Point is, I'm tired of having to label a person one thing or the other when the majority of the country would be supremely surprised to find out that their views actually plant themselves somewhere in the middle.
Check out this Political Compass to see where you REALLY land. I ended up being much more liberal than I suspected. Taking the quiz was really eye-opening about how I'm actually much more center than I am right.
Depends on why he's in jail...
and I can't find it in my heart to feel sorry for a racist jackass whose blog has been "censored" from Google News.Sigh... once again... the first amendment does not protect your right to hear what you want, but other people's right to say what you don't want to hear.
Censorship in any form is really touchy. Not hearing each side of an argument is rediculous, especially when labeling one side "racist" by default.
Like this, for instance (warning - inflaming material ahead.) There is evidence in the Holy Quran that (among other sexism) slavery of women is allowed, and sex outside of the marriage with any woman who is deemed a slave is acceptable.
By today's standards this is attrocious - slavery alone, aside from deeming someone sexual property - and even mentioning that this exists in the Quran is considered by many a racist tirade the effort of which is simply to put down a race of people or Islam as a whole.
But the fact is, by censoring me, you're closing your eyes to simple fact, and branding me a racist for believing that Islam could support such acts in an effort to discredit Islam.
Of course, the Quran doesn't say anything about forcing one's self on slave women and the article I've linked to proports that the Quran supports rape in an attempt to show how Christianity is better. It does show some support or understanding of the times that slavery exists... The debate is unsolvable, but by censoring one side, you're closing the argument or debate all together.
And that, my friends, is unacceptable in a free society. The exchange of ideas cannot be the exchange of "acceptable" ideas, or free society is no longer free.
And so I can be modded down, but hearing what you don't want to hear is no reason to censor anyone.
Both are equally rediculous in the simple fact that corporations are afforded the rights of a human being but are held to different, much lower, much more forgiving standards.
GP post is worded well to show the rediculous nature of this unbalance. Not that Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Co. isn't rediculous itself.
Well color me uneducated! F-ing public schools! I hate that things I take for granted - like basic principles taught to me in grade school or high school science classes - are often incorrect in their own right.
I know I should question everything I am taught - but if I were to question every single thing I was taught as a younster I'd need to live to 150 years old.
So I guess I'll go ahead assuming that 2+2=4, but when my kid comes home and tell me that glass is a liquid, I'm gonna have to have a sit down with him. Sigh.
I agree, but remember that it's often "We the People" vs. the corporate culture. So why not make large corps pay a little back into the general coffers for access to R&D that did in fact come from us?
Release it into the public domain and sure you and I can use the patent for hydrogen micro balls whatever... but it's Exxon that will benefit financially from a free patent.
Financial capital of the world?
Besides, they don't give a shit how you and I get taxed.
Popular science nonsense? And I quote:
Another remarkable discovery was made by Lov Grover of Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, who in 1996 invented a quantum searching algorithm4 (see Physics Today, October 1997, page 19). To find one particular item among N objects requires checking O(N) items classically. With Grover's algorithm, a quantum computer need only look up items O(N ) times. It can be used to radically speed up the exhaustive key search of DES (that is, trying all 256 possibilities). If a quantum computer is ever constructed in the future, much of conventional cryptography will fall apart! To provide the same security, the key lengths of symmetric schemes like DES would have to be doubled due to Grover's algorithm. The most commonly used public key schemes are RSA and others based on discrete logarithms or elliptic curves; Shor's algorithm breaks all of them. Even if it is decades until a sufficiently large quantum computer can be built, this is a matter of current concern: Some data, such as nuclear weapons designs, will still need to remain secret, and it is important that today's secret messages cannot be decoded tomorrow.So how about you bone up on what the potential of quantum computing is, before making crazy statements and trolling like a big fat trolley-mc-troll.
What about simply patenting so that they can license the patent all around, equally to all, instead of private corporations that charge exhorbinant patent licensing fees or file for injunctions against competition?
This to me is hardly a bad thing. Prevent private sector from patenting and then denying all others the use of tax-dollar-funded R&D, and even try to recoup some of that R&D cost by offering the tech at a small licensing fee.
Sounds both socially and fiscally responsible by the government to me.
for now... quantum computing promises the ability to break these virtually unbreakable keys while i'm getting a cup of coffee. if it can be made, it can be broken. it's a universal truth. if we can't break it now, we'll be able to break it later - and you better believe the NSA will be able to break it before you know they can.
I disagree, especially for any event held at a sports arena paid for out of tax-payer bucks. Do I expect that I should, for a reasonable fee, be allowed to watch an event at a stadium that my tax dollars helped fund? Yes. Yes I do.
And for that, I have incredible respect for their editors, allowing such actions to continue, indeed showing that they are willing to take a stand against the assault on press freedoms that have been a regular marching call of the current administration.
Not that I didn't have a lot of respect for Wired before... but if there is a preemtive legal fund, let me know where to contribute.
I know /. probably isn't the right place to say "Thank You" to Wired, but I'll do it here first, and then email them next.
There is very very little in the government that secrecy helps. Specifics are often kept secret, like HOW we spy on someone, but that's a very small subset of the billions of classified documents that need not be. An open society will always be better protected than a closed one, if history has taught us nothing.
the right that Americans would like to seeAmerican's want the right for the govn't to unequivicolly shut down any information on illegal activities it promotes against the very citizens it proports to protect? Can I meet even one of these Americans, please?
This is easy to break down. It's all about one thing - the next election. Perception is huge, and instead of governing for the common good, people govern for the incumbant good.
Take knives for example. Giant chef knives have the perception of being used to cook yummy food. Crazy blade shape dragon jewel encrusted lock blade half-the-size-of-chef-knives type knives carry the perception of being used only to harm others.
So lawmaker X decides to latch on to that perception and propose a bill that outlaws the greater of the two perceived evils and then brag about how he is a champion of the people come next election cycle.
This is one thing term limits are meant to stay off... to whatever effectiveness. Point is, outlawing "hacking" tools like this is simply a grab for the spotlight. Who cares if the details are ironed out. See, the likelyhood is it won't make it out of committe, but come election time, Mr. X can say "I proposed a bill that would have made it safer to surf the internet, but my opponent Mr. Y (a former network admin, but we won't mention that) STOOD AGAINST this potentially LIFE SAVING measure!!"
Politics, pure and simple.
I know... God forbid they spent their time innovating instead of patenting. Don't they know how the world works now??
i wonder what amazon's licensing fee is for me to use one-click on my website...