I remember a geology professor mentioning once that climate change is a slippery slope in either direction because of the albedo of ice. Whatever small delta in temperature starts a melt (or freeze), it may be outpaced by progressively smaller (or larger) areas of ice reflecting energy away.
We should [sic] have to use Unions. But now we have to because "Big Government" can't keep it's god damn hands out of a free ecconomy.
In an economy increasingly based on "intellectual property" (the very concept requires the government's involvement), you're complaining that the government is involved? Now, I think noncompete clauses are horsecrap, but the government is involved because it's an IP issue. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have a government-enforced economy without the government getting into the action.
If the law mandates 5 days, you do 5 days or you can just not accept that state diploma!
Actually, you could quite easily not do 5 days and still accept the diploma. It's probably not a bad idea, even. Sometimes the law is wrong, and it makes sense to break it.
Look at some of the costliest per student school systems and you will find some of the worst.
I have to call bullshit here. Please back up your incredibly unlikely assertion with some evidence other than "I pay a lot of taxes and my school sucks."
How does the state know you aren't letting him play outside one day a week and you fake the records cause you're tired of teaching or need to catch up on other things?
You're right! What if unscrupulous parents devise a (downright socialist, if you ask me) four-day week, because teaching five days a week wears them out? Those poor kids don't have a chance in hell without school on Friday!
A parent who coaches their child for tests is teaching that child a lesson far more valuable than anything learned in school: That society is full of bullshit like standardized tests, and they should be regarded as the games they clearly are, rather than any measure of intellect or ability.
Well said. My folks actually left an incredibly important decision in my hands at a very early age: whether to continue attending public school in the first grade, or get out and do home schooling. I wanted to learn, and I actually stayed in school for about four months before I realized the two were completely at odds. Blah blah blah, I turned out okay and did well in college.
First off, I agree that the OP was probably an idiot. But the statement that you quote seems more akin to a simple fact: the public isn't that excited about science. You're saying they should be more excited about it. I'd like to see that too, but I'd also like to see the public interested in better movies, better music, better people. Again, just because the public doesn't care much about science doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid (for better evidence of the public's stupidity: the last two U.S. presidential elections). In fact, one of the most intelligent people I've met has basically no interest in science.
What was the point of going to the moon? To do it....before the Russians did.
The public has never been particularly gung-ho about science for science's sake. You have to make it into a war to get their attention.
We didn't understand the impacts of space travel at the time. But you can certainly do a little looking to find out what has come out of it.
So the argument for space travel is, "Last time we had to figure out how to go into space, we invented a bunch of great stuff." That's a bit of evidence for the benefits, but it's still a long way from solidity.
How do you think the internet came about?
As a matter of fact, research! I know, you're shocked. But specifically, it was applied research in communication technology. That's applied research with an almost immediately practical goal in mind.
Before you launch into a discussion of the benefits of pure research, I agree that it's something we do need more of. But that's also not an argument for space travel. Saying "research is good, space travel spawns research, so space travel is good" isn't enough. Personally, I would be more excited by a bigger research budget for particle physics (damn you, Clinton).
Devil's advocacy aside, I would much rather see a manned mission (or even a deep space probe) than another rover. Yes, I understand that it's a great technical accomplishment, but that's really no reason to send another one in the hopes that its limited abilities might find life where the first one didn't.
[satire]
I'm sorry, but what you've described sounds too close to communism for me to have a rational discussion with you. Please allow to me to cite a list of oppressive, totalitarian regimes that called themselves "communist" or "socialist". Remember the fact that communism can't possibly work; otherwise it would have.
[/satire]
I think you're a bit out of line here. You're saying this guy's lack of interest in remote exploration of Mars is part of the problem with this country? As much as this stuff excites a geek like me, it's pretty wrongheaded to assume that someone is stupid because they're not interested in the same things as you.
To rant a bit, asking "what do we get out of space exploration" is a valid, intrinsically reasonable question, and I'm tired of seeing people flamed for asking it (not referring to your post). We have many problems and limited resources, and pretending some of those problems don't exist just so the "cooler" ones get to be solved is not an intellectually honest position. Your personal reasons for feeling that space travel is vital to humanity might be at odds with Joe Beatnik who thinks that money would better enrich our people by funding art projects. Can anyone point me to a rational discussion of the importance of space travel that manages to avoid silly emotional "Because it's there" and all-technology-exists-because-of-space-travel arguments?
You're confusing neocons with fundies. Neocons want to take over the world and use fundies to further that goal. Fundies hate it when people can do as they please and not hurt anybody, so they're using the neocons to further their domestic agenda. Of course there is overlap, but the terms are fairly distinct.
They're not orthogonal, rather, one follows from the other. That's not just my opinion, it's the position of numerous philisophers, from Christians, to existentialists. Satre and Kant are at least honest enough to realize that denying God requires denying the meaning of life, and that since everything is relative, there can be no moral right or wrong.
So it's not just your unsubstantiated opinion, it's yours and some other peoples' as well? I think life's meaning is pretty crystal goddamn clear, but that's just my opinion, too. There is no basis for objectivity here... like most philosophy, it's just semantic circles without a connection to our shared reality. So please aim your pompous gun somewhere else.
If we need band aids, it is probably better to have a standard band aid for each purpose, rather than having a different one each time for no reason.
But this is exactly the point. High-level abstractions are fantastic, but there will always be a need for, if nothing else, alternate implementations of those abstractions. As long as we still need a language sitting where C++ sits relative to the hardware, we'll need these elegant solutions to the "braindead limitations" of lower-level languages.
Judging from his paper (if it's still up), the vulnerabilities allow for total execution takeover on the router, as long as you know where to hit up the overflows. Granted that's still not the *exact* nature of the vulnerability, but it sounds pretty squarely in the "CRITICAL" category to me.
you can't assume that the truth is 100% on Lynn's side
No, but the evidence is definitely in his favor. FBI investigation, talks of trade secret violation, and Cisco hasn't denied anything stated in the presentation, correct? But they did go to great lengths to ensure that the information didn't get disseminated. Not an open and shut case, but in the truth casino, my money's on Lynn.
Well, it doesn't look like he'll be facing any criminal charges, but I agree 100%. Trade secret violation as a criminal offense smacks of the kind of bullshit Adam Smith warned us would happen if businessmen were allowed to make the laws.
Slashdot Mirror
and now Google wants to buy the internet?
Yeah, but so far the internet is holding out for a better offer.
You're right, humans can affect nature, and nature can affect nature. Thanks for... completing this uh... thing.
Right, humans can't touch nature. That's why we have a surplus of acid rain and a deficit of ozone and passenger pigeons.
I remember a geology professor mentioning once that climate change is a slippery slope in either direction because of the albedo of ice. Whatever small delta in temperature starts a melt (or freeze), it may be outpaced by progressively smaller (or larger) areas of ice reflecting energy away.
We should [sic] have to use Unions. But now we have to because "Big Government" can't keep it's god damn hands out of a free ecconomy.
In an economy increasingly based on "intellectual property" (the very concept requires the government's involvement), you're complaining that the government is involved? Now, I think noncompete clauses are horsecrap, but the government is involved because it's an IP issue. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have a government-enforced economy without the government getting into the action.
If the law mandates 5 days, you do 5 days or you can just not accept that state diploma!
Actually, you could quite easily not do 5 days and still accept the diploma. It's probably not a bad idea, even. Sometimes the law is wrong, and it makes sense to break it.
Look at some of the costliest per student school systems and you will find some of the worst.
I have to call bullshit here. Please back up your incredibly unlikely assertion with some evidence other than "I pay a lot of taxes and my school sucks."
How does the state know you aren't letting him play outside one day a week and you fake the records cause you're tired of teaching or need to catch up on other things?
You're right! What if unscrupulous parents devise a (downright socialist, if you ask me) four-day week, because teaching five days a week wears them out? Those poor kids don't have a chance in hell without school on Friday!
A parent who coaches their child for tests is teaching that child a lesson far more valuable than anything learned in school: That society is full of bullshit like standardized tests, and they should be regarded as the games they clearly are, rather than any measure of intellect or ability.
Well said. My folks actually left an incredibly important decision in my hands at a very early age: whether to continue attending public school in the first grade, or get out and do home schooling. I wanted to learn, and I actually stayed in school for about four months before I realized the two were completely at odds. Blah blah blah, I turned out okay and did well in college.
I even have a social skill or two.
Indeed. I was wielding the razor-sharp edge of sarcasm against this snippet from the GP:
will sign their name in the source
I guess they must be real freedom-lovers too, to open-source their virus code like that and let their handles be known.
First off, I agree that the OP was probably an idiot. But the statement that you quote seems more akin to a simple fact: the public isn't that excited about science. You're saying they should be more excited about it. I'd like to see that too, but I'd also like to see the public interested in better movies, better music, better people. Again, just because the public doesn't care much about science doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid (for better evidence of the public's stupidity: the last two U.S. presidential elections). In fact, one of the most intelligent people I've met has basically no interest in science.
...before the Russians did.
What was the point of going to the moon? To do it.
The public has never been particularly gung-ho about science for science's sake. You have to make it into a war to get their attention.
We didn't understand the impacts of space travel at the time. But you can certainly do a little looking to find out what has come out of it.
So the argument for space travel is, "Last time we had to figure out how to go into space, we invented a bunch of great stuff." That's a bit of evidence for the benefits, but it's still a long way from solidity.
How do you think the internet came about?
As a matter of fact, research! I know, you're shocked. But specifically, it was applied research in communication technology. That's applied research with an almost immediately practical goal in mind.
Before you launch into a discussion of the benefits of pure research, I agree that it's something we do need more of. But that's also not an argument for space travel. Saying "research is good, space travel spawns research, so space travel is good" isn't enough. Personally, I would be more excited by a bigger research budget for particle physics (damn you, Clinton).
Devil's advocacy aside, I would much rather see a manned mission (or even a deep space probe) than another rover. Yes, I understand that it's a great technical accomplishment, but that's really no reason to send another one in the hopes that its limited abilities might find life where the first one didn't.
[satire]
I'm sorry, but what you've described sounds too close to communism for me to have a rational discussion with you. Please allow to me to cite a list of oppressive, totalitarian regimes that called themselves "communist" or "socialist". Remember the fact that communism can't possibly work; otherwise it would have.
[/satire]
I think you're a bit out of line here. You're saying this guy's lack of interest in remote exploration of Mars is part of the problem with this country? As much as this stuff excites a geek like me, it's pretty wrongheaded to assume that someone is stupid because they're not interested in the same things as you.
To rant a bit, asking "what do we get out of space exploration" is a valid, intrinsically reasonable question, and I'm tired of seeing people flamed for asking it (not referring to your post). We have many problems and limited resources, and pretending some of those problems don't exist just so the "cooler" ones get to be solved is not an intellectually honest position. Your personal reasons for feeling that space travel is vital to humanity might be at odds with Joe Beatnik who thinks that money would better enrich our people by funding art projects. Can anyone point me to a rational discussion of the importance of space travel that manages to avoid silly emotional "Because it's there" and all-technology-exists-because-of-space-travel arguments?
You're confusing neocons with fundies. Neocons want to take over the world and use fundies to further that goal. Fundies hate it when people can do as they please and not hurt anybody, so they're using the neocons to further their domestic agenda. Of course there is overlap, but the terms are fairly distinct.
They're not orthogonal, rather, one follows from the other. That's not just my opinion, it's the position of numerous philisophers, from Christians, to existentialists. Satre and Kant are at least honest enough to realize that denying God requires denying the meaning of life, and that since everything is relative, there can be no moral right or wrong.
So it's not just your unsubstantiated opinion, it's yours and some other peoples' as well? I think life's meaning is pretty crystal goddamn clear, but that's just my opinion, too. There is no basis for objectivity here... like most philosophy, it's just semantic circles without a connection to our shared reality. So please aim your pompous gun somewhere else.
Ya know, I first saw goatse almost exactly five years ago on a lunch break following a link from /.
MEEEMMMMORIEEEES...
Clearly, the logical answer is a computer.
Better make sure they haven't lifted any prints, or you might bleed yourself for nothing.
Google wins, 10,001-0.
It makes my day to see you sitting at +5, Insightful.
I'd like to very seriously point out that you repeated yourself.
If we need band aids, it is probably better to have a standard band aid for each purpose, rather than having a different one each time for no reason.
But this is exactly the point. High-level abstractions are fantastic, but there will always be a need for, if nothing else, alternate implementations of those abstractions. As long as we still need a language sitting where C++ sits relative to the hardware, we'll need these elegant solutions to the "braindead limitations" of lower-level languages.
Judging from his paper (if it's still up), the vulnerabilities allow for total execution takeover on the router, as long as you know where to hit up the overflows. Granted that's still not the *exact* nature of the vulnerability, but it sounds pretty squarely in the "CRITICAL" category to me.
you can't assume that the truth is 100% on Lynn's side
No, but the evidence is definitely in his favor. FBI investigation, talks of trade secret violation, and Cisco hasn't denied anything stated in the presentation, correct? But they did go to great lengths to ensure that the information didn't get disseminated. Not an open and shut case, but in the truth casino, my money's on Lynn.
Well, it doesn't look like he'll be facing any criminal charges, but I agree 100%. Trade secret violation as a criminal offense smacks of the kind of bullshit Adam Smith warned us would happen if businessmen were allowed to make the laws.