You don't get that much "I'm cleverer than you. You fail."
Correct. You get much less intelligent information. "Mary and John are now friends! You should be friends too!". "Gerald just sold a painting on Mafia wars. I'll bet you wanna play too!"
Of course my all time favorite is the "You have been tagged in a photo, click this link to get hacked".
From my younger relatives, I see things like "This band Fu^* sucks [link to youtube]" and "I got so wasted last night" or "I hate my teacher so much"
And I know, Facebook has tried to limit the application messages but it still burps out a bunch of shit every now and then. Guess how much trust I have for a site that occasionally burps data that I specifically blocked?
You appear to be trolling so far OT and from my point I'm wondering if it'll be worth the response.
If anything, the lack of a proper cypher configuration on the Predator is a prime example of why we don't want a Universal controller for all of the DOD UMV systems. We let enemies see the GPS tracking signals at best, and C&C instructions at worst. Now ask yourself why it was not enabled and configured?
Money. Politicians and Military Leadership wanted to save a few bucks so released and launched them early. Do you think that money is any different of a motivator for a universal access system so that a single interface can access any and all UMVs?
You think there is no security risk in doing this? or that TCP/IP in general terms is the same amount of risk? You are making an apples to shit eating whale comparison.
Initially, this will save a few bucks. Remember, that what ever you give to someone off shore will become public domain in very short order. This unfortunate reality has been brought to you by every schmuck company that sent programming work to China expecting to gain sales of their software in China.
While cheaper, once you leave the US you no longer have protection for your IP. China does not care about the US patent system, nor does India, Vietnam, or hell even most of Europe. Do you have patent's in every overseas company you wish to sell your products/services like in the US? Get filing!
Work ethic across the pond is very different. Their deadlines are not your deadlines, and they have no vested interest in seeing you succeed. They get paid to dump code by the hour. They honestly don't care if your business dies, some other schmuck company will send them their code to modify by the hour. Also, overseas does not have deadlines like we do for the most part. When 5PM comes, or when their shift ends, they leave no questions asked. Even if a customer is sitting on the phone with them. It is a different work ethic, plus if they are late and miss the buss it's a 4 hour walk home in many cases.
Interfacing with current customers (Save your rants, this is not bias over culture, race, or nationality. It's a communication problem because of language differences) - another nightmare scenario skipped in the "but it's cheaper" logic. Plan on losing 10-20% of your customer when they realize that the person sitting in the meetings with them can only comprehend about 8% of what they are requesting. You can pay a lot of extra money for a good translator, but then so much for those big savings dumping work over seas.
Lock down everything! They will lie and tell you they need super-user access, access to every bit of code you own, access to databases they don't need, etc... They can make extra money selling your stuff, and worse, in may cases Government officials demand that they request and give them access to things they should not have.
Um, yes it was intentional. The Army itself did not want the Navy to have access to it's UMV systems, the Air Force did not want the Army to have access to their UAV systems, etc.. This is working as designed. There are very good reasons why General Dynamics works on Army products completely isolated form Navy products. Boeing does the same with Air Force/Navy/Marines projects, as does BAE with Marines/Army. Separation is required by all branch standards.
There is a separate project and program for battlefield command and communications which is a joint effort and designed to be available to all branches.
I guess you lack any knowledge regarding how the Government communicates over TCP/IP. Encryption hardware is not shared between sites. Access is takes multiple parties to configure. Everyone knows how TCP/IP is unsecured by itself, which is why we have encryption that sits over the top.
Do you need me to Google encryption for you coward?
I did not interpret the post the same. G+ tried to be the new edgy techie place where technical people would flock to social media. Google saw that most techies are not Facebook junkies like average people. Selling points "Higher levels of control", "Better use of groups with Circles that can link", Higher privacy standards, etc...
I think what Google failed at however, is understanding why technical people don't like Facebook. Sure, what G+ built in is important to us and what we bitch about with Facebook but most surely is not the only thing that keeps us away.
More important reasons we don't use Social media...
Facebook is full of useless information. G+ does not change that aspect.
Lusers asking dumb stuff or epeen waving is still the predominant feature Social Media.
The amount of time it takes to read or write anything of relevance far exceeds other sites.
We tend to dislike any technology that is luser friendly and full of average people.
I'll give you that a lot of techies may have a Facebook account. If you have Gmail then you have a G+ account. We may go visit on occasion just to look around and be sad, but we sure as hell don't squat on the page to be "edgy and cool" like lusers do.
Look, there is a reason that some Army guy has a different method of access to his unmanned recon tracked vehicle than an Air Force guy has to a Predator with Hellfire missiles, who has different methods of access than a weather drone pilot in the Navy. That separation creates very large walls that make it difficult to make mistakes.
Should the Pentagon have requirements for how a User Interface should look and feel? Hell yes they should. There should not ever be a simplified method of access across platforms. It's extremely dangerous.
On the other hand, I'm sure someone in the Pentagon has a friend or relative that needed cash so put out a bid on something like this despite the extremely obvious dangers.
Just from your review I understood that it was not at all a "regular person" kind of book. Sounds rather interesting, but seems to require a lot of knowledge ahead of reading. I'm sure there are a few/.ers that are genetic specialists and microbiologists that can enjoy.
They are taught all over, though perhaps your point is somewhat valid. In an advance High School Physics class they would not be taught truly, but rather discussion tops for lessons and perhaps extra credit assignments.
Off the top of my head, there have been 6 different series of shows on National Geographic and Discovery in the last few years showing Theoretical Physics, presented as factual data. This is everything from the Hawking mini-series to "The Universe".
Theoretical Physics has a title that sums up what it is (Theory), yet it's presented as factual data. Then we have a simple, elegant, and very logical theory for the beginning of the Universe that gets treated as voodoo. That is what I find the most frustrating. No, it's not that there are competing theories. It's that you can only talk about what an Atheist has on their agenda for theory. And sorry, while a negative parallel Universe may be good reading it is at least as much, if not more, far fetched than belief in a creator.
Wrong, you clearly attack the belief of a creator. Psychologically, you do this to defend your own beliefs. It probably hurts your head to think about it, I won't wait.
My post is an obvious troll, yet the person who originally stated the atheist belief that I replied to is not? Wholly shit, biased much?
Honestly, if it generated that many replies then I did well in presenting my arguments and thoughts, which is not the same as trolling. If it hurts your head to think, then don't!
Actually, Atheists in this post and elsewhere argue against teaching anyone to think about the answer for themselves. We can't yet prove dark matter exists, heavy elements exist, dark energy exists, yet those subjects are okay for people to learn right?
I'm sorry, but you have something wrong. Philosophy does deal with this, and so does "Science" in general because this is how the scientific principles were founded. You chose to explicitly state "Metaphysics" but use the generic term "Science" as not relevant. Explicit sciences may be correct but not the generic term of "Science".
Actually I can describe such an experiment very easily. bit favors a creator.
Make a box completely shielded from any form of energy. This to us is impossible, hence the experiment can not physically be built. However, you can use this same experiment in physics models very easily. Of course you are going to argue that "the experiment can't be built physically so it fails" to which my simple answer is "Build working physical model for the big bang" so that could not be true either right?
Assume that our box inside is 0K (absolute 0), and that we can inject atoms into the box and not place any energy inside the box.
Inside the box, place 10 of each atom. Order does not matter, and placement does not matter. Close the box, and wait.
13 billion years later, what would you have in the box?
The answer is that it would be the same things placed in the box 13 billion years ago, in the same exact position.
Now, repeat that experiment but inside the box add a strong electromagnet and increase the heat to 273K (0c).
13 billion years later, what's in the box?
Our atoms would have had energy, and could begin to converge and create molecules. We'd probably have some water (H20), maybe some salt, Iron Oxides.
Results: Until we added energy to excite atoms, nothing happened. What happened was a result of having atoms and energy. Cause -> effect.
The break down in most Atheist logic is that when it comes to a creator, we claim that from nothing (no mater and no energy) we end up with the Universe. Instead of looking at a creator as a concept, it gets viewed with all of our personal biases and visions for a Religious belief.
Science can not tell us what started everything. We teach cause and effect for all other aspects of Science, except for that very critical part. Where did it all start?.
You are introducing biases in to the argument. A "diety" does not matter, nor does a guiding hand in evolution (at least to start). What matters is what started the Universe.
When we come to terms with that thought, then we look at other questions that become important, like "why we have morals".
I was waiting for you or someone else to get to your choice (b).
Please show me a scientific example of something that just springs in to existence. Go ahead, Google that and then do some fact checking. You won't find it, but you can try. Everything in science has a cause and effect. 2 atoms fuse, energy is created (though it takes energy to fuse or break apart atoms as well), Neutrinos travel because of energy, as to quarks, electrons, photons, etc... There is nothing that just "sprang into being from nowhere".
Then to your point a, you are showing your bias. You are associating a figure head that you picture in your mind as the concept of having a creator. As you shake the bias you start to understand the concept. I'm doubtful that you will try. People hate doing things like this because it shakes the foundation you have built all of your other thoughts on.
There is no evidence for an omnipotent sky bully, but there is plenty of evidence just sitting around waiting for clever monkeys to notice it, suggesting a natural creation method
Yet another prime example of the challenge and why people should be taught to think. You clearly illustrate your biases in that statement, hence are stuck in realm of saying "nuh uh" regardless of how someone presents an argument.
The big bang does not answer the question, and still requires a starting mechanism. This is the most common drop off point for the atheists by the way.
As to your bias helk we all have them, and as I mentioned in his thread it literally too me nearly a decade to learn to think about the concept free of my biases. The word creator will immediately cause people to envision a figure, sometimes a ghostly man on a cross, sometimes a golden cow, sometimes an old guy with a beard. Ever wonder why you have this mental trauma that immediately relates the concept of a creator with some bully you can't fight? This is probably the result of sociological influence not very different from a named Religion.
Actually the logic works out well in the favor of a creator vs. shit just popping in to existence (science has proven over and over that shit does not and can not just pop in to existence). I am generous and open minded enough to listen to alternatives. Funny that the biases with Atheism quickly turn in to "nuh uh" or "well it's not worth arguing", but at the same time they will argue for multiple universes, or negative universes in the 19th dimension that can't be proved either.
The logic works the same for all those things as it does a creator. The difference between them is that a creator does not back your personal belief system of Atheism.
Like I mentioned a few times, this is your bias. It's usually a bias much stronger than someone with Religious belief, and you argue against the concept stronger than a Jehovah's Witness on a door to door mission of evangelism.
Okay, at this point, I have to ask... what the fuck are you getting at?
Pretty much what I started and ended with. Using war time examples to show that the US is "bad" is not the way to do so. War is bad, it's ugly and horrible. You obviously get the hate factor since it sounds like you have been a victim. Saying the US is bad because [insert anything from a war] does not get the point across, and becomes very debatable because, well, it's a war.
Yes, I know. I was there. And no bail or trial for a couple weeks is not the same thing as never having a trial, being disappeared, having the government deny your family, friends, or anyone access to you, never seeing a lawyer, permanently. That's what we've legalized in the past few years; and it goes against everything we have sent generations of young men overseas to die for.
Exactly! Pretty much sums up what I stated. The laws being passed that clearly violate the constitution are what we should be discussing if we talk about the US being "bad". Also, because you don't hear about people being detained without trial from Occupy does not mean it's not happening. Hell, because I am vocal here, on Facebook, on G+, etc.. I told all my friends and family "If I vanish start asking questions." for just that reason.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get that much "I'm cleverer than you. You fail."
Correct. You get much less intelligent information. "Mary and John are now friends! You should be friends too!". "Gerald just sold a painting on Mafia wars. I'll bet you wanna play too!"
Of course my all time favorite is the "You have been tagged in a photo, click this link to get hacked".
From my younger relatives, I see things like "This band Fu^* sucks [link to youtube]" and "I got so wasted last night" or "I hate my teacher so much"
And I know, Facebook has tried to limit the application messages but it still burps out a bunch of shit every now and then. Guess how much trust I have for a site that occasionally burps data that I specifically blocked?
You appear to be trolling so far OT and from my point I'm wondering if it'll be worth the response.
If anything, the lack of a proper cypher configuration on the Predator is a prime example of why we don't want a Universal controller for all of the DOD UMV systems. We let enemies see the GPS tracking signals at best, and C&C instructions at worst. Now ask yourself why it was not enabled and configured?
Money. Politicians and Military Leadership wanted to save a few bucks so released and launched them early. Do you think that money is any different of a motivator for a universal access system so that a single interface can access any and all UMVs?
You think there is no security risk in doing this? or that TCP/IP in general terms is the same amount of risk? You are making an apples to shit eating whale comparison.
Initially, this will save a few bucks. Remember, that what ever you give to someone off shore will become public domain in very short order. This unfortunate reality has been brought to you by every schmuck company that sent programming work to China expecting to gain sales of their software in China.
While cheaper, once you leave the US you no longer have protection for your IP. China does not care about the US patent system, nor does India, Vietnam, or hell even most of Europe. Do you have patent's in every overseas company you wish to sell your products/services like in the US? Get filing!
Work ethic across the pond is very different. Their deadlines are not your deadlines, and they have no vested interest in seeing you succeed. They get paid to dump code by the hour. They honestly don't care if your business dies, some other schmuck company will send them their code to modify by the hour. Also, overseas does not have deadlines like we do for the most part. When 5PM comes, or when their shift ends, they leave no questions asked. Even if a customer is sitting on the phone with them. It is a different work ethic, plus if they are late and miss the buss it's a 4 hour walk home in many cases.
Interfacing with current customers (Save your rants, this is not bias over culture, race, or nationality. It's a communication problem because of language differences) - another nightmare scenario skipped in the "but it's cheaper" logic. Plan on losing 10-20% of your customer when they realize that the person sitting in the meetings with them can only comprehend about 8% of what they are requesting. You can pay a lot of extra money for a good translator, but then so much for those big savings dumping work over seas.
Lock down everything! They will lie and tell you they need super-user access, access to every bit of code you own, access to databases they don't need, etc... They can make extra money selling your stuff, and worse, in may cases Government officials demand that they request and give them access to things they should not have.
Um, yes it was intentional. The Army itself did not want the Navy to have access to it's UMV systems, the Air Force did not want the Army to have access to their UAV systems, etc.. This is working as designed. There are very good reasons why General Dynamics works on Army products completely isolated form Navy products. Boeing does the same with Air Force/Navy/Marines projects, as does BAE with Marines/Army. Separation is required by all branch standards.
There is a separate project and program for battlefield command and communications which is a joint effort and designed to be available to all branches.
I'm sorry you fail at trying to comprehend relatively normal jargon. definition of luser. If you don't understand Wiki I'll help you with Google.
I guess you lack any knowledge regarding how the Government communicates over TCP/IP. Encryption hardware is not shared between sites. Access is takes multiple parties to configure. Everyone knows how TCP/IP is unsecured by itself, which is why we have encryption that sits over the top.
Do you need me to Google encryption for you coward?
I did not interpret the post the same. G+ tried to be the new edgy techie place where technical people would flock to social media. Google saw that most techies are not Facebook junkies like average people. Selling points "Higher levels of control", "Better use of groups with Circles that can link", Higher privacy standards, etc...
I think what Google failed at however, is understanding why technical people don't like Facebook. Sure, what G+ built in is important to us and what we bitch about with Facebook but most surely is not the only thing that keeps us away.
More important reasons we don't use Social media...
Facebook is full of useless information. G+ does not change that aspect.
Lusers asking dumb stuff or epeen waving is still the predominant feature Social Media.
The amount of time it takes to read or write anything of relevance far exceeds other sites.
We tend to dislike any technology that is luser friendly and full of average people.
I'll give you that a lot of techies may have a Facebook account. If you have Gmail then you have a G+ account. We may go visit on occasion just to look around and be sad, but we sure as hell don't squat on the page to be "edgy and cool" like lusers do.
Look, there is a reason that some Army guy has a different method of access to his unmanned recon tracked vehicle than an Air Force guy has to a Predator with Hellfire missiles, who has different methods of access than a weather drone pilot in the Navy. That separation creates very large walls that make it difficult to make mistakes.
Should the Pentagon have requirements for how a User Interface should look and feel? Hell yes they should. There should not ever be a simplified method of access across platforms. It's extremely dangerous.
On the other hand, I'm sure someone in the Pentagon has a friend or relative that needed cash so put out a bid on something like this despite the extremely obvious dangers.
They turned me in to a newt!
.
.
I got bettah...
Oh yeah? We'll see your privacy lawsuit and raise you a CISPA!
Ads, and app fees is all I can think of. I'm sure Zynga has to pay them a few pennies on every luser that buys "Farmville"
Run for cover, the Water Army is coming next!
Just from your review I understood that it was not at all a "regular person" kind of book. Sounds rather interesting, but seems to require a lot of knowledge ahead of reading. I'm sure there are a few /.ers that are genetic specialists and microbiologists that can enjoy.
Haha, +funny (sorry, no mod points today)
They are taught all over, though perhaps your point is somewhat valid. In an advance High School Physics class they would not be taught truly, but rather discussion tops for lessons and perhaps extra credit assignments.
Off the top of my head, there have been 6 different series of shows on National Geographic and Discovery in the last few years showing Theoretical Physics, presented as factual data. This is everything from the Hawking mini-series to "The Universe".
Theoretical Physics has a title that sums up what it is (Theory), yet it's presented as factual data. Then we have a simple, elegant, and very logical theory for the beginning of the Universe that gets treated as voodoo. That is what I find the most frustrating. No, it's not that there are competing theories. It's that you can only talk about what an Atheist has on their agenda for theory. And sorry, while a negative parallel Universe may be good reading it is at least as much, if not more, far fetched than belief in a creator.
Wrong, you clearly attack the belief of a creator. Psychologically, you do this to defend your own beliefs. It probably hurts your head to think about it, I won't wait.
My post is an obvious troll, yet the person who originally stated the atheist belief that I replied to is not? Wholly shit, biased much?
Honestly, if it generated that many replies then I did well in presenting my arguments and thoughts, which is not the same as trolling. If it hurts your head to think, then don't!
Actually, Atheists in this post and elsewhere argue against teaching anyone to think about the answer for themselves. We can't yet prove dark matter exists, heavy elements exist, dark energy exists, yet those subjects are okay for people to learn right?
I'm sorry, but you have something wrong. Philosophy does deal with this, and so does "Science" in general because this is how the scientific principles were founded. You chose to explicitly state "Metaphysics" but use the generic term "Science" as not relevant. Explicit sciences may be correct but not the generic term of "Science".
Actually I can describe such an experiment very easily. bit favors a creator.
Make a box completely shielded from any form of energy. This to us is impossible, hence the experiment can not physically be built. However, you can use this same experiment in physics models very easily. Of course you are going to argue that "the experiment can't be built physically so it fails" to which my simple answer is "Build working physical model for the big bang" so that could not be true either right?
Assume that our box inside is 0K (absolute 0), and that we can inject atoms into the box and not place any energy inside the box.
Inside the box, place 10 of each atom. Order does not matter, and placement does not matter. Close the box, and wait.
13 billion years later, what would you have in the box?
The answer is that it would be the same things placed in the box 13 billion years ago, in the same exact position.
Now, repeat that experiment but inside the box add a strong electromagnet and increase the heat to 273K (0c) .
13 billion years later, what's in the box?
Our atoms would have had energy, and could begin to converge and create molecules. We'd probably have some water (H20), maybe some salt, Iron Oxides.
Results: Until we added energy to excite atoms, nothing happened. What happened was a result of having atoms and energy. Cause -> effect.
The break down in most Atheist logic is that when it comes to a creator, we claim that from nothing (no mater and no energy) we end up with the Universe. Instead of looking at a creator as a concept, it gets viewed with all of our personal biases and visions for a Religious belief.
Science can not tell us what started everything. We teach cause and effect for all other aspects of Science, except for that very critical part. Where did it all start?.
You are introducing biases in to the argument. A "diety" does not matter, nor does a guiding hand in evolution (at least to start). What matters is what started the Universe.
When we come to terms with that thought, then we look at other questions that become important, like "why we have morals".
Philosophy is pretty dang cool.
I was waiting for you or someone else to get to your choice (b).
Please show me a scientific example of something that just springs in to existence. Go ahead, Google that and then do some fact checking. You won't find it, but you can try. Everything in science has a cause and effect. 2 atoms fuse, energy is created (though it takes energy to fuse or break apart atoms as well), Neutrinos travel because of energy, as to quarks, electrons, photons, etc... There is nothing that just "sprang into being from nowhere".
Then to your point a, you are showing your bias. You are associating a figure head that you picture in your mind as the concept of having a creator. As you shake the bias you start to understand the concept. I'm doubtful that you will try. People hate doing things like this because it shakes the foundation you have built all of your other thoughts on.
There is no evidence for an omnipotent sky bully, but there is plenty of evidence just sitting around waiting for clever monkeys to notice it, suggesting a natural creation method
Yet another prime example of the challenge and why people should be taught to think. You clearly illustrate your biases in that statement, hence are stuck in realm of saying "nuh uh" regardless of how someone presents an argument.
The big bang does not answer the question, and still requires a starting mechanism. This is the most common drop off point for the atheists by the way.
As to your bias helk we all have them, and as I mentioned in his thread it literally too me nearly a decade to learn to think about the concept free of my biases. The word creator will immediately cause people to envision a figure, sometimes a ghostly man on a cross, sometimes a golden cow, sometimes an old guy with a beard. Ever wonder why you have this mental trauma that immediately relates the concept of a creator with some bully you can't fight? This is probably the result of sociological influence not very different from a named Religion.
Actually the logic works out well in the favor of a creator vs. shit just popping in to existence (science has proven over and over that shit does not and can not just pop in to existence). I am generous and open minded enough to listen to alternatives. Funny that the biases with Atheism quickly turn in to "nuh uh" or "well it's not worth arguing", but at the same time they will argue for multiple universes, or negative universes in the 19th dimension that can't be proved either.
The logic works the same for all those things as it does a creator. The difference between them is that a creator does not back your personal belief system of Atheism.
Like I mentioned a few times, this is your bias. It's usually a bias much stronger than someone with Religious belief, and you argue against the concept stronger than a Jehovah's Witness on a door to door mission of evangelism.
Okay, at this point, I have to ask... what the fuck are you getting at?
Pretty much what I started and ended with. Using war time examples to show that the US is "bad" is not the way to do so. War is bad, it's ugly and horrible. You obviously get the hate factor since it sounds like you have been a victim. Saying the US is bad because [insert anything from a war] does not get the point across, and becomes very debatable because, well, it's a war.
Yes, I know. I was there. And no bail or trial for a couple weeks is not the same thing as never having a trial, being disappeared, having the government deny your family, friends, or anyone access to you, never seeing a lawyer, permanently. That's what we've legalized in the past few years; and it goes against everything we have sent generations of young men overseas to die for.
Exactly! Pretty much sums up what I stated. The laws being passed that clearly violate the constitution are what we should be discussing if we talk about the US being "bad". Also, because you don't hear about people being detained without trial from Occupy does not mean it's not happening. Hell, because I am vocal here, on Facebook, on G+, etc.. I told all my friends and family "If I vanish start asking questions." for just that reason.