The double-routing is only a problem if the two MAC addresses are alive simultaneously. Since it's a wireless network we're talking about here, the devices in question are probably not turned on 24/7 - many of them are probably laptops. So long as the MAC spoofer is spoofing a MAC of a laptop that is CURRENTLY NOT IN USE, this measure you are referring to won't save you.
It is impossble to invent, or even just "take the intiative in creating" a thing that PREDATES the time you are referring to. What makes Gore's statement stupid (his actual statement, not just the republican falsified version of it) is that the internet was already in existence before the act in question. He can't have taken the initiative in creating the internet for the same exact reason I can't have taken the initiative in creating the automobile. I wasn't there at the time.
But we are not talking about the british isles, we were talking about britain.
False. The word that was used was the adjective: "British", not the noun "Britain". The original poster was lambasted for saying U2 was "British", not for saying they were "from Britain". And since one possible perfectly valid interpretation of "British" is the geographical collection of islands, that lambasting was uncalled for. There was a context under which it made sense. To assume the poster was a moron because people assumed he was not using that context was unfair, and that's why I piped in.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
If you can't recognize that, to the Crusaders and their Kings and the Pope, the Crusades were a religious act taken to further what they saw as God's will, then you're rather likely thinking about them with a closed mind.
You're right. In the alternate universe where I can't recognize that, I would have a closed mind. Recognizing that others think differently does not have to require that I treat their thoughts as valid. They thought they were doing it for religious reasons, yes. But they were wrong.
Yes. And I meant them. I speak very plainly and honestly about this, no matter whom it may offend.
But an odd thing happended several thousand years ago - a fellow was born under odd circumstances, made all sorts of outlandish claims about being God, did many very interesting things, and then died and came back to life again.
The only evidence that backs this up is that there exist people who believe it for some inexplicable reason. If that was sufficient evidence to go on then I'd have the problem of having to believe in hundreds of contrary religions.
Actually, it comes from the term in a car - the firewall in a car is the thicker shielding at the front occupant's feet that separates the passenger compartment from the engine compartment - to retard fires that break out in the engine. IN that context it sort of does mean keeping the fire "out" - from the context of the passengers - by keeping the fire in - from the context of the engine compartment.
Remember "out" and "in" swap meaning depending on where you're standing.
Exactly. A firewall is *already* a thing that can block traffic in two directions. A firewall blocking outgoing stuff is very common - like to prevent users in a company from using instant messenger, for example, or to prevent users from hitting a blacklist of websites, or prevent internal users from sending packets with IP addresses not in the right range for the local subdomain (to prevent viruses that try to spoof IPs from getting out).
Just like one-way streets, a one-way firewall is really the exception, not the norm.
That statement is often used as a refuge by those who are themselves causing the unfairness. It's one thing to say "This external thing we have no control over has made life unfair. Deal with it." It's something else entirely to say, "This law we enacted is unfair. Deal with it."
Guns are different because they are explicitly designed to be dangerous and cause injury or death. That's the whole point. The argument that outlawing guns would be just like outlawing cars or knives falls flat because of that difference. Don't get me wrong - I do NOT favor gun control laws. I just get tired of this very supid argument that doesn't hold water. The pro-gun people would have a much stronger position if they refrained from using it and stuck to the *REAL* problem - which is that it is hypocritical for a government to say "We get to have this dangerous power but our citizens don't." The fact that guns are weapons is precisely *why* they shouldn't be only in the hands of the government.
"This and that and the other thing are illegal" does not mean they all have to be present together to be illegal. If that was the intention then it would be necessary to explicitly say so. This is one of the many areas where English doesn't parse logically. Anytime English is used for anything where precision is absolutely necessary, it has to be used verbosely to cull out all the multitudes of plausable interpretations for phrases.
I think someone should invent a parser for lawmakers. If the law's phrasing yields an ambiguous result, then it's a compile-time error and the law has to be rephrased before it can be submitted for acceptance. All laws should be checked with -Wall and lint.
You didn't parse the sentence the way it was written. "The UK High Court has judged that the sale, advertisement, possession for commercial purposes and __use_of___ PlayStation 2 modification chips is illegal in this country."
There are four things made illegal by this:
sale of Playstation 2 modification chips.
advertisement of Playstation 2 modification chips.
possession for commercial purposes of Playstation 2 modification chips.
use of Playstation 2 modification chips.
The analogy is perfect. If someone says the phrase "places in America, like Seattle, Los Angeles, Houston, and Toronto", it would be wrong to assume he's being a moron who doesn't know that Toronto isn't in the USA, since there does exist one possible definition for "America" in which that statement wouldn't be stupid, and even if you don't speak that way yourself, maybe this guy did. And that is why it makes a perfect analogy to the way people ripped into this guy for saying an Irish band is British. While it might not be the most common meaning of the term, it certainly is one valid meaning of the term, and it therefore is not sufficient reason to be an asshole toward the guy for saying it.
The posts in response assumed this guy was being a moron for not realizing Ireland isn't in the UK, when it's entirely possible he knew that perfectly well, since there exists a definition of "British" which is about the pair of islands, not about the countries on them.
And it was that unfair treatment of him that prompted my response.
AARRRGGGG! Re-read my post. I EXPLICITLY said I wasn't talking about the UK, but about the word "British". There are some Isles. They are called "British Isles". And that term includes the Republic of Ireland. UK is a term that describes a nation. "British" is a term that describes a geographic area.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
It was never about belief in god. It was about trying to spread the power of the church - the secular power of the church.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
My point was that it is wrong for people to take the actions of the church as evidence of what religion is good for, given how the church has had a HUGE secular component for a long time and it's very hard to separate that from the religious component. The crusades were very obviously secular in nature, despite any rhetoric to the contrary. My point is that so too was the scientific research of the church entirely secular, despite and rhetoric to the contrary. They were doing science for the same reason they were teaching children of royalty how to read and write - it was just expected that the church would be the central repository of all literate work. There's a reason "clerk" is a word that came from "cleric". Once upon a time, if it was paperwork of any kind it was culturally assumed to be the domain of the church.
If an American wanted to get to Japan, she could get there faster by going west than by going east, and yet it's still called the far east because the terms are Eurocentric.
This conclusion raises many questions, though - who is the designer? Why did he make us? How should we then live? And all that.
If you ask those questions you have already gone far beyond that first step because you are assuming *we* are designed and planned for, in addition to the universe being designed. A possible Creator is one that didn't plan all the tiny little details out, and therefore doesn't even think anything special of us, out here on our third stone from a rather ordinary sun, sitting in the outer spiral arm of one of many medium sized galaxies.
If there is a creator, and he did design us, and we are the reason the entire universe was made, then either he's an extremely inefficient designer to have wasted all that space, or we are just one life form of many he designed, or else maybe the only technique he could use was a brute force semi-random technique and he's not all that omnipotent after all - just more potent than we are but he's still got some limitations to work with.
It's because of scenarios like the above one that I don't just come out and say "there cannot be a god".
I am however perfectly comfortable saying that the god described by Christianity is not possible given the universe as it exists.
Why do people have a negative view of that word "excuse"? It doesn't always mean "fake excuse". Sometimes an excuse is merely the truthful honest reason something happened. Being against people making excuses then ends up meaning you are against people telling the honest truth about why something happened.
Succinctly put. But there's a great deal of evidence that the universe was intelligently designed.
I have heard that claim put forth, but it has two problems: 1 - When someone making that claim lays out that evidence, it doesn't look convincing to me. 2 - Even if it did, there is a wide gap between believing the universe was created and picking a particular diety over another. At best it only gets you a fuzzy sort of belief that doesn't amount to anything useful, and has no conclusions that can be drawn from it, such that there's really not much of a point to it at all.
Which, the last time I looked at a map, means they are British. Did Ireland move recently? Note "British" does not have to mean "Part of the U.K.". It is also a geopraphical term. Ireland is British in exactly the same way that Canada is American.
Re:Have to be careful here with music tastes
on
IT's Musical Habits
·
· Score: 1
but just say you're not into it and don't like it instead of blasting the entire genre as "worthless." THEN you're close-minded.
When speaking of something that is solely in the realm of opinion and has no real objective facts to back it up, like whether or not a music piece is "good", there isn't really any difference between someone saying something is worthless and them saying they aren't into it and don't like it. You are taking offense over it when it is phrased one way, and not when it is phrased a different way, even though the real message is exactly the same in both cases.
I dislike rap and hip hop because in both of them melody is secondary, and rhythm is king, but for me melody is essential to my musical enjoyment. There are a few cases where some of the songs do have a melody that is equally as strong as the rhythm, and those I can enjoy, (There are a few outkast songs like that) but I'm not willing to invest the time it takes wading through all the other stuff to get to those few rare gems. I'd rather listen to a style that guarantees all the songs will have a melody.
Re:Have to be careful here with music tastes
on
IT's Musical Habits
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Exhibit A is bad. The emacs vs vi rivalry is hardly serious, and in the end both sides know it doesn't matter. Why? Because you can take my file I created in vi, and edit it in your emacs, and when you're done with it I can take it back and edit it some more in my Vi. The choice of text editor is truly a Personal Choice - it affects nobody but yourself. The things people usually get worked up the most over are the things where other people's choices end up affecting you whether you like it or not. The fact that Windows is popular affects everyone, even those who don't choose it for themselves - they still have to use it anyway to work along with those that did choose it.
Slashdot Mirror
The double-routing is only a problem if the two MAC addresses are alive simultaneously. Since it's a wireless network we're talking about here, the devices in question are probably not turned on 24/7 - many of them are probably laptops. So long as the MAC spoofer is spoofing a MAC of a laptop that is CURRENTLY NOT IN USE, this measure you are referring to won't save you.
It is impossble to invent, or even just "take the intiative in creating" a thing that PREDATES the time you are referring to. What makes Gore's statement stupid (his actual statement, not just the republican falsified version of it) is that the internet was already in existence before the act in question. He can't have taken the initiative in creating the internet for the same exact reason I can't have taken the initiative in creating the automobile. I wasn't there at the time.
But we are not talking about the british isles, we were talking about britain.
False. The word that was used was the adjective: "British", not the noun "Britain". The original poster was lambasted for saying U2 was "British", not for saying they were "from Britain". And since one possible perfectly valid interpretation of "British" is the geographical collection of islands, that lambasting was uncalled for. There was a context under which it made sense. To assume the poster was a moron because people assumed he was not using that context was unfair, and that's why I piped in.
If you can't recognize that, to the Crusaders and their Kings and the Pope, the Crusades were a religious act taken to further what they saw as God's will, then you're rather likely thinking about them with a closed mind.
You're right. In the alternate universe where I can't recognize that, I would have a closed mind. Recognizing that others think differently does not have to require that I treat their thoughts as valid. They thought they were doing it for religious reasons, yes. But they were wrong.
Well... _not possible_, them's pretty strong words.
Yes. And I meant them. I speak very plainly and honestly about this, no matter whom it may offend.
But an odd thing happended several thousand years ago - a fellow was born under odd circumstances, made all sorts of outlandish claims about being God, did many very interesting things, and then died and came back to life again.
The only evidence that backs this up is that there exist people who believe it for some inexplicable reason. If that was sufficient evidence to go on then I'd have the problem of having to believe in hundreds of contrary religions.
Actually, it comes from the term in a car - the firewall in a car is the thicker shielding at the front occupant's feet that separates the passenger compartment from the engine compartment - to retard fires that break out in the engine. IN that context it sort of does mean keeping the fire "out" - from the context of the passengers - by keeping the fire in - from the context of the engine compartment.
Remember "out" and "in" swap meaning depending on where you're standing.
Exactly. A firewall is *already* a thing that can block traffic in two directions. A firewall blocking outgoing stuff is very common - like to prevent users in a company from using instant messenger, for example, or to prevent users from hitting a blacklist of websites, or prevent internal users from sending packets with IP addresses not in the right range for the local subdomain (to prevent viruses that try to spoof IPs from getting out).
Just like one-way streets, a one-way firewall is really the exception, not the norm.
"Life's not fair" was here response.
That statement is often used as a refuge by those who are themselves causing the unfairness. It's one thing to say "This external thing we have no control over has made life unfair. Deal with it." It's something else entirely to say, "This law we enacted is unfair. Deal with it."
Guns are different because they are explicitly designed to be dangerous and cause injury or death. That's the whole point. The argument that outlawing guns would be just like outlawing cars or knives falls flat because of that difference. Don't get me wrong - I do NOT favor gun control laws. I just get tired of this very supid argument that doesn't hold water. The pro-gun people would have a much stronger position if they refrained from using it and stuck to the *REAL* problem - which is that it is hypocritical for a government to say "We get to have this dangerous power but our citizens don't." The fact that guns are weapons is precisely *why* they shouldn't be only in the hands of the government.
"This and that and the other thing are illegal" does not mean they all have to be present together to be illegal. If that was the intention then it would be necessary to explicitly say so. This is one of the many areas where English doesn't parse logically. Anytime English is used for anything where precision is absolutely necessary, it has to be used verbosely to cull out all the multitudes of plausable interpretations for phrases.
I think someone should invent a parser for lawmakers. If the law's phrasing yields an ambiguous result, then it's a compile-time error and the law has to be rephrased before it can be submitted for acceptance. All laws should be checked with -Wall and lint.
You didn't parse the sentence the way it was written.
"The UK High Court has judged that the sale, advertisement, possession for commercial purposes and __use_of___ PlayStation 2 modification chips is illegal in this country."
There are four things made illegal by this:
sale of Playstation 2 modification chips.
advertisement of Playstation 2 modification chips.
possession for commercial purposes of Playstation 2 modification chips.
use of Playstation 2 modification chips.
It would have been just as easy to say "while this certainly is a big blow to piracy
Yes. Lying is often very easy.
The analogy is perfect. If someone says the phrase "places in America, like Seattle, Los Angeles, Houston, and Toronto", it would be wrong to assume he's being a moron who doesn't know that Toronto isn't in the USA, since there does exist one possible definition for "America" in which that statement wouldn't be stupid, and even if you don't speak that way yourself, maybe this guy did. And that is why it makes a perfect analogy to the way people ripped into this guy for saying an Irish band is British. While it might not be the most common meaning of the term, it certainly is one valid meaning of the term, and it therefore is not sufficient reason to be an asshole toward the guy for saying it.
The posts in response assumed this guy was being a moron for not realizing Ireland isn't in the UK, when it's entirely possible he knew that perfectly well, since there exists a definition of "British" which is about the pair of islands, not about the countries on them.
And it was that unfair treatment of him that prompted my response.
It is a country, an island in fact.
No. It is TWO islands. There is a reason "British Isles" is a plural term.
Ireland indeed has nothing to do with the UK
AARRRGGGG! Re-read my post. I EXPLICITLY said I wasn't talking about the UK, but about the word "British". There are some Isles. They are called "British Isles". And that term includes the Republic of Ireland. UK is a term that describes a nation. "British" is a term that describes a geographic area.
It was never about belief in god. It was about trying to spread the power of the church - the secular power of the church.
My point was that it is wrong for people to take the actions of the church as evidence of what religion is good for, given how the church has had a HUGE secular component for a long time and it's very hard to separate that from the religious component. The crusades were very obviously secular in nature, despite any rhetoric to the contrary. My point is that so too was the scientific research of the church entirely secular, despite and rhetoric to the contrary. They were doing science for the same reason they were teaching children of royalty how to read and write - it was just expected that the church would be the central repository of all literate work. There's a reason "clerk" is a word that came from "cleric". Once upon a time, if it was paperwork of any kind it was culturally assumed to be the domain of the church.
"The west" - there's a meaningless term.
If an American wanted to get to Japan, she could get there faster by going west than by going east, and yet it's still called the far east because the terms are Eurocentric.
This conclusion raises many questions, though - who is the designer? Why did he make us? How should we then live? And all that.
If you ask those questions you have already gone far beyond that first step because you are assuming *we* are designed and planned for, in addition to the universe being designed. A possible Creator is one that didn't plan all the tiny little details out, and therefore doesn't even think anything special of us, out here on our third stone from a rather ordinary sun, sitting in the outer spiral arm of one of many medium sized galaxies.
If there is a creator, and he did design us, and we are the reason the entire universe was made, then either he's an extremely inefficient designer to have wasted all that space, or we are just one life form of many he designed, or else maybe the only technique he could use was a brute force semi-random technique and he's not all that omnipotent after all - just more potent than we are but he's still got some limitations to work with.
It's because of scenarios like the above one that I don't just come out and say "there cannot be a god".
I am however perfectly comfortable saying that the god described by Christianity is not possible given the universe as it exists.
I've just never been fond of making excuses.
Why do people have a negative view of that word "excuse"? It doesn't always mean "fake excuse". Sometimes an excuse is merely the truthful honest reason something happened. Being against people making excuses then ends up meaning you are against people telling the honest truth about why something happened.
Succinctly put. But there's a great deal of evidence that the universe was intelligently designed.
I have heard that claim put forth, but it has two problems:
1 - When someone making that claim lays out that evidence, it doesn't look convincing to me.
2 - Even if it did, there is a wide gap between believing the universe was created and picking a particular diety over another. At best it only gets you a fuzzy sort of belief that doesn't amount to anything useful, and has no conclusions that can be drawn from it, such that there's really not much of a point to it at all.
You're wrong. Both phrases exist in the song. In one verse it says "build a little.." and in another it says "make a little..."
U2 is Irish,
Which, the last time I looked at a map, means they are British. Did Ireland move recently? Note "British" does not have to mean "Part of the U.K.". It is also a geopraphical term. Ireland is British in exactly the same way that Canada is American.
but just say you're not into it and don't like it instead of blasting the entire genre as "worthless." THEN you're close-minded.
When speaking of something that is solely in the realm of opinion and has no real objective facts to back it up, like whether or not a music piece is "good", there isn't really any difference between someone saying something is worthless and them saying they aren't into it and don't like it. You are taking offense over it when it is phrased one way, and not when it is phrased a different way, even though the real message is exactly the same in both cases.
I dislike rap and hip hop because in both of them melody is secondary, and rhythm is king, but for me melody is essential to my musical enjoyment. There are a few cases where some of the songs do have a melody that is equally as strong as the rhythm, and those I can enjoy, (There are a few outkast songs like that) but I'm not willing to invest the time it takes wading through all the other stuff to get to those few rare gems. I'd rather listen to a style that guarantees all the songs will have a melody.
Exhibit A is bad. The emacs vs vi rivalry is hardly serious, and in the end both sides know it doesn't matter. Why? Because you can take my file I created in vi, and edit it in your emacs, and when you're done with it I can take it back and edit it some more in my Vi. The choice of text editor is truly a Personal Choice - it affects nobody but yourself. The things people usually get worked up the most over are the things where other people's choices end up affecting you whether you like it or not. The fact that Windows is popular affects everyone, even those who don't choose it for themselves - they still have to use it anyway to work along with those that did choose it.