When I see "Treacherous Computing," I know it's just going to be a bunch of loaded rhetoric trying to scare me into thinking my computer is magically going to shut me out.
It won't happen by magic. It will be done through the power of science!
but thought crime is wrong!! Thinking something is just as bad as doing it. Why are you objecting to obligatory mind probes. If you hvae nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. You're not thinking bad thoughts are you?
However, this doesn't change the fact that no matter how "local" you get -- no matter how small a patch of the hemisphere you take, the angles in a triangle drawn on this hemisphere will not add up to pi.
But it will be really, really, really close. Probably closer than you could get with any Pi algorithim after 100 computations.
It is a dark time for Web 2.0. Although the Beatles_Beatles has been destroyed, Slashbot troops have driven the Digg forces from their Ajax den and pursued them across the Internet.
Evading the dreaded Slashdot Moderator Fleet, a group of Web 2.0 upstarts led by Kevin Rose has established a new Digg site on the remote web servers of Revision3 Corporation.
The evil lord Darth Neal, obsessed with finding young Rose, has dispatched thousands of remote links, DDoSing into the far reaches of webspace....
As the son of a U.S. aid worker stationed in Guatemala during the 1970s civil war, Alex Joel recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad as both armed soldiers and civilians alike would order his family out of their car to search it.
Let me guess. He wasn't scared because they had nothing to hide, just like all good americans!
Something tells me Joel's time in Guatemala was well spent taking notes.
Everytime I read through another instance of China putting the kibosh on freedom and liberty, people here start picking up the "businesses make money, China has money, therefore businesses will screw anyone and everyone to make money" line of reasoning?
Now this is not a troll, but my understanding is that, this line of reasoning is very close to the one Americans, the denomination of most Slashdotters, had for slavery when it was legal in that country.
The workers/slaves are given a "better life" by being exposed to "civilisation". Consumers benefit through the availability of cheap goods/cotton. The economy imporves and everyone benefits. Rising tide, all boats, etc, etc.
Personally, I just see it as the American love of money dominating all other concerns. Even life, liberty, justice and the right to happiness. Once again, this isn't a troll. Though the subject is somewhat taboo, I feel the comparision is justified based on the history of economic practice in the United States.
Have search engines become government whipping boys?
It is a known phenomenon that when companies become large and influential enough in an important sphere, they essentially become branches of government.
Look at Boeing, AT&T, MicroSoft, ExxonMobil, Lockheed-Martin. All claim to be private entities, yet there's not a single honest man who could stand up and say out loud that they are not as intimately connected, if not more, with the US Government as a state body such as the IRS or the department of health.
The companies toe the government line, and in return reap the benefit of monopoly and preferential treatment.
You'll note I included MicroSoft and ExxonMobil in that list. However, in these days of globalisation, their subservience to any one government is suspect. Essentially, they are too large and global for any one government to seriously control them, or indeed trust them, as a de facto arm of government.
Google and Yahoo are in the information search business, an area of ever growing importance. Governments will never allow these companies to operate with private impuity. Eventually they will become mere arms of government, using their information for whatever purpose the government sees fit. China has simply already done this with Yahoo China.
Just check out the number of cable/satellite channels that are Geek oriented: Discover, National Geographic, Science, etc.
Have you noticed the decline in quality of those channels in recent years? Less science, more sensaitionalism, outright fantasy, melodramatic accompanying scores, the list goes on.
A program about dinosaurs nowadays is going to be 95% CG animation with little basis in reality, and 5% actualy real dionsaur bones with real information about how and where they were found. It's a kids CG cartoon show.
Engineering shows are just as bad. Programs on communications systems or aircraft are now about the wars these systems were used in, rather than about the systems themselves. When was the last time a documentary really went into depth about the technical systems and not about the personal stories of harrier pilots in the Falklands war? And when all those flashy 3d swooping animations are actually used to display technical specs, they're far inferior to the professional, clear and focused static animations of the past.
Geek shows aren't made by geeks anymore. They're made by reject B-movie directors, and it shows.
Not all Christian churches go for the abomination business.
Lies. All churches, all religions, are in the abomination business. It is their driving force, the very fuel that drives their congregations and galvanises their sermons. It is the prime mover of all religions and everything else, morality, philanthropy, charity, compassion, hope... all of these are simply loosely grafted onto the solid kernel of raw human fear that drives all prayer and devotion.
Without the fear of death, there would be no love of god.
More a sort of curiosity/desire I suppose. Which, from what I hear, is what homosexuality generally starts out as. A mixture of sexual desire and curiosity.
Curiosity? You think people become homosexual because they are "curious" about other mens genitals? Because they wonder what it would be like to sleep with a sweaty, hairy man? I think someone here is in denial. I'm quite serious.
Some people are homosexual. They are sexually attracted to members of the same sex and desire sex and relationships with them. This isn't some kind of choice, although like anything, one does have to choose to go out and find a partner. Homosexuals will continue to be attracted to members of the same sex no matter how much they try and repress their feelings, "turn heterosexual", or go along with the precepts of some religion.
No one should have to do this. Homosexuality isn't wrong. They shouldn't have to try and become heterosexual or try not to act on their desires. In fact, this would be a terrible things as it would simply lead to greater problems down the line. Homosexuals should act on their desires and form relationships with people of the opposite sex.
Here are the facts, which I'm going to lay out to you, plain and simple. Why do religions, societies and individuals constantly protest and rail against homosexuals, ostrasise them, punish them even kill them? Why do so many come up with such flawed arguments as you have been setting forth in this thread? Why are homosexuals so hated?
The answer simply goes back to adolesent insecurity. While developing, homophobes felt tremendously insecure in their sexuality. They derided homosexuality and lauded heterosexuality as a part of the teenage instinct to conform. They created in their minds the mythos of the homosexual fall from grace, so that they, no matter how far they fell would always be above those who "chose" homosexuality. Even many homosexuals come to believe in this flawed adolesent hierarchy, to their own detreiment.
Some people never grow out of this. They panic at the thought that anyone might think they are homosexual and fear homosexuals will try and "make them gay". This fallacy extends to such ridiculous proportions that someone who is raped by a member of the same sex is often assummed to have been "converted" into a homosexual. This is where such juvinile thinking leads.
Of course, many of these people are in fact homosexual, yet consistantly deny this fact. Like a priest who condenms an attractive young woman from "tempting men", they blame homosexuals for their unbidden, yet natural thoughts, and thus accuse them of trying to convert people to homosexuality. In reality of course, just like the priest, these thoughts come from within, and are only "wrong" in the mind of the thinker.
Such people will probably live an unhappy lie for the rest of their lives. Occassionally they will make the odd freudian slip as you did above when you spoke of homosexuality "starting out" as "curiosity". As a heterosexual, I can tell you that curiosity is most certainly not a motivator for sexual attraction. As I mentioned, the thought of a a hairy, sweaty man with a five o'clock shadow is not a titillating image. I'm not going to go on a crusade against it, and in fact I would encourage homosexual people to form relationships, but the act of homosexual intercourse itself is about as sexually stimulating as the thought of parental intercourse.
You may feel that I am degenerating the debate by somehow accusing you of having homosexual desire or being homosexual. That is not my intent. However, I felt it important to clarify the situation with regard to the source of much of your arguments, and to refute your own misunderstandings with regard to the source of homosexuality, and indeed, sexuality in general. I cannot tell someones sexual orientation from a few post on Slashdot. In any case, you are applying a different logic to the sexual development of homosexuals than is applied to hetrosexuals.
I've said it before and I'll be happy to repeat it. Oracle RDBMS is currently the most complex piece of software sold publically and it requires knowledge about the product to manage it.
Ask yourself. Why?
People scoff at Access, yet, when you come right down to it, what separates the logic of creating a database in Access verse creating one in Oracle. It's all just rows and columns, with some primary keys, indexes and hey presto, there's your database.
Please explain why exactly Oracle needs a DBA, yet an Access database can be created by an accountancy intern? Yes the Access database will be dog slow and unoptimised, but where's the software that optimises on the fly? Where's the software to make setting up an oracle database as painless as seting up one in Access?
Answer. It doesn't exist. It will never exist. The "power" of Oracle lies entirely in the hands of the DBA who regularly grooms it. Oracle can and will grind to a halt without constant lubrication and maintainance.
Oracle is complex because without being so, it could not be hand tuned to be efficient. If MySQL allowed the kind of low level control and optmiisation Oracle has the two would probably be able to go toe to toe quite easily.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps even make it factually correct wrt to the ability to whitelist multiple domains/ip addrs with a single request
Whitelist *@hotmail.com ? There's a winning strategy!
I mean, isn't America about freedom of expression?
Son, if you keep talking like that, the terrorists win!
When I see "Treacherous Computing," I know it's just going to be a bunch of loaded rhetoric trying to scare me into thinking my computer is magically going to shut me out.
It won't happen by magic. It will be done through the power of science!
Vive le viiv! Vive Qubec!
Its 25 years later and I'm in charge of the technology for a fortune 1000 sized firm, I make $150K and I work 45 hour weeks.
And post anonymously on Slashdot. How exactly is this a success story?
And anyone who defends their actions should be ashamed.
But the geeks here aren't defending thire actions. They're trying to defend everyone else from the reactions to those actions. Unsuccessfully.
It is nothing more than thought crime.
but thought crime is wrong!! Thinking something is just as bad as doing it. Why are you objecting to obligatory mind probes. If you hvae nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. You're not thinking bad thoughts are you?
Think about it: This artwork harmed no one in the making. Mr. Whorely didn't harm anyone by possessing it.
It may not have harmed anyone, but it offended peoples sensibilities. That's much worse.
However, this doesn't change the fact that no matter how "local" you get -- no matter how small a patch of the hemisphere you take, the angles in a triangle drawn on this hemisphere will not add up to pi.
But it will be really, really, really close. Probably closer than you could get with any Pi algorithim after 100 computations.
I remember they once talked about showing ads while shows aired, an almost Truman Show-esque "Joey drinks Coca-Cola" while watching Friends.
Hey. They didn't just talk about it. Major Carter uses a Dell. A Dell! A geek of that calibur! It's the most blatant product placement in TV history!
This is why I download shows off bittorrent.
Yup.
Digg.com: Rank 1150.
slashdot.org: Rank 62.
Don't like Slashdot? Grab the slashcode and set up a site just like it which reflects your values better. Thousands of people have done exactly that.
Thousands eh?
It is a dark time for Web 2.0. Although the Beatles_Beatles has been destroyed, Slashbot troops have driven the Digg forces from their Ajax den and pursued them across the Internet.
Evading the dreaded Slashdot Moderator Fleet, a group of Web 2.0 upstarts led by Kevin Rose has established a new Digg site on the remote web servers of Revision3 Corporation.
The evil lord Darth Neal, obsessed with finding young Rose, has dispatched thousands of remote links, DDoSing into the far reaches of webspace....
As the son of a U.S. aid worker stationed in Guatemala during the 1970s civil war, Alex Joel recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad as both armed soldiers and civilians alike would order his family out of their car to search it.
Let me guess. He wasn't scared because they had nothing to hide, just like all good americans!
Something tells me Joel's time in Guatemala was well spent taking notes.
The communist bosses are really between a rock and a hard place. They can't have a capitalist business model and a totalitarian political model.
Yes they can. It's called facism. It just needs a war or three every decade to keep people in line.
Everytime I read through another instance of China putting the kibosh on freedom and liberty, people here start picking up the "businesses make money, China has money, therefore businesses will screw anyone and everyone to make money" line of reasoning?
Now this is not a troll, but my understanding is that, this line of reasoning is very close to the one Americans, the denomination of most Slashdotters, had for slavery when it was legal in that country.
The workers/slaves are given a "better life" by being exposed to "civilisation". Consumers benefit through the availability of cheap goods/cotton. The economy imporves and everyone benefits. Rising tide, all boats, etc, etc.
Personally, I just see it as the American love of money dominating all other concerns. Even life, liberty, justice and the right to happiness. Once again, this isn't a troll. Though the subject is somewhat taboo, I feel the comparision is justified based on the history of economic practice in the United States.
Have search engines become government whipping boys?
It is a known phenomenon that when companies become large and influential enough in an important sphere, they essentially become branches of government.
Look at Boeing, AT&T, MicroSoft, ExxonMobil, Lockheed-Martin. All claim to be private entities, yet there's not a single honest man who could stand up and say out loud that they are not as intimately connected, if not more, with the US Government as a state body such as the IRS or the department of health.
The companies toe the government line, and in return reap the benefit of monopoly and preferential treatment.
You'll note I included MicroSoft and ExxonMobil in that list. However, in these days of globalisation, their subservience to any one government is suspect. Essentially, they are too large and global for any one government to seriously control them, or indeed trust them, as a de facto arm of government.
Google and Yahoo are in the information search business, an area of ever growing importance. Governments will never allow these companies to operate with private impuity. Eventually they will become mere arms of government, using their information for whatever purpose the government sees fit. China has simply already done this with Yahoo China.
Just check out the number of cable/satellite channels that are Geek oriented: Discover, National Geographic, Science, etc.
Have you noticed the decline in quality of those channels in recent years? Less science, more sensaitionalism, outright fantasy, melodramatic accompanying scores, the list goes on.
A program about dinosaurs nowadays is going to be 95% CG animation with little basis in reality, and 5% actualy real dionsaur bones with real information about how and where they were found. It's a kids CG cartoon show.
Engineering shows are just as bad. Programs on communications systems or aircraft are now about the wars these systems were used in, rather than about the systems themselves. When was the last time a documentary really went into depth about the technical systems and not about the personal stories of harrier pilots in the Falklands war? And when all those flashy 3d swooping animations are actually used to display technical specs, they're far inferior to the professional, clear and focused static animations of the past.
Geek shows aren't made by geeks anymore. They're made by reject B-movie directors, and it shows.
Not all Christian churches go for the abomination business.
Lies. All churches, all religions, are in the abomination business. It is their driving force, the very fuel that drives their congregations and galvanises their sermons. It is the prime mover of all religions and everything else, morality, philanthropy, charity, compassion, hope... all of these are simply loosely grafted onto the solid kernel of raw human fear that drives all prayer and devotion.
Without the fear of death, there would be no love of god.
More a sort of curiosity/desire I suppose. Which, from what I hear, is what homosexuality generally starts out as. A mixture of sexual desire and curiosity.
Curiosity? You think people become homosexual because they are "curious" about other mens genitals? Because they wonder what it would be like to sleep with a sweaty, hairy man? I think someone here is in denial. I'm quite serious.
Some people are homosexual. They are sexually attracted to members of the same sex and desire sex and relationships with them. This isn't some kind of choice, although like anything, one does have to choose to go out and find a partner. Homosexuals will continue to be attracted to members of the same sex no matter how much they try and repress their feelings, "turn heterosexual", or go along with the precepts of some religion.
No one should have to do this. Homosexuality isn't wrong. They shouldn't have to try and become heterosexual or try not to act on their desires. In fact, this would be a terrible things as it would simply lead to greater problems down the line. Homosexuals should act on their desires and form relationships with people of the opposite sex.
Here are the facts, which I'm going to lay out to you, plain and simple. Why do religions, societies and individuals constantly protest and rail against homosexuals, ostrasise them, punish them even kill them? Why do so many come up with such flawed arguments as you have been setting forth in this thread? Why are homosexuals so hated?
The answer simply goes back to adolesent insecurity. While developing, homophobes felt tremendously insecure in their sexuality. They derided homosexuality and lauded heterosexuality as a part of the teenage instinct to conform. They created in their minds the mythos of the homosexual fall from grace, so that they, no matter how far they fell would always be above those who "chose" homosexuality. Even many homosexuals come to believe in this flawed adolesent hierarchy, to their own detreiment.
Some people never grow out of this. They panic at the thought that anyone might think they are homosexual and fear homosexuals will try and "make them gay". This fallacy extends to such ridiculous proportions that someone who is raped by a member of the same sex is often assummed to have been "converted" into a homosexual. This is where such juvinile thinking leads.
Of course, many of these people are in fact homosexual, yet consistantly deny this fact. Like a priest who condenms an attractive young woman from "tempting men", they blame homosexuals for their unbidden, yet natural thoughts, and thus accuse them of trying to convert people to homosexuality. In reality of course, just like the priest, these thoughts come from within, and are only "wrong" in the mind of the thinker.
Such people will probably live an unhappy lie for the rest of their lives. Occassionally they will make the odd freudian slip as you did above when you spoke of homosexuality "starting out" as "curiosity". As a heterosexual, I can tell you that curiosity is most certainly not a motivator for sexual attraction. As I mentioned, the thought of a a hairy, sweaty man with a five o'clock shadow is not a titillating image. I'm not going to go on a crusade against it, and in fact I would encourage homosexual people to form relationships, but the act of homosexual intercourse itself is about as sexually stimulating as the thought of parental intercourse.
You may feel that I am degenerating the debate by somehow accusing you of having homosexual desire or being homosexual. That is not my intent. However, I felt it important to clarify the situation with regard to the source of much of your arguments, and to refute your own misunderstandings with regard to the source of homosexuality, and indeed, sexuality in general. I cannot tell someones sexual orientation from a few post on Slashdot. In any case, you are applying a different logic to the sexual development of homosexuals than is applied to hetrosexuals.
she's just been bribed.
Fixed that typo for you.
Lovely, Lovely, Ludwig Van!
Provided your code isn't written in assembly, do you really _have_ to do anything else than to recompile it?
Do you realise how difficult it is to find a healthy goat and sacraficial knife these days?
I've said it before and I'll be happy to repeat it. Oracle RDBMS is currently the most complex piece of software sold publically and it requires knowledge about the product to manage it.
Ask yourself. Why?
People scoff at Access, yet, when you come right down to it, what separates the logic of creating a database in Access verse creating one in Oracle. It's all just rows and columns, with some primary keys, indexes and hey presto, there's your database.
Please explain why exactly Oracle needs a DBA, yet an Access database can be created by an accountancy intern? Yes the Access database will be dog slow and unoptimised, but where's the software that optimises on the fly? Where's the software to make setting up an oracle database as painless as seting up one in Access?
Answer. It doesn't exist. It will never exist. The "power" of Oracle lies entirely in the hands of the DBA who regularly grooms it. Oracle can and will grind to a halt without constant lubrication and maintainance.
Oracle is complex because without being so, it could not be hand tuned to be efficient. If MySQL allowed the kind of low level control and optmiisation Oracle has the two would probably be able to go toe to toe quite easily.