At first I thought this was some kind of joke or something (the ALOHA system? in Hawaii?), but it turns out the above poster is actually right. http://www.laynetworks.com/ALOHA%20PROTOCOL.htm
Well, yeah. They had to develop ALOHA after OUTRIGGER proved to be too unreliable.
You might want to explain what the Donner Party was for the Yanks that are to ignorant of their own history to know what you are talking about.
I'm going to assume that you're not American since most Americans don't refer to themselves as 'Yanks'. So I'm you're saying, "You people in your country are ignorant of your own history." I'll take a guess that you'd have some venomous words if I were to say that about your nation.
Isn't this company/product the original vapor ware.
Well, they did send me a promise that they would release Duke Nukem Forever. It was handwritten in the blood of virgins. Strange how it smelled like ketchup though...
The intent to not offend is a rarity on slashdot. I'm not sure what you mean by "colors" as I was using logic.
First, not the use of "should". "Ought" also applies. Morality entails what we "should" do, not necessarily what we actually do because morality presumes that we could do otherwise. If we have no choice then there's no such thing as morality (Kant's autonomy of the will.
The sentences are: (A) An agent believes in God, (B) the agent should act well, and (C) the agent is a good person. My logic then proceeds: A => B => C. So there are two ways to be a good person (C). Believing in God (A) entails acting as one should (B). But, one could just act as he/she should (B) without believing in God.
Now, asking questions about going to Heaven/Hell are metaphysical ones not availing themselves to logical proof. I have my own answers but I'll keep them to myself as they don't add anything here.
Well, for the record, I'm a moral absolutist and a deontologist (and a Christian). The nature of the relationship between religion and morality is such if you follow a religion then you also follow a system or morality, but not vice versa. It's totally possible for their to be atheistic moral absolutists. So your question is an inclusive-or rather than an exclusive-or. The answer would be that I imagine God would rather that people believe in Him but either if they believe in him or they follow a system or morals then they should act in good ways.
On the contrary, they are mutually exclusive. Religion means building a view of the universe based on myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing. In religion, nothing can be questioned or challenged, for example Christians cannot challenge what is written in the Bible, even if it is obviously false. Religion tries to explain things by making up absurd stories about gods rather than looking for the simplest logical explanations. Even when these stories are found to be false, anyone claiming such is persecuted.
You speak of logic but seem to ignore every other area of philosophy, including metaphysics. Is metaphysics "old wives' tales" because it encompasses things we can't prove?
JUST ALWAYS BE SURE THAT YOU PERSONALLY SEEK OUT THE BEST SCIENTIFIC MINDS!
Both candidates didn't say anything about the problem itself stating trueisms of the worst order.
Probably because we don't know how to adequately define what the 'best' scientifid mind is. Is it the one that gets published most through the politically-charged journals? Or the one that teaches the most classes? It seems like bias (as to what is the 'best' scientific mind) again rears its ugly head. So its a catch-22 perhaps?
Yes, that is because you are a wise person. However, most of the world is not as wise as you are. Some people, on both sides, believe religeon and science ARE mutually exclusive. There are people out there who think that their religeon is the truth of the world and that there was an Adam, an Eve, a great flood, a parted sea, etc. There are also some people who think that religeon is usless as a set of moral guidelines to live a better life because science is right, making religeon wrong.
I've never met him, but it appears to be that our current president is in the first category. That is the cause of much of the anger against him from the scientific community.
This goes back to an argument by philosopher Peter Kreeft that I read in his book, A Refutation of Moral Relativism. We need to distinguish facts and beliefs. We can show that a certain person has a belief and that another person has the opposite. Now, we can't prove the fact behind the belief of something like, "God exists." But what we can say with certainty is that not both the person who believes in God and the person who doesn't believe God exists are correct because we can't prove that fact (although Descartes and Berkeley tried in their discussions on epistemology).
That's simply ridiculous to say. I'm not W lover, but c'mon. The Catholic church is doing some spectacular astronomy research; and last I checked they read the Bible for guidance in decisions. Religion and science don't have to be at odds.
Glad somebody pointed that out. The majority of what the Bible discusses is purely metaphysical, i.e. without the ability to prove it via science. Furthermore, the Bible also discusses ethics and the behaviors for living a good life. That's not science. That's philosophy, of which ethics is a necessary subset of any religion but can be regarded seperate of the metaphysical assertions of said religion.
It seems outsourcing costs money and resources as well as saving some. Language, time zone, cultural differences and geographic distances all contribute to the costs. But the resources used to overcome such obstacles are seldom recorded separately, and so do not show up --- leaving the management believing that they have saved money that they have not, in fact, saved.
A huge cost is security especially when outsourcing coding work. It's a lot easier to maintain control when you can stand over the coder's shoulder. Too difficult to do that from the other side of the planet. Of course, security is a process and not a state that can be obtained. My argument is therefore that the process of security breaks down when logistical/supervisory abilities becomes unreasonable.
It wouldn't. In fact, such would be unconstitutional prior restraint, which the Freedom of Information Act has no power to effect, as per above.
This is only about what information a citizen has a right to obtain directly from the government, not censorship of what information he might obtain from some other source.
Thank you for helping clear that up. I thought that was the case as I RTFA and at no point took away the idea that the government was going to censor all satellite data, but rather just not give away their own for free.
As a corollary: Wouldn't this rather boost private satellite imaging if news stations were forced to gather their own images instead of just copying whatever the U.S. government has on file?
Good to know that they would want to take away technology access that allowed people to evacuate before the hurricanes in Florida. Un-fucking-real.
First line of the story:
"You might be able to see the hurricanes heading for Florida. Maybe. But just about all other commercial satellite imagery could be put off-limits, if a new Senate bill goes through as planned."
Of course he can air 9/11 on TV! We'll just need to show Swift Boat ads during all the commercials and have Ralph Nader present it. That way everyone gets their propaganda!
After the first six, you hire a guy named Chuck who's got 24" biceps and have him wait for your exboyfriend in a parking ramp you just happened to park in.
After the third or fouth ass whoopin' he may just back off.
The guy was arrested for stalking, not the GPS part. Stalking is basically a pattern of putting someone in the apprehension of a battery. Convicting for stalking in Cali really is a pretty high hurdle.
I doubt the GPS part would have led to a conviction in Cali standing by itself. Of course, the GPS will haelp make the case for the stalking, but wouldn't likely be illegal if that were all he had done.
True. But I think this would more than classify for reasonable suspicion, justifying a search warrant(s).
Another interesting question is if the other party gets a restraining order, then how does GPS fit into that? Sure they can follow and stay just outside the minimum distance. But that's obeying the letter, and not the spirit of the law.
It actually sounds like a neat project, just a sketchy application. I wonder if its legal to attach one to, say, your child's car. Perhaps make the sensor a bit less sensitive, so it only broadcasts a signal after an impact-type shock.
I'd hate to hear the angst-ridden teenage complaints once it was found out.
Indeed. Just like kite flying should be illegal because it can give clues about wind that can help enemies aim artilery (should be "artillery").
Asking about and reporting on $4000 hammers is also sensitive, because it can let the enemy know we're buying hammers.
You're making a mistake of classification. You think it should be all one way or another, as evidence by your arguments on kites and hammers. Reporting on hammers purchased by the grounds crew of the Capitol building isn't sensitive. But perhaps the purchasing of hammers designed for repair of stealth bombers by an air base in Thule, Greenland lets people know that the U.S. plans to operate stealth bombers through there. That is sensitive. So, in closing, you can't make blanket statements such as your argument(s).
VAFB has published information on unclassified launches on their website already. All the website talks about is what places are good to watch said launches from, what to look for, what laucnhes look most impressive, and what to bring. This is sensitive how?
So this makes things easier. Webb's sight tells us all the launches. Vandenberg tells us which were unclassified. A - B = C, which launches were classified.
haha, foriegn power already watch these tests, no great secret.
So then it's alright for Americans to watch and report on it for them? While Russia may have the satellite capability to watch Vandenberg I doubt, say, Uzbekistan does. They do, however, have Internet access. And now, thanks to the resourcefulness of one American, they know a lot more than they used to.
Slashdot Mirror
At first I thought this was some kind of joke or something (the ALOHA system? in Hawaii?), but it turns out the above poster is actually right. http://www.laynetworks.com/ALOHA%20PROTOCOL.htm
Well, yeah. They had to develop ALOHA after OUTRIGGER proved to be too unreliable.
OK, yes, I'm old. At least I'm not overweight and eating a rapidly congealing breakfast burrito ...
"Oh, a sarcasm detector. Now there's a REAL useful invention..."
*** Computer beeps faster and faster and then explodes ***
You might want to explain what the Donner Party was for the Yanks that are to ignorant of their own history to know what you are talking about.
I'm going to assume that you're not American since most Americans don't refer to themselves as 'Yanks'. So I'm you're saying, "You people in your country are ignorant of your own history." I'll take a guess that you'd have some venomous words if I were to say that about your nation.
Well, seeing that this guy is from Utah.....crap. It's going to be one biiiiiig family tradition.
And sadly, their minivan gets lodged in a winter snowbank. The resulting horror replaces the Donner Party in popular memory with the McBride Party...
In other news, G4/Tech TV announced plans for a reality TV show that trails SPAM bounty hunters as they search for their pimpily prey.
Isn't this company/product the original vapor ware.
Well, they did send me a promise that they would release Duke Nukem Forever. It was handwritten in the blood of virgins. Strange how it smelled like ketchup though...
The intent to not offend is a rarity on slashdot. I'm not sure what you mean by "colors" as I was using logic.
First, not the use of "should". "Ought" also applies. Morality entails what we "should" do, not necessarily what we actually do because morality presumes that we could do otherwise. If we have no choice then there's no such thing as morality (Kant's autonomy of the will.
The sentences are: (A) An agent believes in God, (B) the agent should act well, and (C) the agent is a good person. My logic then proceeds:
A => B => C. So there are two ways to be a good person (C). Believing in God (A) entails acting as one should (B). But, one could just act as he/she should (B) without believing in God.
Now, asking questions about going to Heaven/Hell are metaphysical ones not availing themselves to logical proof. I have my own answers but I'll keep them to myself as they don't add anything here.
Well, for the record, I'm a moral absolutist and a deontologist (and a Christian). The nature of the relationship between religion and morality is such if you follow a religion then you also follow a system or morality, but not vice versa. It's totally possible for their to be atheistic moral absolutists. So your question is an inclusive-or rather than an exclusive-or. The answer would be that I imagine God would rather that people believe in Him but either if they believe in him or they follow a system or morals then they should act in good ways.
On the contrary, they are mutually exclusive. Religion means building a view of the universe based on myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing. In religion, nothing can be questioned or challenged, for example Christians cannot challenge what is written in the Bible, even if it is obviously false. Religion tries to explain things by making up absurd stories about gods rather than looking for the simplest logical explanations. Even when these stories are found to be false, anyone claiming such is persecuted.
You speak of logic but seem to ignore every other area of philosophy, including metaphysics. Is metaphysics "old wives' tales" because it encompasses things we can't prove?
JUST ALWAYS BE SURE THAT YOU PERSONALLY SEEK OUT THE BEST SCIENTIFIC MINDS! Both candidates didn't say anything about the problem itself stating trueisms of the worst order.
Probably because we don't know how to adequately define what the 'best' scientifid mind is. Is it the one that gets published most through the politically-charged journals? Or the one that teaches the most classes? It seems like bias (as to what is the 'best' scientific mind) again rears its ugly head. So its a catch-22 perhaps?
Yes, that is because you are a wise person. However, most of the world is not as wise as you are. Some people, on both sides, believe religeon and science ARE mutually exclusive. There are people out there who think that their religeon is the truth of the world and that there was an Adam, an Eve, a great flood, a parted sea, etc. There are also some people who think that religeon is usless as a set of moral guidelines to live a better life because science is right, making religeon wrong. I've never met him, but it appears to be that our current president is in the first category. That is the cause of much of the anger against him from the scientific community.
This goes back to an argument by philosopher Peter Kreeft that I read in his book, A Refutation of Moral Relativism. We need to distinguish facts and beliefs. We can show that a certain person has a belief and that another person has the opposite. Now, we can't prove the fact behind the belief of something like, "God exists." But what we can say with certainty is that not both the person who believes in God and the person who doesn't believe God exists are correct because we can't prove that fact (although Descartes and Berkeley tried in their discussions on epistemology).
That's simply ridiculous to say. I'm not W lover, but c'mon. The Catholic church is doing some spectacular astronomy research; and last I checked they read the Bible for guidance in decisions. Religion and science don't have to be at odds.
Glad somebody pointed that out. The majority of what the Bible discusses is purely metaphysical, i.e. without the ability to prove it via science. Furthermore, the Bible also discusses ethics and the behaviors for living a good life. That's not science. That's philosophy, of which ethics is a necessary subset of any religion but can be regarded seperate of the metaphysical assertions of said religion.
Is Doom III, which will aid the recovery of stool samples from patients.
Or how to acquire donor organs and tissue by use of a shotgun.
Great... You just know that Hershey's is going to charge an arm and a leg for a refill cartridge!
It seems outsourcing costs money and resources as well as saving some. Language, time zone, cultural differences and geographic distances all contribute to the costs. But the resources used to overcome such obstacles are seldom recorded separately, and so do not show up --- leaving the management believing that they have saved money that they have not, in fact, saved.
A huge cost is security especially when outsourcing coding work. It's a lot easier to maintain control when you can stand over the coder's shoulder. Too difficult to do that from the other side of the planet. Of course, security is a process and not a state that can be obtained. My argument is therefore that the process of security breaks down when logistical/supervisory abilities becomes unreasonable.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121082&thr eshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=153&mode=thread&cid=101 93804
It wouldn't. In fact, such would be unconstitutional prior restraint, which the Freedom of Information Act has no power to effect, as per above. This is only about what information a citizen has a right to obtain directly from the government, not censorship of what information he might obtain from some other source.
Thank you for helping clear that up. I thought that was the case as I RTFA and at no point took away the idea that the government was going to censor all satellite data, but rather just not give away their own for free.
As a corollary: Wouldn't this rather boost private satellite imaging if news stations were forced to gather their own images instead of just copying whatever the U.S. government has on file?
Good to know that they would want to take away technology access that allowed people to evacuate before the hurricanes in Florida. Un-fucking-real.
First line of the story: "You might be able to see the hurricanes heading for Florida. Maybe. But just about all other commercial satellite imagery could be put off-limits, if a new Senate bill goes through as planned."
Of course he can air 9/11 on TV! We'll just need to show Swift Boat ads during all the commercials and have Ralph Nader present it. That way everyone gets their propaganda!
After the first six, you hire a guy named Chuck who's got 24" biceps and have him wait for your exboyfriend in a parking ramp you just happened to park in. After the third or fouth ass whoopin' he may just back off.
Or Chuck catches a bullet in the noodle.
The guy was arrested for stalking, not the GPS part. Stalking is basically a pattern of putting someone in the apprehension of a battery. Convicting for stalking in Cali really is a pretty high hurdle.
I doubt the GPS part would have led to a conviction in Cali standing by itself. Of course, the GPS will haelp make the case for the stalking, but wouldn't likely be illegal if that were all he had done.
True. But I think this would more than classify for reasonable suspicion, justifying a search warrant(s).
Another interesting question is if the other party gets a restraining order, then how does GPS fit into that? Sure they can follow and stay just outside the minimum distance. But that's obeying the letter, and not the spirit of the law.
It actually sounds like a neat project, just a sketchy application. I wonder if its legal to attach one to, say, your child's car. Perhaps make the sensor a bit less sensitive, so it only broadcasts a signal after an impact-type shock.
I'd hate to hear the angst-ridden teenage complaints once it was found out.
Indeed. Just like kite flying should be illegal because it can give clues about wind that can help enemies aim artilery (should be "artillery"). Asking about and reporting on $4000 hammers is also sensitive, because it can let the enemy know we're buying hammers.
You're making a mistake of classification. You think it should be all one way or another, as evidence by your arguments on kites and hammers. Reporting on hammers purchased by the grounds crew of the Capitol building isn't sensitive. But perhaps the purchasing of hammers designed for repair of stealth bombers by an air base in Thule, Greenland lets people know that the U.S. plans to operate stealth bombers through there. That is sensitive. So, in closing, you can't make blanket statements such as your argument(s).
VAFB has published information on unclassified launches on their website already. All the website talks about is what places are good to watch said launches from, what to look for, what laucnhes look most impressive, and what to bring. This is sensitive how?
So this makes things easier. Webb's sight tells us all the launches. Vandenberg tells us which were unclassified. A - B = C, which launches were classified.
haha, foriegn power already watch these tests, no great secret.
So then it's alright for Americans to watch and report on it for them? While Russia may have the satellite capability to watch Vandenberg I doubt, say, Uzbekistan does. They do, however, have Internet access. And now, thanks to the resourcefulness of one American, they know a lot more than they used to.