Ok I will give you the stones, and alice in wonderland, and many of the beatles 70s music (beatles also put out some crap songs later admid some serious works of art). But I dont think that Gonzo Journalism can really be accredited as a great contribution to society.
I work in law enforcement, I would like to think that I am around several hundred people who can verify that many drugs (not all) destroy life, civilization, families, and minds. It is an extrordinary case when cocaine, meth, PCP, or a plethora of other drugs make the world a better place without bringing up gene pool clensing.
Well we are far enough off topic here I might as well post.
Being an avid beer drinker myself I have to disagree with your "drinking can focus the mind" as alchohol prohibits brain activity on a biological level. And the other error "to take your mind off it for a few hours" is also equivalent to "escape". It is just as easy to go outside for a bit of fresh air, head out on a weekend trip, read a book, watch a movie, all are escapes. I challenge you to show how the drugs were not crippling our great thinkers. Rather than it being a vice they dealt with. As for history, it will point out several great thinkers who were destroyed by their drug abuse.
I have always found it interesting the way people strive to justify their addictions, it always seems justified in the eyes of the addict. Give there is a difference between addiction and casual drug use.
How many releases of OSX are we up to since the release of winXP, and to second the poster regarding linux updates...isnt ubuntu in the practice of releasing every 6 months? I love ubuntu, but to say they dont update as much as MS, which is always under heavy attack as opposed to ubuntu which has enjoyed a pretty short quiet existance security wise so far, unlike redhat or mandrake. (crap should have withdrawn that last statement, will get modded down for sure for that!)
Erm. Erm. Are you a app dev? Have you even seen the crap 3rd party programs out there? Even back in my VAX days, I had no problem crashing that system with a simple 15 line C++ program. Less if I used perl.
To expect an OS not to "barf" when asked to give up resources it doesnt have is to be expected. Given this doesnt mean that the whole OS should shut down and become unavailable, but to throw a warning telling you that you tried something forbidden by the OS is fine.
How you got informative is beyond me....wait this is slashdot.
Why buy expensive when you can build for cheaper? Wow, never heard that question before.
Seriously people, if you have the cash for a 2K 1K or even a $500 player you probably dont feel like building one. There are an enourmous amound of benefits to getting a pre-built expensive DVD player, reliability being just one factor.
Before I get a lot of posts telling my of the uptime and reliability of their MythTV box, dont forget that you have to build the thing or hire someone to build it for you if your are not a Linux Geek. Even with Media Center Edition you are still dumping 1300 into hardware and inviting a ton of issues into your multimedia system. Unless of course you love hearing that windows error Dong in full Dolby surround sound.
I have a fixation that I should be free to listen how I like to music I've paid for.
You and I both know that is just not how the world works. If it was, we would be able to smoke on planes, Buy a handgun without a cooldown period or permits. We would also be able to operate a car at any speed limit. We would also be able to Overclock Processors without voiding warranty, SLI any two video cards together, and walk around in public naked.
As it is products exist that dont have what we want, You dont HAVE to go with microsoft OS's, you dont HAVE to buy music with DRM. It is the great part about a Capatalism. The buyer dictates the market. Unfortuatly there are a lot of ignorant purchasers out there who kill the market for the thinkers. This has happened over and over in the past and will continue to happen.
As long as the majority of people dont care about DRM, they will continue to buy it and the companies will conticue to find new and interesting ways to lock you down.
Wasnt there an article on slashdot regarding a company that did reverse evaluations? Anonymous evaluation of your supervisor and CEO, CFO etc. You know the way Democracy is supposed to work? Perhaps a model like this would work well in the business world. I am just a lowly BS in CS not an MBA, but what is saying that an elective supervisor model wouldnt work. Bad evals? kick them out, Supervisors would get elected by having good peer reviews. Any reason this wouldnt work?
Show me an employer who places indiscriminate blocks on numbers that you can call during the day, in order to prevent you from making calls that *might* be personal.
Certainly....
At a couple placed I have worked they just didnt allow outside access. Another place wouldnt let you call a non-local number. Not much different than the internet. Some places dont let you outside the intranet, some places only let you to specific sites.
Re:It's not exactly 'open' or 'free'
on
Tibet's Mesh
·
· Score: 1
If you want to be independent you have to be willing to break from the system. **every website known to man** is not on the internet, let alone the backbone. For a good example check out the plethora of closed networks out there, intranets for businesses. We will just have to re-create everything from scratch. Should I never have used wikipedia because it had little to no entries in the beginning?
what about ebay in the beginning?
Amazon.com?
We start to create a new internet, user ran, it may take 10 years but once you see resources poping up that people are interested in they will follow. The tiered internet people are counting on it.
Re:It's not exactly 'open' or 'free'
on
Tibet's Mesh
·
· Score: 1
Why would they have to hit corporate or gov't backbones? Just like any open system we will have to rely on thousands of users to provide things like DNS, webservers, and coordinate IPs. Difficult, yes, impossible no.
I always thought if someone could organize it, there are enough wireless APs out there that could form a type of second web. Since it would be owned by private owners and upgraded by private owners it would be a wikinet. Where I live I have been working on a plan to join all the aps I work on for clients into one giant network. Need a feasable way to do it though. Bandwith sharing, a method for hopping across the least used APs, and a self healing topology kind of like a token ring. The technologies are out there now if someone smarter than I can pull it all together that would be something.
Boy do I have to have long conversations with christians over that....some day perhaps we as a people can get over the idea that just because it makes me feel good, that doesnt make it right. Some truths suck, but the truth is what it is.
Yes a scientist should be open to any possibility. If you are testing a scenario for falseness you shouldnt throw out the result because it isnt what you want, that is all I was saying.
I was wondering when this conversation would degrade to a grammar lesson....you had a great post until you went that route. And no I am not a scientist so I do not have a complete knowledge of each term. I am not a theologian either. I do not learn biology from ministers and I do not learn philosophy from Science majors. I did not claim to be a expert in either field. I am human, big suprise.
One of the problems you seem to be facing is that most christians, especially the outspoken ones. Rejected the idea of evolution before ever rationalizing it. Most people I have met of your belief reject Christianity, or Buddism, or , because of the people in it. Should I reject all of Science because there are so many drug dependent scientists, or because many scientists have made mistakes? Should I reject all physics because Quantum and String Theory are at ends with each other? Heck no. Faith should never be based on people, neither should science. Reason and personal study get you answers. I really really have a hard time being in a group called Christians because they get it wrong scientifically almost every time. But I remain because my own study shows the lifestyle and creator to be true. I cannot make that decision for anyone else nor can I convince anyone of it.
I think the divide is largely because when you get into science you spend a large part of your time studying. You start to look at resources such as the bible less and less. Making it easier to disbelieve. You start to study science more and it replaces God in some instances and you see the world for the odd place it is. Rather than the place it should be. Christians go the other direction, they start studying the bible more and more and science less and less. So they may be a well versed christian but they know dick about evolution and other important topics. It is nice when someone is a scientist and still studies the faith of their choice dilligantly. But for those who have PHDs you have little time to do anything else during those years...and at the end you probably are already done with faith based issues.
PC as defined by the circles you travel in. I travel in academic circles, it is !PC to be pro creation amongst bioligists. My wife faces ridicule from fellow professors if she were to bring it up that she is pro creation. Of course Americans we are talking about know about as much about their religion as they do about evolution...just enough to get riled up. It is better to know movies and pop culture now adays than science, philosophy, and reason.
As for the model of natural selection that we are developing, it is scientifically correct for now. I think it has a ways to go but is a good start. It is a pretty complex system we are trying to figure out, but I have faith that we will;)
Sorry I shouldnt have generalized. I should have said some scientists. There have been many public statements by scientists who have stated that they refuse to believe in a God. I believe in evolution, for cryin out loud how many antibiotics do we have to create before people catch on...my wife always says, "so you dont believe in evolution huh? then stick to one antibiotic the rest of your life.... should be good enough" Or something along those lines. I find that people tend to believe less in the bible when they stop studying it. Same goes for evolution, easy to disregard when you dont study the stuff. But you just end up looking like an ass in the end:)
I dont look at a Creator to make sense of the world I am in. The belief in a Creator specifically Yahweh is the product of a lifetime of personal study. I dont force my belief on anyone. Although I will defend either side if it comes to it. You wont catch me saying, 'well that is just the way God wanted it', as an excuse for the physical world we live in. I believe that science can explain all of creation, given enough time. But I also believe that the mind will believe what it wants to. Religious people and Athiests alike both succumb to the desire for power, read some Nietzsche, I imagine you have. Both will use their beliefs as a weapon to push their fellow man down. Because it is in our nature.
In short being an evolutionist, or a creationist doesnt make you ignorant in any regard. It is the method to your belief that makes you ignorant. Did this person think it through? How did they come to their conclution? Some person may experience something phenominal to cradle their faith. Another person may study nature in all its glory and come to the decision that there must be a creator. Yet another may be pushed by society to not believe in a creator because it is PC, or to be different. Lastly someone may come across evidence that they believe is irrefutable evidence that there isnt a God. I would guess that intellectually you are in the last category by looking at other comments you have made. But I will not rule out the possibility that you just enjoy challenging people in their ignorance:)
Good response:) Was expecting something a bit nastier.
I am of the belief that faith in God gives me a 1 up on an athiest as I dont perclude the possiblility of a Creator. I am rational however, or at least I believe I am. I believe that you can test the Bible against history to decide if it is in fact infallable. There is a science to that. If someone proves to me that the bible is in error, I will test it and accept that.
I believe that you can look at nature with the eyes of someone who asks the question, "if this were created what kind of pattern could we expect?" the other question, equally valid, is "If this evolved from a set of elements, what kind of pattern could we expect?". You can work from either premise. Both require faith because as far as I know neither belief can be proved. Much like quantum physics, (more my area than biology), we can only guess the location of objects. Assume probability as it were.
What I just get tired of is scientists ruling out the possiblity of a creator. It ruins the science, in my mind a scientist of all people should be open to any possibility, it is in their best interest to do so. Any time bias enters into the picture you get skewed results, start to see what you want to see rather than what is. It is the same problem with most religions, rather than accpting the fact that they may be wrong they proceed to devour and refute blindly anything that opposes them.
I think that we can combine science and faith rather seamlessly, however we cannot combine science and emotion as easily.
Urey-Miller Experiment tested a THEORY in a HYPOTHETICAL environment, an environment that was changed because the old "soup" theory didnt measure up to the conditions.
The problem is it is anti-intellectial posers who are afraid of religion who look at the ongoing philosophical debates on the definition of life and flee into useless blind science like Abiogenesis. People who use the words of logic to pretend to dissect religion. You know, the kind of people who post badly hidden Anti-Creation propaganda on Slashdot, using their stupidity and disrespect for learning as a cover for their anti scientific agenda.
The people we're discussing in disgust while reading this story, because so many Americans are so ignorant.
You see the logic goes both ways, Scientists are trying so hard to prove there isnt a God/Creator/originatior. That they start to disregard anything that doesnt prove their theories or fit into their ideas. Check out Haekel's embryos, big ol blot on the scientific community. Incredibly smart people being duped by their own arrogance that there cannot be a God. So any evidence pointing to a creator is thrown out the window. In the meantime we have ignorant creationists pushing an unintelligent agenda because they know without a doubt that God does exist. The two sides keep pushing away because people like you know that you cannot be a scientist and believe in God. Must be an oxymoron and people like my wife do no exist or are the dumbest people alive.
BTW my wife is a geneticist Biology Professor, top of her class graduate bla bla bla, believes in microevolution and has a strong distain for anti-evolutionists. oh yea she is also a strong believer in a Creator and an infallable Bible.
Now for those of us who have been in the tech world for more than 10 years this is old news. For those of you who are new let me tell you a secret. They have been spouting wireless freedom for a long time. Heck Apple sold Basestations with their laptops back in 2000. Bluetooth has been around since the stone ages and a couple years ago looked like the technology would die out due to lack of interest. What has changed? Technology? I dont think so. Maybe I am a Cynic but I will believe it when I see it.
Well I tend not to use DVDs for anything other than moving data from point a to point b. Cheap disks work well for me. Given I am not looking at knockoff brands but rather I dont care -RW or +RW, either has gotten the job done well for me.
I am guessing it will go the way of DVD+- can anyone give reasons why we wont just see players that do both? Heck when was the last time you really had to pay attention to which DVD you bought? Almost everyone has +- players so I go for cheaper disks every time. I imagine that is what the blueray and HD-DVD will come down to. In the long run no one will really care, they will look for price and packaging, consumers dont care too much about the technology behind it.
Regarding no program uses 4GB RAM or that 8 cores is not useful today on a desktop. I would say an average desktop would not need 8 cores. However I can think of many admins and programmers who could eat up 4GB and 8 cores with one simple program....VMWare.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok I will give you the stones, and alice in wonderland, and many of the beatles 70s music (beatles also put out some crap songs later admid some serious works of art). But I dont think that Gonzo Journalism can really be accredited as a great contribution to society.
I work in law enforcement, I would like to think that I am around several hundred people who can verify that many drugs (not all) destroy life, civilization, families, and minds. It is an extrordinary case when cocaine, meth, PCP, or a plethora of other drugs make the world a better place without bringing up gene pool clensing.
Being an avid beer drinker myself I have to disagree with your "drinking can focus the mind" as alchohol prohibits brain activity on a biological level. And the other error "to take your mind off it for a few hours" is also equivalent to "escape". It is just as easy to go outside for a bit of fresh air, head out on a weekend trip, read a book, watch a movie, all are escapes. I challenge you to show how the drugs were not crippling our great thinkers. Rather than it being a vice they dealt with. As for history, it will point out several great thinkers who were destroyed by their drug abuse.
I have always found it interesting the way people strive to justify their addictions, it always seems justified in the eyes of the addict. Give there is a difference between addiction and casual drug use.
How many releases of OSX are we up to since the release of winXP, and to second the poster regarding linux updates...isnt ubuntu in the practice of releasing every 6 months? I love ubuntu, but to say they dont update as much as MS, which is always under heavy attack as opposed to ubuntu which has enjoyed a pretty short quiet existance security wise so far, unlike redhat or mandrake. (crap should have withdrawn that last statement, will get modded down for sure for that!)
An OS's job is to manage resources, of course this is a matter of debate today where OS's are expected to do much more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_System
To expect an OS not to "barf" when asked to give up resources it doesnt have is to be expected. Given this doesnt mean that the whole OS should shut down and become unavailable, but to throw a warning telling you that you tried something forbidden by the OS is fine.
How you got informative is beyond me....wait this is slashdot.
Seriously people, if you have the cash for a 2K 1K or even a $500 player you probably dont feel like building one. There are an enourmous amound of benefits to getting a pre-built expensive DVD player, reliability being just one factor.
Before I get a lot of posts telling my of the uptime and reliability of their MythTV box, dont forget that you have to build the thing or hire someone to build it for you if your are not a Linux Geek. Even with Media Center Edition you are still dumping 1300 into hardware and inviting a ton of issues into your multimedia system. Unless of course you love hearing that windows error Dong in full Dolby surround sound.
I guess I am playing with the fantasy that people will be honest when they are evaluating anonymously.....
You and I both know that is just not how the world works. If it was, we would be able to smoke on planes, Buy a handgun without a cooldown period or permits. We would also be able to operate a car at any speed limit. We would also be able to Overclock Processors without voiding warranty, SLI any two video cards together, and walk around in public naked.
As it is products exist that dont have what we want, You dont HAVE to go with microsoft OS's, you dont HAVE to buy music with DRM. It is the great part about a Capatalism. The buyer dictates the market. Unfortuatly there are a lot of ignorant purchasers out there who kill the market for the thinkers. This has happened over and over in the past and will continue to happen.
As long as the majority of people dont care about DRM, they will continue to buy it and the companies will conticue to find new and interesting ways to lock you down.
Wasnt there an article on slashdot regarding a company that did reverse evaluations? Anonymous evaluation of your supervisor and CEO, CFO etc. You know the way Democracy is supposed to work? Perhaps a model like this would work well in the business world. I am just a lowly BS in CS not an MBA, but what is saying that an elective supervisor model wouldnt work. Bad evals? kick them out, Supervisors would get elected by having good peer reviews. Any reason this wouldnt work?
Show me an employer who places indiscriminate blocks on numbers that you can call during the day, in order to prevent you from making calls that *might* be personal. Certainly.... At a couple placed I have worked they just didnt allow outside access. Another place wouldnt let you call a non-local number. Not much different than the internet. Some places dont let you outside the intranet, some places only let you to specific sites.
what about ebay in the beginning?
Amazon.com?
We start to create a new internet, user ran, it may take 10 years but once you see resources poping up that people are interested in they will follow. The tiered internet people are counting on it.
Why would they have to hit corporate or gov't backbones? Just like any open system we will have to rely on thousands of users to provide things like DNS, webservers, and coordinate IPs. Difficult, yes, impossible no.
I always thought if someone could organize it, there are enough wireless APs out there that could form a type of second web. Since it would be owned by private owners and upgraded by private owners it would be a wikinet. Where I live I have been working on a plan to join all the aps I work on for clients into one giant network. Need a feasable way to do it though. Bandwith sharing, a method for hopping across the least used APs, and a self healing topology kind of like a token ring. The technologies are out there now if someone smarter than I can pull it all together that would be something.
Boy do I have to have long conversations with christians over that....some day perhaps we as a people can get over the idea that just because it makes me feel good, that doesnt make it right. Some truths suck, but the truth is what it is.
In that case I stand corrected. I am guessing you understand what I was trying to say though.
I was wondering when this conversation would degrade to a grammar lesson....you had a great post until you went that route. And no I am not a scientist so I do not have a complete knowledge of each term. I am not a theologian either. I do not learn biology from ministers and I do not learn philosophy from Science majors. I did not claim to be a expert in either field. I am human, big suprise.
I think the divide is largely because when you get into science you spend a large part of your time studying. You start to look at resources such as the bible less and less. Making it easier to disbelieve. You start to study science more and it replaces God in some instances and you see the world for the odd place it is. Rather than the place it should be. Christians go the other direction, they start studying the bible more and more and science less and less. So they may be a well versed christian but they know dick about evolution and other important topics. It is nice when someone is a scientist and still studies the faith of their choice dilligantly. But for those who have PHDs you have little time to do anything else during those years...and at the end you probably are already done with faith based issues.
As for the model of natural selection that we are developing, it is scientifically correct for now. I think it has a ways to go but is a good start. It is a pretty complex system we are trying to figure out, but I have faith that we will ;)
Sorry I shouldnt have generalized. I should have said some scientists. There have been many public statements by scientists who have stated that they refuse to believe in a God. I believe in evolution, for cryin out loud how many antibiotics do we have to create before people catch on...my wife always says, "so you dont believe in evolution huh? then stick to one antibiotic the rest of your life.... should be good enough" Or something along those lines. I find that people tend to believe less in the bible when they stop studying it. Same goes for evolution, easy to disregard when you dont study the stuff. But you just end up looking like an ass in the end :)
In short being an evolutionist, or a creationist doesnt make you ignorant in any regard. It is the method to your belief that makes you ignorant. Did this person think it through? How did they come to their conclution? Some person may experience something phenominal to cradle their faith. Another person may study nature in all its glory and come to the decision that there must be a creator. Yet another may be pushed by society to not believe in a creator because it is PC, or to be different. Lastly someone may come across evidence that they believe is irrefutable evidence that there isnt a God. I would guess that intellectually you are in the last category by looking at other comments you have made. But I will not rule out the possibility that you just enjoy challenging people in their ignorance :)
I am of the belief that faith in God gives me a 1 up on an athiest as I dont perclude the possiblility of a Creator. I am rational however, or at least I believe I am. I believe that you can test the Bible against history to decide if it is in fact infallable. There is a science to that. If someone proves to me that the bible is in error, I will test it and accept that.
I believe that you can look at nature with the eyes of someone who asks the question, "if this were created what kind of pattern could we expect?" the other question, equally valid, is "If this evolved from a set of elements, what kind of pattern could we expect?". You can work from either premise. Both require faith because as far as I know neither belief can be proved. Much like quantum physics, (more my area than biology), we can only guess the location of objects. Assume probability as it were.
What I just get tired of is scientists ruling out the possiblity of a creator. It ruins the science, in my mind a scientist of all people should be open to any possibility, it is in their best interest to do so. Any time bias enters into the picture you get skewed results, start to see what you want to see rather than what is. It is the same problem with most religions, rather than accpting the fact that they may be wrong they proceed to devour and refute blindly anything that opposes them.
I think that we can combine science and faith rather seamlessly, however we cannot combine science and emotion as easily.
Urey-Miller Experiment tested a THEORY in a HYPOTHETICAL environment, an environment that was changed because the old "soup" theory didnt measure up to the conditions. The problem is it is anti-intellectial posers who are afraid of religion who look at the ongoing philosophical debates on the definition of life and flee into useless blind science like Abiogenesis. People who use the words of logic to pretend to dissect religion. You know, the kind of people who post badly hidden Anti-Creation propaganda on Slashdot, using their stupidity and disrespect for learning as a cover for their anti scientific agenda.
The people we're discussing in disgust while reading this story, because so many Americans are so ignorant.
You see the logic goes both ways, Scientists are trying so hard to prove there isnt a God/Creator/originatior. That they start to disregard anything that doesnt prove their theories or fit into their ideas. Check out Haekel's embryos, big ol blot on the scientific community. Incredibly smart people being duped by their own arrogance that there cannot be a God. So any evidence pointing to a creator is thrown out the window. In the meantime we have ignorant creationists pushing an unintelligent agenda because they know without a doubt that God does exist. The two sides keep pushing away because people like you know that you cannot be a scientist and believe in God. Must be an oxymoron and people like my wife do no exist or are the dumbest people alive.
BTW my wife is a geneticist Biology Professor, top of her class graduate bla bla bla, believes in microevolution and has a strong distain for anti-evolutionists. oh yea she is also a strong believer in a Creator and an infallable Bible.
Now for those of us who have been in the tech world for more than 10 years this is old news. For those of you who are new let me tell you a secret. They have been spouting wireless freedom for a long time. Heck Apple sold Basestations with their laptops back in 2000. Bluetooth has been around since the stone ages and a couple years ago looked like the technology would die out due to lack of interest. What has changed? Technology? I dont think so. Maybe I am a Cynic but I will believe it when I see it.
Well I tend not to use DVDs for anything other than moving data from point a to point b. Cheap disks work well for me. Given I am not looking at knockoff brands but rather I dont care -RW or +RW, either has gotten the job done well for me.
I am guessing it will go the way of DVD+- can anyone give reasons why we wont just see players that do both? Heck when was the last time you really had to pay attention to which DVD you bought? Almost everyone has +- players so I go for cheaper disks every time. I imagine that is what the blueray and HD-DVD will come down to. In the long run no one will really care, they will look for price and packaging, consumers dont care too much about the technology behind it.
Regarding no program uses 4GB RAM or that 8 cores is not useful today on a desktop. I would say an average desktop would not need 8 cores. However I can think of many admins and programmers who could eat up 4GB and 8 cores with one simple program....VMWare.