There is, but responsible media says "look, in addition to child porn, these guys are censoring a, c and d. they said they were only censoring child porn". The child porn links were completely unnecessary.
That's a tempting position to take, and one I seriously pondered before posting what I did. But the thing is, I'm not sure whether it was an accident or on purpose, but the example (c) I listed as hate speech and implicitly stated was OK to censor is something that you seem to have posted as bad censorship. That, in and of itself, is enough reason for Wikileaks to post the complete list, insofar as they can gain access to it: that way you and I judge what's legitimate and what's illegitimate censorship by ourselves, rather than seeing the leaks through already filtered lenses.
Ultimately, I don't think posting those sites on wikileaks meaningfully spreads or promotes child pornography, and the last thing I want from a site that specializes in political leaks is editing (beyond compilation and readability, of course).
There's a difference between "Hey, look! I got kiddie porn, check it out here", and "Look, these guys are censoring these sites: a, b, c, d. Seems that b is kiddie porn, c is hate speech and terrorist incitement, we're not quite sure a and d are anything except inconvenient".
Sorry, but if I understand you correctly, "that all things living or not could be thought as being part of the image of their divine god" implies a pantheistic view of the world, which is vrey much against Church dogma.
The point isn't what machine you get today. The point is that if, in 5 years' time, you decide you want a new laptop, but didn't like the make of the last one, you can't change laptop manufacturer while still sticking with a Mac, whereas you have plenty of choice with a PC. Mind you, I recently bought a MacBook Pro because I was quite happy with the iBook I used through college -- but I made that decision knowing full well that there's some inconvenience in my future if I decide to steer away from the Macs, rather than sticking my head in the sand and pretending I have loads of choice within that platform
The golden ratio isn't really all that useful for writing paper. The A system is based on A0 being 1 square metre, and the sides being in a sqrt(2) proportion so that each time you cut an A(n) sheet in half along the long edge, you get two A(n+1) sheets. Plus, it makes calculating letter weights really easy: given the paper weight in g/m^2, you just divide that by 2^4 = 16 for A4, 2^5 = 32 for A5, etc, then multiply by the number of sheets.
I'm not locked into a single hardware vender [sic]. In January I replaced my HDD with a larger one that does not have the Apple brand on it anywhere. I can also put more RAM into it that's not from Apple.
You're not locked into a single aftermarket vendor, no. But if you want a Mac, you're locked into buying that (both operating system and "base" computer) from Apple.
Given the shape of his concerns, I genuinely wonder how he feels about Google Gears. Doesn't it effectively turn the web app into something you're hosting yourself?
To me, the phrasing suggests that 37% of all notices are not valid copyright claims. The remaining 63% are valid claims. Not necessarily true/correct, just valid. To my understanding, "That guy's using my song on his clip" is always a valid copyright claim, even if there's no infringement going on (because the song's not yours at all, or the usage falls under fair use, or whatever). Whether the claim holds or not is a different matter altogether. What Google is saying is that 37% of all claims don't even pass the validity test. Essentially, people saying "I don't like what he's saying, squelch it", or stuff like that.
It so happens that some of us buy computers and other random IT related gadgets with a list of criteria where looks don't get the first place (not even close)
That's the funny part. From watching the video in TFA (ok, let's call it what it is: after watching the ad), I got the feeling that it was a desperate attempt at selling something sexy, not something functional. It went on about "people will look, and that's okay", and "Adamo is latin for attraction", etc etc etc. The guys are putting freaking leather accents on the laptops (definitely on the Studio XPS 13, from the video I got the impression the Adamo has them too). At least Apple always portrays its products as useful first, and sexy after (or, rather, just imply that it's sexy).
Please define what you mean by "good knowledge of science as a whole"?
Ok, I wasn't clear. I obviously don't expect anybody to know "everything", but I do expect, say, a mechanic engineer to know more about biology than a cultured musician, just the same as I expect musicians to know more about plastic arts than a cultured engineer. (In general, of course -- as an engineer, I don't feel I need to compete with my musician girlfriend on the subject of biology, since she devours books on the subject:)
In short, I expect people to worry about breadth of knowledge, and understanding where their domain of activity fits in the grand scheme of things, rather than pursuing depth of knowledge in tha.
Slow to accept theories? The USA has been one of the absolute leaders in scientific research, Actually, I think we probably are still one of the best in that regard.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can have the intellectual elites riding (and directing) the bleeding edge of research, while the country as a whole is slow on the uptake of the science the elites (both domestic and foreign) produce. In the meanwhile, countries that produce less scientific knowledge might be much more avid consumers of that knowledge. Quite tellingly, do american scientists have a good knowledge of science as a whole, or do they limit themselves to trying to be leaders in their own domain? (honest question, and food for thought)
The distinction between instinct and cogent thought is very real unlike what you imply. If spiders had to learn how to spin a web, they would starve, and so in their case, cogent thought is neither needed nor important.
To expand on the point, and to show one of the more elaborate examples: New Caledonian Crows
Your proclamations that CUDA won make about as much sense as proclaiming that Glide won the 3D API wars in 1998.
CUDA is about 2 years old, GPGPU is a nascent technology, and everybody was doing their own thing because there was no standard to develop against. Direct3D and OpenGL provided something that everybody could implement, unlike Glide. OpenCL provides the same for the GPGPU landscape. The authors of CUDA (ie, nVidia) are aboard the OpenCL boat too.
C: isn't the problem. All the other letters are. Why is the floppy (when present) mapped to A:? Why do we still have two drive letters "reserved" for floppies? Why can't I tell from name alone whether D: is another partition in the same disk as C: or a different disk altogether? How is it attached?/dev/hda3 means the 3rd partition on the first disk of the first ATA controller. It's weird the first time you see it, but then you can actually derive loads of information from it. What does C: mean, anyway?
I'm sorry if that reality hurts your feelings. I am actually sorry that it turned out that way, as I was an early OpenGL adopter and for awhile it looked like they might bring true competition to the 3d market, and I am a firm believer in competition being ultimately good for the market.
So you were actually around programming OpenGL in the very early 90s, or perhaps you consider early adopter the time around when GLQuake was released ('97)? Whichever way you look at it, Direct3D only gained relevance much later than OpenGL was already well established, which makes statements like "it looked like they might bring true competition to the 3d market" sound completely off.
And I'd expect anyone who's been doing 3D graphics for as long as you claim you have to realize that, irrespectively of a majority of Windows installations on desktops, and a majority of Direct3D software for Windows, everything else on the desktop is OpenGL (not much, granted), and, more relevantly, the mobile device and game console markets are dominated by OpenGL (with both the Wii and PS3 using it as their graphics libraries).
Sigh. I don't like flamefests, but you're asking for it. This said...
Since it's so easy to do, care to climb down from the high horse and explain mere mortals how to do it? That's what the whole point of the article was.
Ok, SELinux or AppArmor are possibilities to make the lockdown happen. What are good ways to manage that? Despite your bravado, SSHing into each individual machine is a headache. It gives you no decent overview of the systems, and you have to manually note down what changes you've made to each individual user, so you don't find yourself in an administration hell of your own making six months from now. Or you could keep a coherent system for every single user on the company, but then do you really want every single user in a 300+ person environment to have the exact same capabilities? I doubt it.
In the end, you're stating that your "FatAss Net" works fine for a dozen machines (whereas the summary mentioned 300) and then you expect your experience with a small environment should scale to a larger network, and imply that dissenters are morons.
Let me fix that for you: You can't install apps system-wide without root.
Most reasonably well-behaved apps can be configured to run from your $home well enough. A god example of this being done on the Windows side of the fence is SysInternal's Process Explorer. It's completely self-contained, and most of the time I just leave the actual executable on my desktop. Of course, nothing says that "well-behaved" as defined in terms of good programming practices translates into "well-behaved" in terms of corporate rules, though.
Well, if a team of scientists can achieve a certain level of results at a certain level of funding, they can probably reach better results with more funding. If you're the government, and you have a certain amount of funding set aside for science, you pick what projects you'd like to see giving better results than they do today. The Bush administration had qualms about this particular line of research, the Obama administration apparently doesn't.
This is an interesting line of thought, actually: how many pro-lifers use IUDs or the pill for contraception? Both of those are arguably abortive contraceptives (since part of the mechanism is preventing the egg from implanting in the uterus), which screws with the whole notion of "life at conception".
I think that it does. If I am talking to a stranger in a public park and I say something that they do not like. They can try to take me to court but as long as their was no defamation in what I said the court will uphold my right to speak. Ergo, the 1st amendment protects my right to free speech even between two private parties.
Wrong conclusion. The right conclusion is that there is no law in place that makes illegal to say whatever it is you said. Whether or not that law doesn't exist because it would be covered by the first amendment, or because it simply makes no sense. For example, if I show up at a party wearing really ugly clothes, you might take me to court over it, but you'll be laughed out of court not because I have a constitutional right to ugly clothes, but because that's simply something that makes no sense legislating about.
Slashdot Mirror
There is, but responsible media says "look, in addition to child porn, these guys are censoring a, c and d. they said they were only censoring child porn". The child porn links were completely unnecessary.
That's a tempting position to take, and one I seriously pondered before posting what I did. But the thing is, I'm not sure whether it was an accident or on purpose, but the example (c) I listed as hate speech and implicitly stated was OK to censor is something that you seem to have posted as bad censorship. That, in and of itself, is enough reason for Wikileaks to post the complete list, insofar as they can gain access to it: that way you and I judge what's legitimate and what's illegitimate censorship by ourselves, rather than seeing the leaks through already filtered lenses.
Ultimately, I don't think posting those sites on wikileaks meaningfully spreads or promotes child pornography, and the last thing I want from a site that specializes in political leaks is editing (beyond compilation and readability, of course).
There's a difference between "Hey, look! I got kiddie porn, check it out here", and "Look, these guys are censoring these sites: a, b, c, d. Seems that b is kiddie porn, c is hate speech and terrorist incitement, we're not quite sure a and d are anything except inconvenient".
Sorry, but if I understand you correctly, "that all things living or not could be thought as being part of the image of their divine god" implies a pantheistic view of the world, which is vrey much against Church dogma.
The point isn't what machine you get today. The point is that if, in 5 years' time, you decide you want a new laptop, but didn't like the make of the last one, you can't change laptop manufacturer while still sticking with a Mac, whereas you have plenty of choice with a PC. Mind you, I recently bought a MacBook Pro because I was quite happy with the iBook I used through college -- but I made that decision knowing full well that there's some inconvenience in my future if I decide to steer away from the Macs, rather than sticking my head in the sand and pretending I have loads of choice within that platform
.
No, no. you got it all wrong. Black holes suck. Now geology, that rocks.
The golden ratio isn't really all that useful for writing paper. The A system is based on A0 being 1 square metre, and the sides being in a sqrt(2) proportion so that each time you cut an A(n) sheet in half along the long edge, you get two A(n+1) sheets. Plus, it makes calculating letter weights really easy: given the paper weight in g/m^2, you just divide that by 2^4 = 16 for A4, 2^5 = 32 for A5, etc, then multiply by the number of sheets.
I'm not locked into a single hardware vender [sic]. In January I replaced my HDD with a larger one that does not have the Apple brand on it anywhere. I can also put more RAM into it that's not from Apple.
You're not locked into a single aftermarket vendor, no. But if you want a Mac, you're locked into buying that (both operating system and "base" computer) from Apple.
Given the shape of his concerns, I genuinely wonder how he feels about Google Gears. Doesn't it effectively turn the web app into something you're hosting yourself?
To me, the phrasing suggests that 37% of all notices are not valid copyright claims. The remaining 63% are valid claims. Not necessarily true/correct, just valid. To my understanding, "That guy's using my song on his clip" is always a valid copyright claim, even if there's no infringement going on (because the song's not yours at all, or the usage falls under fair use, or whatever). Whether the claim holds or not is a different matter altogether. What Google is saying is that 37% of all claims don't even pass the validity test. Essentially, people saying "I don't like what he's saying, squelch it", or stuff like that.
It so happens that some of us buy computers and other random IT related gadgets with a list of criteria where looks don't get the first place (not even close)
That's the funny part. From watching the video in TFA (ok, let's call it what it is: after watching the ad), I got the feeling that it was a desperate attempt at selling something sexy, not something functional. It went on about "people will look, and that's okay", and "Adamo is latin for attraction", etc etc etc. The guys are putting freaking leather accents on the laptops (definitely on the Studio XPS 13, from the video I got the impression the Adamo has them too). At least Apple always portrays its products as useful first, and sexy after (or, rather, just imply that it's sexy).
(...)in that area of knowledge alone.
Damn misclicks.
Please define what you mean by "good knowledge of science as a whole"?
Ok, I wasn't clear. I obviously don't expect anybody to know "everything", but I do expect, say, a mechanic engineer to know more about biology than a cultured musician, just the same as I expect musicians to know more about plastic arts than a cultured engineer. (In general, of course -- as an engineer, I don't feel I need to compete with my musician girlfriend on the subject of biology, since she devours books on the subject :)
In short, I expect people to worry about breadth of knowledge, and understanding where their domain of activity fits in the grand scheme of things, rather than pursuing depth of knowledge in tha .
Slow to accept theories? The USA has been one of the absolute leaders in scientific research, Actually, I think we probably are still one of the best in that regard.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can have the intellectual elites riding (and directing) the bleeding edge of research, while the country as a whole is slow on the uptake of the science the elites (both domestic and foreign) produce. In the meanwhile, countries that produce less scientific knowledge might be much more avid consumers of that knowledge. Quite tellingly, do american scientists have a good knowledge of science as a whole, or do they limit themselves to trying to be leaders in their own domain? (honest question, and food for thought)
Due? Isn't it dueue? I'm confused now.
The distinction between instinct and cogent thought is very real unlike what you imply. If spiders had to learn how to spin a web, they would starve, and so in their case, cogent thought is neither needed nor important.
To expand on the point, and to show one of the more elaborate examples: New Caledonian Crows
It's a portmanteau! He's cuing the "500 stupid M$ sux0rs [posters]" to queue up, since there's so many of 'em!
Polymorphism is a capability that most if not all OO languages support, but like any capability it's entirely optional.
True, but you opted in, right when you used inheritance. And for as long as that code's in there, it's more binding than most contracts.
Your proclamations that CUDA won make about as much sense as proclaiming that Glide won the 3D API wars in 1998.
CUDA is about 2 years old, GPGPU is a nascent technology, and everybody was doing their own thing because there was no standard to develop against. Direct3D and OpenGL provided something that everybody could implement, unlike Glide. OpenCL provides the same for the GPGPU landscape. The authors of CUDA (ie, nVidia) are aboard the OpenCL boat too.
C: isn't the problem. All the other letters are. Why is the floppy (when present) mapped to A:? Why do we still have two drive letters "reserved" for floppies? Why can't I tell from name alone whether D: is another partition in the same disk as C: or a different disk altogether? How is it attached? /dev/hda3 means the 3rd partition on the first disk of the first ATA controller. It's weird the first time you see it, but then you can actually derive loads of information from it. What does C: mean, anyway?
I'm sorry if that reality hurts your feelings. I am actually sorry that it turned out that way, as I was an early OpenGL adopter and for awhile it looked like they might bring true competition to the 3d market, and I am a firm believer in competition being ultimately good for the market.
So you were actually around programming OpenGL in the very early 90s, or perhaps you consider early adopter the time around when GLQuake was released ('97)? Whichever way you look at it, Direct3D only gained relevance much later than OpenGL was already well established, which makes statements like "it looked like they might bring true competition to the 3d market" sound completely off.
And I'd expect anyone who's been doing 3D graphics for as long as you claim you have to realize that, irrespectively of a majority of Windows installations on desktops, and a majority of Direct3D software for Windows, everything else on the desktop is OpenGL (not much, granted), and, more relevantly, the mobile device and game console markets are dominated by OpenGL (with both the Wii and PS3 using it as their graphics libraries).
Sigh. I don't like flamefests, but you're asking for it. This said...
Since it's so easy to do, care to climb down from the high horse and explain mere mortals how to do it? That's what the whole point of the article was.
Ok, SELinux or AppArmor are possibilities to make the lockdown happen. What are good ways to manage that? Despite your bravado, SSHing into each individual machine is a headache. It gives you no decent overview of the systems, and you have to manually note down what changes you've made to each individual user, so you don't find yourself in an administration hell of your own making six months from now. Or you could keep a coherent system for every single user on the company, but then do you really want every single user in a 300+ person environment to have the exact same capabilities? I doubt it.
In the end, you're stating that your "FatAss Net" works fine for a dozen machines (whereas the summary mentioned 300) and then you expect your experience with a small environment should scale to a larger network, and imply that dissenters are morons.
You can't install apps without root.
Let me fix that for you: You can't install apps system-wide without root.
Most reasonably well-behaved apps can be configured to run from your $home well enough. A god example of this being done on the Windows side of the fence is SysInternal's Process Explorer. It's completely self-contained, and most of the time I just leave the actual executable on my desktop. Of course, nothing says that "well-behaved" as defined in terms of good programming practices translates into "well-behaved" in terms of corporate rules, though.
Well, if a team of scientists can achieve a certain level of results at a certain level of funding, they can probably reach better results with more funding. If you're the government, and you have a certain amount of funding set aside for science, you pick what projects you'd like to see giving better results than they do today. The Bush administration had qualms about this particular line of research, the Obama administration apparently doesn't.
This is an interesting line of thought, actually: how many pro-lifers use IUDs or the pill for contraception? Both of those are arguably abortive contraceptives (since part of the mechanism is preventing the egg from implanting in the uterus), which screws with the whole notion of "life at conception".
I think that it does. If I am talking to a stranger in a public park and I say something that they do not like. They can try to take me to court but as long as their was no defamation in what I said the court will uphold my right to speak. Ergo, the 1st amendment protects my right to free speech even between two private parties.
Wrong conclusion. The right conclusion is that there is no law in place that makes illegal to say whatever it is you said. Whether or not that law doesn't exist because it would be covered by the first amendment, or because it simply makes no sense. For example, if I show up at a party wearing really ugly clothes, you might take me to court over it, but you'll be laughed out of court not because I have a constitutional right to ugly clothes, but because that's simply something that makes no sense legislating about.