With respect to reliability, I frequently get crashes from ajax sites with an Athlon XP 2800+ with 1.5GB RAM. Not the highest specs, but acceptable, and higher than what I test on. When I'm being served what is mostly plain text/html, tables and navigational structures, I find crashes to be extremely frustrating. (See: any modern IC supplier)
I appreciate the value of ajax/jQuery, for the reasons that you've stated, but I uphold that it isn't appropriate for most of the tasks in which you see it used.
Porphyria, interestingly enough, is a disease which legitimately causes negative reactions to sufferers who are exposed to a certain spectrum of EM radiation.
If that is not the purpose of a particular being, then ultimately that thing will cease to exist, hence we can ignore those class of beings.
That's the issue we're discussing, isn't it? Since we're not ultimate, ultimate reasoning is a little silly. We have to deal with the beings we are able to experience.
Artificial Intelligence without an existence purpose could be a very interesting possibility.
Among other things, Foxconn produces the Mac mini, the iPod and the iPhone for Apple Inc.; Intel-branded motherboards for Intel Corp.; various orders for American computer manufacturers Dell and Hewlett-Packard; the PlayStation 2 and PlayStation 3 for Sony; the Wii for Nintendo;the Xbox 360 for Microsoft, cell phones for Motorola, and the Amazon Kindle.[2][3] [4]
Bottom line.. if you like electronic devices, you have to go some way to avoid Foxconn.
No, those are actually the ones I'd been thinking of as evil.
I'm not aware of the issues you mention in modern Catholicism, but am curious.
If you give any group, sect or party a certain amount of power, and allow them to maintain and add to it for a certain amount of time (usually generations), the end result is usually something quite horrible.
I don't think that reflects poorly on religion so much as the relationship between people and power.
If we're using the term cult to mean: "a community oriented around emotional manipulation, isolation and the distribution of Absolute Truth which results in the material gain of its founders/leadership", then that's usually what it means.
Word-meaning is cultural, and the dictionary is an observation of culture; it usually doesn't contribute to the meaning.
Religious leaders shouldn't be highly paid. Christianity even has an (early) history of leadership that wasn't paid at all. The leadership would be expected to work full time and do religion/communism in their spare time.
I do not claim to fully understand the phenomenon, but whether they're ultimately helpful or harmful, megachurches are scary.
Is it fair to say that people do ridiculous things to others while trying to justify (retroactively) their life choices?
It's certainly depressing and discouraging that religious groups do this kind of thing. While I don't agree with the teachings of the group in question, I'd still suggest that this kind of behaviour doesn't make them all bad.
I agree with the GP that most religions and cultural traditions have a lot of good stuff in them.
Of course, I'm not particularly friendly with any Mormons, so take that with a grain of salt.
I'd intended to say "leaders", but the wealth of the founders/saints of a religion during their lifetime is also quite telling.
Lots of religions and organisations mess up when they get/seek real power, though, it's the nature of humanity. The Catholic church during that period of time was certainly not an example of healthy religion.
I'd suggest that the difference is related to the direction of resources. If a significant portion of the group's resources are directed towards the wealth and well-being of its founders, as opposed to an external problem or cause, then you an unhealthy expression of religion, and quite possibly a cult.
First time I've heard of this software: it sounds interesting.
I'm curious about how it works: i.e why the attacker wouldn't either disable the networking interfaces or re-install the software (depending on their intent), but I suppose it would be quite useful in the case of casual theft.
Surely it would be more useful for the service to send the location data directly to one of the owner's servers, rather than OpenDHT?
You seem to be implying that myth tends to have no reasoning or value.
I'd suggest that attempting to explain the universe based on observable phenomenon is one of the most important traits of humanity: it's the foundation of culture, and usually where science begins, for example.
Personally, the nationality of the attackers is irrelevant. I'm just as concerned (or more so) about Americans with agendas as I am about Chinese people.
He was a naive idiot, granted, but that is irrelevant. You're certainly not a troll, but you don't need to respond in kind, and doing so detracts from your point.
No? The man had a vaguely interesting story and lost his job over it. Personally, I'd rather read a vaguely interesting story like this one than much of the usual rubbish in the entertainment column.
Slashdot Mirror
With respect to reliability, I frequently get crashes from ajax sites with an Athlon XP 2800+ with 1.5GB RAM. Not the highest specs, but acceptable, and higher than what I test on. When I'm being served what is mostly plain text/html, tables and navigational structures, I find crashes to be extremely frustrating. (See: any modern IC supplier)
I appreciate the value of ajax/jQuery, for the reasons that you've stated, but I uphold that it isn't appropriate for most of the tasks in which you see it used.
As a web dev who avoids javascript except in the 5% of cases where it is appropriate, some reasons for disabling javascript:
1. Higher resource usage, which can lead to frequent browser crashes
2. Low added value from javascript
js that tries to change the way the user interacts with the site, for example, is particularly annoying. i.e. Javascript links.
Yeah! Damn us, and our ability to reason.
Porphyria, interestingly enough, is a disease which legitimately causes negative reactions to sufferers who are exposed to a certain spectrum of EM radiation.
Need is a purely emotional concept.
It's related to feeling terrible about potential loss of self.
That's the issue we're discussing, isn't it? Since we're not ultimate, ultimate reasoning is a little silly. We have to deal with the beings we are able to experience.
Artificial Intelligence without an existence purpose could be a very interesting possibility.
To be fair, I think most people would click that button out of curiosity.
Well done. You've requested justification for an unsupported statement and made one in the same breath.
No, those are actually the ones I'd been thinking of as evil.
What is your affiliation with that company?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_hat
We're not talking about domesticated cats here. Most of these sayings come from slightly different world-views.
Why do we trust google, again?
I'm not aware of the issues you mention in modern Catholicism, but am curious.
If you give any group, sect or party a certain amount of power, and allow them to maintain and add to it for a certain amount of time (usually generations), the end result is usually something quite horrible.
I don't think that reflects poorly on religion so much as the relationship between people and power.
Words don't really work that way.
If we're using the term cult to mean: "a community oriented around emotional manipulation, isolation and the distribution of Absolute Truth which results in the material gain of its founders/leadership", then that's usually what it means.
Word-meaning is cultural, and the dictionary is an observation of culture; it usually doesn't contribute to the meaning.
That was partly intentional.
Religious leaders shouldn't be highly paid. Christianity even has an (early) history of leadership that wasn't paid at all. The leadership would be expected to work full time and do religion/communism in their spare time.
I do not claim to fully understand the phenomenon, but whether they're ultimately helpful or harmful, megachurches are scary.
Is it fair to say that people do ridiculous things to others while trying to justify (retroactively) their life choices?
It's certainly depressing and discouraging that religious groups do this kind of thing. While I don't agree with the teachings of the group in question, I'd still suggest that this kind of behaviour doesn't make them all bad.
I agree with the GP that most religions and cultural traditions have a lot of good stuff in them.
Of course, I'm not particularly friendly with any Mormons, so take that with a grain of salt.
Agreed on both counts.
I'd intended to say "leaders", but the wealth of the founders/saints of a religion during their lifetime is also quite telling.
Lots of religions and organisations mess up when they get/seek real power, though, it's the nature of humanity. The Catholic church during that period of time was certainly not an example of healthy religion.
That's a popular view, but not a useful one.
I'd suggest that the difference is related to the direction of resources. If a significant portion of the group's resources are directed towards the wealth and well-being of its founders, as opposed to an external problem or cause, then you an unhealthy expression of religion, and quite possibly a cult.
First time I've heard of this software: it sounds interesting.
I'm curious about how it works: i.e why the attacker wouldn't either disable the networking interfaces or re-install the software (depending on their intent), but I suppose it would be quite useful in the case of casual theft.
Surely it would be more useful for the service to send the location data directly to one of the owner's servers, rather than OpenDHT?
You seem to be implying that myth tends to have no reasoning or value.
I'd suggest that attempting to explain the universe based on observable phenomenon is one of the most important traits of humanity: it's the foundation of culture, and usually where science begins, for example.
Personally, the nationality of the attackers is irrelevant. I'm just as concerned (or more so) about Americans with agendas as I am about Chinese people.
He was a naive idiot, granted, but that is irrelevant. You're certainly not a troll, but you don't need to respond in kind, and doing so detracts from your point.
This is not an acceptable way to make your point. Use reason rather rather than derison, no matter what you are feeling.
No? The man had a vaguely interesting story and lost his job over it. Personally, I'd rather read a vaguely interesting story like this one than much of the usual rubbish in the entertainment column.