This money could be much better used for helping the poor and taking the faith to the unbelievers.
In the US/Europe, maybe you would see highly ornate churches with big bankrolls.
Frankly though I have yet to see what I would consider 'too much' spent on deco and that it was somehow hurting the missions...
The local shrine here was made out cinder blocks, all painted yellow. They had some flowers for the altar (that must have cost.... $17 to grow outside...) and that's the extent of it. Metal folding chairs too.
The only protestant church I went to recently had... everything you'd see in a large, old, big dollar catholic church. Point?
Are most churches too ornate? Perhaps. How much real impact does this have on the poor? Essentially zero. Money is usually collected separately for buildings vs charities, and a large chunk of the ornamention and other physical work is donated (or at least discounted).
Parent post is total FUD
None of what parent mentions are predictions in the sense of GP's post. Those are all observations from testing an existing scenario.
You only know you'll get a particular genetic disease for that marker. You can't predict the results of a change in general. If you change the dna to have a stop at/near the front of a protein ok you don't make that protein... awesome... but if you make a non-trivial set of changes, what disease or benefit or whatever do you get? That is not really something we're able to predict in the same way that newtonian physics can predict the flight of a thrown object.
If I write a novel, I should have a certain degree of control over it. Namely I don't want people writing sequels without my permission. I'm fine with Author's Life +5 to 10 years. The main reason for the plus is someone who writes a very profitable book and dies, a real shame to leave their family penniless while other publish the book for nothing. 10 years is plenty of time to accommodate that. Heck 5 years is, but some things are slower than others (say a screenplay, which would need to be turned into a movie... could take many years).
Life + 70 is an effing joke, especially since it protected exactly ONE PERSONS works, and ONE COMPANY'S bottom line.
Read the parent before flaming off into oblivion. He's not advocating script kiddies. He's railing against the fact that it is illegal to even POINT OUT that security holes exist.
Let's say for example that you experience some persistent bug in your web server software, that is triggered whenever a user hits your site and does not have IE or Netscape/Mo'. This bug causes the server to crash whenever it reads the line that would contain the alternate browser's id... for whatever reason it cannot handle the 'malformatted' line that says 'browser=Opera'.
Gee, that's a pretty frickin' annoying bug. Now, normally when you buy a defective product, you can sound off on it, and give a bad review of the product for example.
Not so with BigIP's software. Sure, you can write a non-flattering review about how their server software crashes. But, just mentioning that carries very little weight. Prospective buyers, even if they SEE your review, are comparing your personal review with against the massive onslaught of the company's marketing machine. The marketing machine is going to say that the server software has records for uptime, and is fully compliant with all standards, and works with all sorts of end user tech, etc.. How is the end user to know you just aren't some jerk who didn't know what he was doing and is now pissed off because he misconfigured his web server?
The answer is, you post the conditions of how the software misbehaves and you dispell the notion that you simply incompetent. People will be able to see that the 'malformatted' line of code is actually something that could plausibly be sent to the server, and that the server will crash as a result. NOW... you've got something. Now your words have some force behind them as it is provable that your bad review of the software is not just spite, it points out legitimate flaws in the software.
HOWEVER.... posting this information can now get you into all kinds of trouble. The company that produces the web server product can now look at it in a couple of ways... one, how much will it cost us to fix the problem (Soft. Eng.s cost money, you know), and two, how much will it cost us to silence the problem (Lawyers aint free either). If one is cheaper than two, the problem gets fixed. If two is cheaper than one, the site owner gets a letter telling them to remove infringing materials from their site, that they are culpable for any hacking that occurs as a result, and that they are liable for any damages resulting from the offending review.
And that, to me, is the problem. Rather than fix the security holes, companies try to silence people who point them out. The theory is that by making exploitive information go away, they can make the problem go away. This is the "weak lock" theory. However, the problem DOES NOT go away simply because it is more difficult to find the flaw in the lock. The flaw still exists and dedicated theives will still find it. The weak lock with the widely known flaw will be exploited by the casual thief. The weak lock with not-so-widely known flaw will be exploited by the professional thief. This does not make the lock any better at protecting you against theft by those equipped to take advantage of it. Studies of whether or not casual, script kiddie type hackers do more damage picking a thousand locks than a few dedicated hackers using the picks on several dozen machines, and then using those machines to commit further crimes is another topic entirely. (My bet is on the dedicated types doing more. Reinstalling windows across 2000 machines is time consuming. Having a few hundred machines to run identify theft out of, is incredibly damaging.)
By using the weak lock theory, BigIP can market software as a strong lock when in fact it is a weak lock. They are free to state this and anyone who disagrees is written off / sued. Whenever it is against the law to hurt a company's revenue, by making truthful statements... well, I don't want to complete that thought, as it leads to all sorts of horrific ramifications.
Slashdot Mirror
This money could be much better used for helping the poor and taking the faith to the unbelievers. In the US/Europe, maybe you would see highly ornate churches with big bankrolls. Frankly though I have yet to see what I would consider 'too much' spent on deco and that it was somehow hurting the missions... The local shrine here was made out cinder blocks, all painted yellow. They had some flowers for the altar (that must have cost.... $17 to grow outside...) and that's the extent of it. Metal folding chairs too. The only protestant church I went to recently had... everything you'd see in a large, old, big dollar catholic church. Point? Are most churches too ornate? Perhaps. How much real impact does this have on the poor? Essentially zero. Money is usually collected separately for buildings vs charities, and a large chunk of the ornamention and other physical work is donated (or at least discounted). Parent post is total FUD
None of what parent mentions are predictions in the sense of GP's post. Those are all observations from testing an existing scenario. You only know you'll get a particular genetic disease for that marker. You can't predict the results of a change in general. If you change the dna to have a stop at/near the front of a protein ok you don't make that protein... awesome... but if you make a non-trivial set of changes, what disease or benefit or whatever do you get? That is not really something we're able to predict in the same way that newtonian physics can predict the flight of a thrown object.
would get fucking fired for saying fucking in the source?
They already wrote that software four plus years ago, it was called ME.
No, but then I can't get my game pad to work with any windows os after 98 - so much for backwards compatibility and driver support there too.
IF they're legally the same why doesnt the RIAA sue you for shoplifting. QED
If I write a novel, I should have a certain degree of control over it. Namely I don't want people writing sequels without my permission. I'm fine with Author's Life +5 to 10 years. The main reason for the plus is someone who writes a very profitable book and dies, a real shame to leave their family penniless while other publish the book for nothing. 10 years is plenty of time to accommodate that. Heck 5 years is, but some things are slower than others (say a screenplay, which would need to be turned into a movie... could take many years). Life + 70 is an effing joke, especially since it protected exactly ONE PERSONS works, and ONE COMPANY'S bottom line.
Read the parent before flaming off into oblivion. He's not advocating script kiddies. He's railing against the fact that it is illegal to even POINT OUT that security holes exist.
Let's say for example that you experience some persistent bug in your web server software, that is triggered whenever a user hits your site and does not have IE or Netscape/Mo'. This bug causes the server to crash whenever it reads the line that would contain the alternate browser's id... for whatever reason it cannot handle the 'malformatted' line that says 'browser=Opera'.
Gee, that's a pretty frickin' annoying bug. Now, normally when you buy a defective product, you can sound off on it, and give a bad review of the product for example.
Not so with BigIP's software. Sure, you can write a non-flattering review about how their server software crashes. But, just mentioning that carries very little weight. Prospective buyers, even if they SEE your review, are comparing your personal review with against the massive onslaught of the company's marketing machine. The marketing machine is going to say that the server software has records for uptime, and is fully compliant with all standards, and works with all sorts of end user tech, etc.. How is the end user to know you just aren't some jerk who didn't know what he was doing and is now pissed off because he misconfigured his web server?
The answer is, you post the conditions of how the software misbehaves and you dispell the notion that you simply incompetent. People will be able to see that the 'malformatted' line of code is actually something that could plausibly be sent to the server, and that the server will crash as a result. NOW... you've got something. Now your words have some force behind them as it is provable that your bad review of the software is not just spite, it points out legitimate flaws in the software.
HOWEVER.... posting this information can now get you into all kinds of trouble. The company that produces the web server product can now look at it in a couple of ways... one, how much will it cost us to fix the problem (Soft. Eng.s cost money, you know), and two, how much will it cost us to silence the problem (Lawyers aint free either). If one is cheaper than two, the problem gets fixed. If two is cheaper than one, the site owner gets a letter telling them to remove infringing materials from their site, that they are culpable for any hacking that occurs as a result, and that they are liable for any damages resulting from the offending review.
And that, to me, is the problem. Rather than fix the security holes, companies try to silence people who point them out. The theory is that by making exploitive information go away, they can make the problem go away. This is the "weak lock" theory. However, the problem DOES NOT go away simply because it is more difficult to find the flaw in the lock. The flaw still exists and dedicated theives will still find it. The weak lock with the widely known flaw will be exploited by the casual thief. The weak lock with not-so-widely known flaw will be exploited by the professional thief. This does not make the lock any better at protecting you against theft by those equipped to take advantage of it. Studies of whether or not casual, script kiddie type hackers do more damage picking a thousand locks than a few dedicated hackers using the picks on several dozen machines, and then using those machines to commit further crimes is another topic entirely. (My bet is on the dedicated types doing more. Reinstalling windows across 2000 machines is time consuming. Having a few hundred machines to run identify theft out of, is incredibly damaging.)
By using the weak lock theory, BigIP can market software as a strong lock when in fact it is a weak lock. They are free to state this and anyone who disagrees is written off / sued. Whenever it is against the law to hurt a company's revenue, by making truthful statements... well, I don't want to complete that thought, as it leads to all sorts of horrific ramifications.