Can we quit tossing around the bloody "T-word" every time a crime is committed? This is VANDALISM.
No, I think the OP's remark is entirely justifiable.
This particular news item may only have been about mixing up samples and vandalizing a lab, but in the UK there have been numerous examples of animal rights protestors setting bombs and making death threats to academics. Life-threatening intimidation with an expressly political aim is precisely the definition of terrorism.
vandal != terrorist. You're not allowed to get away with that.
No, I think the OP's remark is entirely justifiable.
This particular news item may only have been about mixing up samples and vandalizing a lab, but in the UK there have been numerous examples of animal rights protestors setting bombs and making death threats to academics. Life-threatening intimidation with an expressly political aim is precisely the definition of terrorism.
The "update" (retraction) of this story was posted after the story had left the front page. Slashdot readers are only going to see yesterday's unjustified criticism of Apple and their supposed agenda. How many times in the next six months are the Android-trolls going to refer to this story as an example of Apple's control-freak tendency, without being aware that it was based on a lie?
The only use I can see for new TLD is to distinguish between different possible uses of the same name. e.g. consider how many web sites now have $(thing)-movie.com or $(thing)-band.com : if.movie and.band were TLDs, that's actually providing some benefit. But these are generic words, not trademarks. They're only useful if a registrar sells subdomains at a reasonable price, and the TLD will live or die depending on whether it can get a foothold in the market. This is a good thing.
I just don't see a case for corporations buying their own TLD. Is there a substantial usability or branding difference between www.disney and disney.com? Everybody will just type "disney" into the address bar anyway, it will find the right site even if it has to go via google...
You may both be thinking of the ZX80 or ZX81, which used this hack to drive the screen. The ZX Spectrum (released 1982) had proper display circuitry and did not suffer from this issue.
The ZX80's display hack was all a cheap way to get the data streamed out of RAM. To do this they placed the cpu's program counter(!) at the start of display memory, every time it tried to execute an instruction it would read a byte from memory - which was picked up to generate the display - but the data wasn't returned to the CPU and instead it was fed a byte of zero bits. 0x00 is the NOP instruction on Z80, so it would just increment the program counter and read the next byte. This means successive bytes appear in sequence on the data bus, without having to include a second agent that was capable of making accesses into the RAM - a considerable design simplification. Later, for the Spectrum, a separate circuit which generated and incremented its own address was able to access memory, and it had to be arranged that it would get priority over the CPU (which meant the CPU was considerably slower when running programs in the bottom 16k of memory).
Developers had been on the App Store. And now they're in both, because you have to be crazy to turn down an installed base of 400 million customers for your app.
A lot of developers aren't on both though, and that's because it isn't crazy to ignore 400 million users if you don't expect any of them will pay.
I'm actually an advocate for taking the action film to its logical conclusion: a film entitled Blowing Stuff Up, about nothing at all, that features at least 90 minutes of well-known stars in a world of explosions, car chases, gun fights, etc doing what they're doing for no particular reason. Hey, at least it wouldn't pretend to be something sophisticated.
Perhaps someone did report it to Apple's security team, but Apple's security team didn't act in a responsible manner. This happened with another company whose devices use another operating system called iOS: when a hacker reported a security problem in the Wii system software to Nintendo, Nintendo demanded to speak to the hacker's employer.
Do you have a link for more information? I couldn't find anything about this with a brief google search.
Anyway, there are several severalexamples of Apple crediting the discoverer in bug fixes, so I don't know why everybody here is jumping to the opposite conclusion.
we all know what happens when you exploit in the wild, without first reporting to Apple's security team a bug, exploit or whatever on their devices and store. You get banned and sued right into oblivion.
FTFY.
We all know what happens when you find and report a bug, exploit or whatever on their devices and store. You get credited with discovering the vulnerability when they fix it.
I agree. This proposal would stack the court system against the little guy, which is exactly the wrong solution to the problem.
The problem is not patent law, per se, but that too many trivial patents are granted. That, and patents which describe a problem, trying to claim that all solutions must infringe.
It's not quite as simple as that. The development of Clang is being funded by Apple. They need a BSD license so that they have the freedom to make further modifications down the line (without leaving them open). Yes, I'm a GPL advocate. No, I don't agree with Apple's ideology. But it's the case anyway.
I doubt that's accurate view of their motivation - although neither of us can prove it either way. But judging on past form they don't seem to have held back their Clang modifications so far, why would they want to start doing so later?
I think it is more likely that they are worried about the patent grant implications of GPL 3. A lot of corporations are, rightly or wrongly. Certainly in the company I work for, the legal department are paranoid about the idea that one of our contributions to a GPL 3 project might be picked up and (legally) included in unrelated projects, which doesn't necessarily need to be software products, and thus we might be deemed to have granted a license to all our patents to a hardware competitor. Now me and the lawyers can disagree on how likely that is to happen in reality, but the final words is that it's way easier for me to get corporate approval to send changes upstream to a BSD licensed project than a GPL licensed one. I suspect something similar is going on at Apple, and that backing the BSD-licensed clang project is enabling them to be a better participant in the open source community, not a worse one.
What evidence made you a christian? Care to show it to us?
No, I'm not going to. Because you're not really interested, you just want to have an argument.
I'll give you my evidence for _that_ claim:
Does the sun move around the earth (it says in the bible it does
I already talked about this in my first big post to the thread - just search for Rolf Harris. If you were actually the slightest bit interested in reading anything I write, you'd have known that already.
I knew I should have given up on this thread when you brought up North Korea. Does Kim Jong-un have a Godwin equivalent whom I can invoke?
Sure, asking for evidence is "weak" argument. All I'm saying is we have plenty of evidence religion and god is man made
No, the weak arguments are the misrepresenting the origin of the New Testament, the blind assumptions about my background, the claim that atheism is a default, the ignoring of documents dated earlier that you claim, and the gross lampooning of the intent of religion.
Asking for evidence is where we came in, when you asserted that "science is constantly proving religion wrong" and I asked what you meant. Nothing you've said since has backed up that initial claim.
people who reject reason and evidence based reasoning
Sorry, was that supposed to mean me? Please, just read the first paragraph of my first post again.
their irrational beliefs?
Do you not see that you are claiming the very same position of superior understanding that you're telling me I'm not allowed to have?
You strike me as someone who never examined any of the arguments against your position.
And you strike me as someone who uses ad hominem to bolster a weak argument.
Your "onus of proof", "knowing God's will" and "geographical default" objections are noted and argued in the video I already pointed to. And your version of the history of the New Testament is so inaccurate that even wikipedia is less cynical.
Do you really need some bibliography listed here? How about you take good math foundations, then learn about scientific method, then learn about quantum theory, then see how physical chemistry and atom theory follows from quantum theory, then go to organic chemistry, chemical bond theory, then learn about biology, cell theory, genetic and molecular biology, evolution, learn about diversity of life, astrobiology.
Yes, I've done that (well most of it - I hold Master of Sciences degree from Cambridge University). And yet I also believe the claims that the Bible makes about itself, about God, and about us. I believe that the historical authenticity of the text stands up to rational scrutiny. And I don't see any of the things you've mentioned as being contradictory to it. Exactly which religion is disproved by tectonic plate theory?
It is important here to distinguish between the core beliefs of the religion (and I'm going to speak specifically of Christianity, i.e. what the Bible says) versus the traditions, practices and interpretations of strictly human origin (dogma as you put it). Somebody else mentioned Galileo. Yes, he came into conflict with the church authorities when he showed that Earth was not at the centre of the solar system; but it wasn't a "disproof of religion" as the Bible doesn't make that claim. The suggestion that it did came partly from tradition of the prevailing mindset, and partly from an excessively literal reading of verses in Psalms or Ecclesiastes which say things like "the sun rises". (How can I say that one interpretation is excessively literal? Psalms is a songbook. The Bible is a collection of about six different types of literature, and you can identify the bits which are narrative and can be taken pretty much at literal face value, and the bits which are poetry and a more metaphorical approach is justified. When it says "the sun rises" in Psalms that's no more intended to be a definitive statement of relative motion, than when Rolf Harris sang it).
Not to say that all dogma is wrong - to fully understand the Bible would be more than a life's work, so I'm glad that people have given me a useful shortcut by summarising the flow of it. But I don't accept their words blindly - I check it for self-consistency, for consistency with the primary source (the Bible), and for consistency with my experience and understanding of the way the universe works - including my scientific training.
You claim "religion [...] makes a virtue out of accepting dogma" (and maybe some religions do - it's difficult to argue against such generalities) but mine doesn't, and I certainly don't think that's a biblical principle. On the contrary, there are number of biblical examples where people, on hearing something from their religious leaders, are commended for taking a sceptical (dare I say, evidence-based reasoning) approach by checking up on it first to see if it's true. (Acts 17:11 is the first one that comes to mind)
And then there is belief in something based on no evidence. You could say, it is based on ignorance. This kind of belief is called faith.
No, I don't agree that those terms are equivalent. Faithful Christians are no more ignorant for believing in God, than an atheist is for not doing so.
Sorry for not responding to every point in your post, but I have a feeling that I'd be here all day if I tried. Can I suggest if you're genuinely interested in how I might justify my disagreement with your points of view, that rather than try to continue a long thread in here, could I point you to a video of an Authors@Google talk by Tim Keller (author of "The Reason for God") in which he expresses similar ideas much better than I can.
Incidentally, I'm not typing this with any particular aim or expectation of trying to convince you that the Bible is true. I'm just arguing that believing it is at least rational, and compatible with a scientific approach. If there were credible contradictory evidence then faith would be preposterous, but I am convinced this is not the case.
Only because Apple are forcing us to break the law, just to enable something they could have quite easily added themselves.
Let me get this straight. Apple have released something shiny and not given it to you for free, and in your head that means they are forcing you to pirate it. Forcing you? Really, is that the best you can do?
Jailbreaking itself doesn't force you to pirate apps or break the law. If you Jailbreak to do that, that's your own problem, but you shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush.
I don't have to; when the announcement of the jailbreak and the incitement to run pirated software appear in the same slashdot headline, you're doing a perfectly good job of tarring yourselves.
The other feature of successful game engines is that they, generally speaking, don't pin a core i7 at 100% usage drawing half a dozen objects at 15fps with a lighting model which would have looked dated in 2001.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would we need so many people to work with Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopes anyway?
Can we quit tossing around the bloody "T-word" every time a crime is committed? This is VANDALISM.
No, I think the OP's remark is entirely justifiable.
This particular news item may only have been about mixing up samples and vandalizing a lab, but in the UK there have been numerous examples of animal rights protestors setting bombs and making death threats to academics. Life-threatening intimidation with an expressly political aim is precisely the definition of terrorism.
vandal != terrorist. You're not allowed to get away with that.
No, I think the OP's remark is entirely justifiable.
This particular news item may only have been about mixing up samples and vandalizing a lab, but in the UK there have been numerous examples of animal rights protestors setting bombs and making death threats to academics. Life-threatening intimidation with an expressly political aim is precisely the definition of terrorism.
The "update" (retraction) of this story was posted after the story had left the front page. Slashdot readers are only going to see yesterday's unjustified criticism of Apple and their supposed agenda. How many times in the next six months are the Android-trolls going to refer to this story as an example of Apple's control-freak tendency, without being aware that it was based on a lie?
The only use I can see for new TLD is to distinguish between different possible uses of the same name. e.g. consider how many web sites now have $(thing)-movie.com or $(thing)-band.com : if .movie and .band were TLDs, that's actually providing some benefit. But these are generic words, not trademarks. They're only useful if a registrar sells subdomains at a reasonable price, and the TLD will live or die depending on whether it can get a foothold in the market. This is a good thing.
I just don't see a case for corporations buying their own TLD. Is there a substantial usability or branding difference between www.disney and disney.com? Everybody will just type "disney" into the address bar anyway, it will find the right site even if it has to go via google...
You may both be thinking of the ZX80 or ZX81, which used this hack to drive the screen. The ZX Spectrum (released 1982) had proper display circuitry and did not suffer from this issue.
The ZX80's display hack was all a cheap way to get the data streamed out of RAM. To do this they placed the cpu's program counter(!) at the start of display memory, every time it tried to execute an instruction it would read a byte from memory - which was picked up to generate the display - but the data wasn't returned to the CPU and instead it was fed a byte of zero bits. 0x00 is the NOP instruction on Z80, so it would just increment the program counter and read the next byte. This means successive bytes appear in sequence on the data bus, without having to include a second agent that was capable of making accesses into the RAM - a considerable design simplification. Later, for the Spectrum, a separate circuit which generated and incremented its own address was able to access memory, and it had to be arranged that it would get priority over the CPU (which meant the CPU was considerably slower when running programs in the bottom 16k of memory).
Developers had been on the App Store. And now they're in both, because you have to be crazy to turn down an installed base of 400 million customers for your app.
A lot of developers aren't on both though, and that's because it isn't crazy to ignore 400 million users if you don't expect any of them will pay.
I'm actually an advocate for taking the action film to its logical conclusion: a film entitled Blowing Stuff Up, about nothing at all, that features at least 90 minutes of well-known stars in a world of explosions, car chases, gun fights, etc doing what they're doing for no particular reason. Hey, at least it wouldn't pretend to be something sophisticated.
Sounds like Top Gear...
No you get your house raided by the cops lol :')
Okay, who got his house raided by the cops (LOL or not) after he found a bug in any of Apple's products?
And santax suddenly went quiet.
Perhaps someone did report it to Apple's security team, but Apple's security team didn't act in a responsible manner. This happened with another company whose devices use another operating system called iOS: when a hacker reported a security problem in the Wii system software to Nintendo, Nintendo demanded to speak to the hacker's employer.
Do you have a link for more information? I couldn't find anything about this with a brief google search.
Anyway, there are several several examples of Apple crediting the discoverer in bug fixes, so I don't know why everybody here is jumping to the opposite conclusion.
we all know what happens when you exploit in the wild, without first reporting to Apple's security team a bug, exploit or whatever on their devices and store. You get banned and sued right into oblivion.
FTFY.
We all know what happens when you find and report a bug, exploit or whatever on their devices and store. You get credited with discovering the vulnerability when they fix it.
I agree. This proposal would stack the court system against the little guy, which is exactly the wrong solution to the problem.
The problem is not patent law, per se, but that too many trivial patents are granted. That, and patents which describe a problem, trying to claim that all solutions must infringe.
It's not quite as simple as that. The development of Clang is being funded by Apple. They need a BSD license so that they have the freedom to make further modifications down the line (without leaving them open). Yes, I'm a GPL advocate. No, I don't agree with Apple's ideology. But it's the case anyway.
I doubt that's accurate view of their motivation - although neither of us can prove it either way. But judging on past form they don't seem to have held back their Clang modifications so far, why would they want to start doing so later?
I think it is more likely that they are worried about the patent grant implications of GPL 3. A lot of corporations are, rightly or wrongly. Certainly in the company I work for, the legal department are paranoid about the idea that one of our contributions to a GPL 3 project might be picked up and (legally) included in unrelated projects, which doesn't necessarily need to be software products, and thus we might be deemed to have granted a license to all our patents to a hardware competitor. Now me and the lawyers can disagree on how likely that is to happen in reality, but the final words is that it's way easier for me to get corporate approval to send changes upstream to a BSD licensed project than a GPL licensed one. I suspect something similar is going on at Apple, and that backing the BSD-licensed clang project is enabling them to be a better participant in the open source community, not a worse one.
Apps with source code can have their touch-friendliness added
Apps with source code don't need binary x86 compatability.
Just consider it a having-the-nicest-beaches tax.
What evidence made you a christian? Care to show it to us?
No, I'm not going to. Because you're not really interested, you just want to have an argument.
I'll give you my evidence for _that_ claim:
Does the sun move around the earth (it says in the bible it does
I already talked about this in my first big post to the thread - just search for Rolf Harris. If you were actually the slightest bit interested in reading anything I write, you'd have known that already.
I knew I should have given up on this thread when you brought up North Korea. Does Kim Jong-un have a Godwin equivalent whom I can invoke?
Sure, asking for evidence is "weak" argument. All I'm saying is we have plenty of evidence religion and god is man made
No, the weak arguments are the misrepresenting the origin of the New Testament, the blind assumptions about my background, the claim that atheism is a default, the ignoring of documents dated earlier that you claim, and the gross lampooning of the intent of religion.
Asking for evidence is where we came in, when you asserted that "science is constantly proving religion wrong" and I asked what you meant. Nothing you've said since has backed up that initial claim.
people who reject reason and evidence based reasoning
Sorry, was that supposed to mean me? Please, just read the first paragraph of my first post again.
their irrational beliefs?
Do you not see that you are claiming the very same position of superior understanding that you're telling me I'm not allowed to have?
You strike me as someone who never examined any of the arguments against your position.
And you strike me as someone who uses ad hominem to bolster a weak argument.
Your "onus of proof", "knowing God's will" and "geographical default" objections are noted and argued in the video I already pointed to. And your version of the history of the New Testament is so inaccurate that even wikipedia is less cynical.
Do you really need some bibliography listed here? How about you take good math foundations, then learn about scientific method, then learn about quantum theory, then see how physical chemistry and atom theory follows from quantum theory, then go to organic chemistry, chemical bond theory, then learn about biology, cell theory, genetic and molecular biology, evolution, learn about diversity of life, astrobiology.
Yes, I've done that (well most of it - I hold Master of Sciences degree from Cambridge University). And yet I also believe the claims that the Bible makes about itself, about God, and about us. I believe that the historical authenticity of the text stands up to rational scrutiny. And I don't see any of the things you've mentioned as being contradictory to it. Exactly which religion is disproved by tectonic plate theory?
It is important here to distinguish between the core beliefs of the religion (and I'm going to speak specifically of Christianity, i.e. what the Bible says) versus the traditions, practices and interpretations of strictly human origin (dogma as you put it). Somebody else mentioned Galileo. Yes, he came into conflict with the church authorities when he showed that Earth was not at the centre of the solar system; but it wasn't a "disproof of religion" as the Bible doesn't make that claim. The suggestion that it did came partly from tradition of the prevailing mindset, and partly from an excessively literal reading of verses in Psalms or Ecclesiastes which say things like "the sun rises". (How can I say that one interpretation is excessively literal? Psalms is a songbook. The Bible is a collection of about six different types of literature, and you can identify the bits which are narrative and can be taken pretty much at literal face value, and the bits which are poetry and a more metaphorical approach is justified. When it says "the sun rises" in Psalms that's no more intended to be a definitive statement of relative motion, than when Rolf Harris sang it).
Not to say that all dogma is wrong - to fully understand the Bible would be more than a life's work, so I'm glad that people have given me a useful shortcut by summarising the flow of it. But I don't accept their words blindly - I check it for self-consistency, for consistency with the primary source (the Bible), and for consistency with my experience and understanding of the way the universe works - including my scientific training.
You claim "religion [...] makes a virtue out of accepting dogma" (and maybe some religions do - it's difficult to argue against such generalities) but mine doesn't, and I certainly don't think that's a biblical principle. On the contrary, there are number of biblical examples where people, on hearing something from their religious leaders, are commended for taking a sceptical (dare I say, evidence-based reasoning) approach by checking up on it first to see if it's true. (Acts 17:11 is the first one that comes to mind)
And then there is belief in something based on no evidence. You could say, it is based on ignorance. This kind of belief is called faith.
No, I don't agree that those terms are equivalent. Faithful Christians are no more ignorant for believing in God, than an atheist is for not doing so.
Sorry for not responding to every point in your post, but I have a feeling that I'd be here all day if I tried. Can I suggest if you're genuinely interested in how I might justify my disagreement with your points of view, that rather than try to continue a long thread in here, could I point you to a video of an Authors@Google talk by Tim Keller (author of "The Reason for God") in which he expresses similar ideas much better than I can.
Incidentally, I'm not typing this with any particular aim or expectation of trying to convince you that the Bible is true. I'm just arguing that believing it is at least rational, and compatible with a scientific approach. If there were credible contradictory evidence then faith would be preposterous, but I am convinced this is not the case.
Science is constantly proving religion wrong
[citation needed]
Google starts to index an additional source of publicly available content.
or in other words,
nothing at all has happened.
This should be tagged !story.
Only because Apple are forcing us to break the law, just to enable something they could have quite easily added themselves.
Let me get this straight. Apple have released something shiny and not given it to you for free, and in your head that means they are forcing you to pirate it. Forcing you? Really, is that the best you can do?
Jailbreaking itself doesn't force you to pirate apps or break the law. If you Jailbreak to do that, that's your own problem, but you shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush.
I don't have to; when the announcement of the jailbreak and the incitement to run pirated software appear in the same slashdot headline, you're doing a perfectly good job of tarring yourselves.
Great, you can run Siri on an iPod touch. Well done.
Now try convincing the world at large that jailbreaking is not primarily motivated by the running of pirated apps.
Buy thirty-three and suddenly you have more RAM than an iMac.
FTFY.
The other feature of successful game engines is that they, generally speaking, don't pin a core i7 at 100% usage drawing half a dozen objects at 15fps with a lighting model which would have looked dated in 2001.