VoIP is the web, in a way. It's just a different protocol. If you read the SIP standards, they are very much like instant messaging standards, so can the FCC tap instant messages too? And it's not that different from normal HTTP either, ultimately, so can they tap that? At what point is it under their juridiction? If you are continuously sending packets of voice? What about sending an entire recording at once? How is it different?
These are the questions that I believe were behind the point that it will ruin innovation.
A keyboard/mouse is worlds better than the dual-joystick monstrosity that console users have to put up with. Two joysticks isn't that bad, but it has a huge learning curve since it's quite unintuitive. Serious gamers can do it easily enough, but it scares away the casual gamer.
Sure the sniper could have fled, but I think you are forgetting that people on both sides of the battle fire guns. I'd rather not trust a robot to abstain from friendly fire.
Furthermore I think you underestimate a sniper's reflexes; if they know the range and exact location of the enemy sniper, the enemy sniper should be worried.
No, but the moment someone breaks fair use and delves into full-scale copyright violation, they lose their right to honestly answer in the negative. However, for those who do follow fair-use laws, we should not be limited by our technology by treating us as guilty until forced (by way of DRM) to be innocent.
I hate to feed a troll, but I'll just explain my post by this: the original post assumed Genesis was true in order to find a contradiction. Reductio Ad Absurdum. So I merely assumed it was true and showed there was no contradiction. I didn't make any effort to prove it was true, I'm merely showing the case brought up is not inconsistent.
After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
So your point is null and void. And as to marrying your sister (because that's bound to be the next question), well that wasn't forbidden until later, and for a very practical reasons: (a) it was necessary - there was no one else, and (b) there weren't the risks involved that there have been ever since, since assuming Adam and Eve were genetically flawless, there wasn't really a higher risk of genetic disease.
Now, I can see the negative view you have towards Christianity in your words, but don't assume people don't have answers to your "show-stopping" questions. You may have read the Bible, or portions, or what not, but there are people who study it for their entire lives. There are answers, and if I may make the comparision, you making judgments based on huge assumptions on the Bible would be similar to me judging the finest points of quantum mechanics with my second-year undergraduate education. Right? I am not quick to judge some things before looking into them in detail because simply put, I know I don't know everything. I'd also implore you to look more closely into this issue that you seem to ridicule; it's rather easily answered.
Regardless of what you think of the grandparent's stance on creation (and the complete absurdity of it that you imply), his point about scientists saying "we know" instead of "we currently believe" is still valid.
You only responded to one part of his statement, but I'm more curious as to what others think of the other half. Personally I agree with that point.
For starters, how could we have found that planet twice as fast? Twice as fast in relation to what? The beginning of our calendar? The beginning of the space boom? Or do you mean the results could have been published two or three weeks earlier?
Moreover, only the public disclosure of the discovery has been delayed and is under debate. The date of discovery isn't really related to that, now, is it?
Now I'm not trying to nitpick a minor thing (ala a grammar nazi), but I honestly can't believe that you think the world can unite and do great things. Granted, it might accomplish more, and it might further science, but it simply isn't possible, and never will be. Humanity is not getting better, we have not (nor will we ever) eliminate war, and there will always be competition.
What's debatable is whether the competition that is here is good for science, or bad.
Don't get me wrong.. I like the gamecube controller a lot.. perhaps better. It took a while to get used to though. Now that I think back so did N64's controller.
*remembers holding the outside two prongs while extendng index finger to joystick.. wow how stupid was I?*
Regarding your first point, I have not sent my email addresses to any such unsavoury websites. Frankly, I'm not interesting in receiving porn in my e-mail.. ever.. and I wish that gmail has some "smart filters" built in, where I could say 'Block all porn. Period.' and they could go to town with their filters and probably successfully detect most of the messages in question. Those who do want to receive their "5 pictures a day" or whatever it be, just don't enable the filter. I'd rather do this than have to make ten of my own filters, and make new ones all the time.
This seems to make sense to me at least.
And I also disagree with the thrust of your second post that its not important to verify that bots aren't signing up. If bots can sign up, for spam or otherwise, it's not a good thing. Google seems to have nailed a workable system (between invites and this mobile method) that verifies beyond a reasonable degree of doubt that the person signing up is indeed human.
I'm not a google fanboy, but I'm not a hater either, and I think this system makes sense.
Yes, but at that point if they find an account spamming, they have instant access to all your other accounts too, thanks to the invitations being sent from an original account.
They can still track it and shut it down easily enough, I would think. Smart of them, they may have solved the spam problem, from a mail carrier's point of view. They haven't kept spam from my inbox yet though. Come on Google, do I honestly need to write filters to stop subjects like "Man f***ing hot blonde"?
I hope that Apple and Intel will provide hooks so the fat binaries can be compiled for PPC using the standard GCC-based compiler, but use Intel's compiler for the x86 code. Best of both worlds, no?
[i]I guess information wants to be free, but not as in beer.[/i]
A trademark is hardly 'Information' in the sense of the word that free software advocates would purport it.
Consider if Microsoft created a terrible linux distro purposely, and called it Ubuntu, and marketed it as Ubuntu (not assocaited with MS) on the web. The people over at the real Ubuntu would want to fight back. That's the power of the trademark, it protects your name and image, not your 'information'.
I'm not sure in what manner your post was meant to be taken; but I am inclined to agree with at least the notion behind your statement.
The scientific community contains both sides of this debate, and clearly there are still two sides to the issue, so one hasn't all out beat the other (at least as far as adherents go). So why not make a wager? In this way, both the Russians and the Brit are outwardly standing behind their stance, and showing that they believe the evidence points in their direction to the point of being willing to risk their own money for it. While perhaps this controversy shouldn't exist in the first place, at least this elevates it beyond scientific banter.
Both sides say Look, this is what I believe is happening, and I am willing to put my scientific opinion to the test. Try me. I say go for it, and I'm looking forward to hearing the results. In a few years. No rest for the impatient I suppose.
Given the trend I'll probably get modded down for this. Good thing I don't care about my karma...
Anyway, how was he the troll? The first post could be construed as troll, but how is the grandparent trolling? All he did was question the premise of the first post. He didn't even outright say anything, he just asked?
And how is the parent not a troll? Insightful? "Man invented God, not the other way round." Not only is that patently unprovable, it is a complete and definite kick in the face to all those who do believe in God or another deity. If it were backed up with some sort of argument or insightful ideas, then maybe it could be "insightful". As it stands alone though, I see it as troll.
Oh well, slashdot's community mind hard at work I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
len("Fear (I can't be arsed typing all the capitals and .s again)") = 61
len("F.E.A.R.") = 8
61 > 8
Whatever you say.
VoIP is the web, in a way. It's just a different protocol. If you read the SIP standards, they are very much like instant messaging standards, so can the FCC tap instant messages too? And it's not that different from normal HTTP either, ultimately, so can they tap that? At what point is it under their juridiction? If you are continuously sending packets of voice? What about sending an entire recording at once? How is it different?
These are the questions that I believe were behind the point that it will ruin innovation.
How does QNX stack up?
Honest question, I don't know much about it, but I know it exists and is apparently rock-solid for embedded devices.
Do you really use 3 fingers on a 3-button mouse?
I'm actually curious. I never do, only two (I move the index finger to the middle button when needed). It feels.. wrong.. to me to use 3 fingers.
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Maybe I'm weird.
A keyboard/mouse is worlds better than the dual-joystick monstrosity that console users have to put up with. Two joysticks isn't that bad, but it has a huge learning curve since it's quite unintuitive. Serious gamers can do it easily enough, but it scares away the casual gamer.
Actually at Waterloo the tickets were sold to faculties and to the student societies to give away to their members for free.
I was chosen by lottery to go, but I had a better chance than most being in both the math society, the engineering society, and my faculty.
Sure the sniper could have fled, but I think you are forgetting that people on both sides of the battle fire guns. I'd rather not trust a robot to abstain from friendly fire.
Furthermore I think you underestimate a sniper's reflexes; if they know the range and exact location of the enemy sniper, the enemy sniper should be worried.
No, that's fair use, and that's why our technology should not police us.
should we be policed by our own property
No, but the moment someone breaks fair use and delves into full-scale copyright violation, they lose their right to honestly answer in the negative. However, for those who do follow fair-use laws, we should not be limited by our technology by treating us as guilty until forced (by way of DRM) to be innocent.
Well, Google is also a numerically-derived name, so he didn't actually help clarify much ;)
I hate to feed a troll, but I'll just explain my post by this: the original post assumed Genesis was true in order to find a contradiction. Reductio Ad Absurdum. So I merely assumed it was true and showed there was no contradiction. I didn't make any effort to prove it was true, I'm merely showing the case brought up is not inconsistent.
Genesis 5:4:
After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
So your point is null and void. And as to marrying your sister (because that's bound to be the next question), well that wasn't forbidden until later, and for a very practical reasons: (a) it was necessary - there was no one else, and (b) there weren't the risks involved that there have been ever since, since assuming Adam and Eve were genetically flawless, there wasn't really a higher risk of genetic disease.
Now, I can see the negative view you have towards Christianity in your words, but don't assume people don't have answers to your "show-stopping" questions. You may have read the Bible, or portions, or what not, but there are people who study it for their entire lives. There are answers, and if I may make the comparision, you making judgments based on huge assumptions on the Bible would be similar to me judging the finest points of quantum mechanics with my second-year undergraduate education. Right? I am not quick to judge some things before looking into them in detail because simply put, I know I don't know everything. I'd also implore you to look more closely into this issue that you seem to ridicule; it's rather easily answered.
Regardless of what you think of the grandparent's stance on creation (and the complete absurdity of it that you imply), his point about scientists saying "we know" instead of "we currently believe" is still valid.
You only responded to one part of his statement, but I'm more curious as to what others think of the other half. Personally I agree with that point.
A pipe dream. It's never going to happen.
For starters, how could we have found that planet twice as fast? Twice as fast in relation to what? The beginning of our calendar? The beginning of the space boom? Or do you mean the results could have been published two or three weeks earlier?
Moreover, only the public disclosure of the discovery has been delayed and is under debate. The date of discovery isn't really related to that, now, is it?
Now I'm not trying to nitpick a minor thing (ala a grammar nazi), but I honestly can't believe that you think the world can unite and do great things. Granted, it might accomplish more, and it might further science, but it simply isn't possible, and never will be. Humanity is not getting better, we have not (nor will we ever) eliminate war, and there will always be competition.
What's debatable is whether the competition that is here is good for science, or bad.
Don't get me wrong.. I like the gamecube controller a lot.. perhaps better. It took a while to get used to though. Now that I think back so did N64's controller.
*remembers holding the outside two prongs while extendng index finger to joystick.. wow how stupid was I?*
The three-pronged controller was ackward?
Hold the train, somebody better be rewriting history.. many claim that the 64 controller hasn't been beat.
Yeah, but you don't get karma points for being funny. Sometimes I see a comment so funny it deserves karma. Thus it gets an "Insightful"
:)
Use under-rated
Regarding your first point, I have not sent my email addresses to any such unsavoury websites. Frankly, I'm not interesting in receiving porn in my e-mail.. ever.. and I wish that gmail has some "smart filters" built in, where I could say 'Block all porn. Period.' and they could go to town with their filters and probably successfully detect most of the messages in question. Those who do want to receive their "5 pictures a day" or whatever it be, just don't enable the filter. I'd rather do this than have to make ten of my own filters, and make new ones all the time.
This seems to make sense to me at least.
And I also disagree with the thrust of your second post that its not important to verify that bots aren't signing up. If bots can sign up, for spam or otherwise, it's not a good thing. Google seems to have nailed a workable system (between invites and this mobile method) that verifies beyond a reasonable degree of doubt that the person signing up is indeed human.
I'm not a google fanboy, but I'm not a hater either, and I think this system makes sense.
Yes, but at that point if they find an account spamming, they have instant access to all your other accounts too, thanks to the invitations being sent from an original account.
They can still track it and shut it down easily enough, I would think. Smart of them, they may have solved the spam problem, from a mail carrier's point of view. They haven't kept spam from my inbox yet though. Come on Google, do I honestly need to write filters to stop subjects like "Man f***ing hot blonde"?
I hope that Apple and Intel will provide hooks so the fat binaries can be compiled for PPC using the standard GCC-based compiler, but use Intel's compiler for the x86 code. Best of both worlds, no?
[i]I guess information wants to be free, but not as in beer.[/i]
A trademark is hardly 'Information' in the sense of the word that free software advocates would purport it.
Consider if Microsoft created a terrible linux distro purposely, and called it Ubuntu, and marketed it as Ubuntu (not assocaited with MS) on the web. The people over at the real Ubuntu would want to fight back. That's the power of the trademark, it protects your name and image, not your 'information'.
I'm not sure in what manner your post was meant to be taken; but I am inclined to agree with at least the notion behind your statement.
The scientific community contains both sides of this debate, and clearly there are still two sides to the issue, so one hasn't all out beat the other (at least as far as adherents go). So why not make a wager? In this way, both the Russians and the Brit are outwardly standing behind their stance, and showing that they believe the evidence points in their direction to the point of being willing to risk their own money for it. While perhaps this controversy shouldn't exist in the first place, at least this elevates it beyond scientific banter.
Both sides say Look, this is what I believe is happening, and I am willing to put my scientific opinion to the test. Try me. I say go for it, and I'm looking forward to hearing the results. In a few years. No rest for the impatient I suppose.
Is this bad, unethical, or in any way illegal? What's the big deal? Why the slashdot story?
Given the trend I'll probably get modded down for this. Good thing I don't care about my karma...
Anyway, how was he the troll? The first post could be construed as troll, but how is the grandparent trolling? All he did was question the premise of the first post. He didn't even outright say anything, he just asked?
And how is the parent not a troll? Insightful? "Man invented God, not the other way round." Not only is that patently unprovable, it is a complete and definite kick in the face to all those who do believe in God or another deity. If it were backed up with some sort of argument or insightful ideas, then maybe it could be "insightful". As it stands alone though, I see it as troll.
Oh well, slashdot's community mind hard at work I suppose.
Do you think AMD has been out-innovating IBM because all of IBM's engineers are stupid? Do you think its the fault of this one man?
Their strategy is simple: Hire the best they can find.