I agree with that wholeheartedly. The NSI (or someone) needs to do a little better enforcement if just anyone can have a.com,.net,.web, or whatever. If there's an Acme Widgets, they are acme.com, and Acme Internet gets acme.net, etc. The new TLDs need to get in soon, and who is allowed to use which TLD needs to be better regulated.
It would also help if everyone had to use the geographical TLDs. Right now,.com and the others are a mish-mash of everyone in the world.
Clinton's pushing for computers in every classroom. I don't think it's necessary. What are first graders going to do with a computer? Run "learn basic addition" games? That can be done just as effectively, and much more cheaply, with flash cards. (Remember those?)
While I think it's becoming more and more important for people to be computer literate, I don't think "throwing money at the problem" will fix it. Kids shouldn't be using a calculator til high school, IMO. Use your head! That's what it's for! There's a discipline developed by actually learning something and internalizing it.
Anyway, I think the money could be better spent by helping smaller schools, rural schools, that don't have all the opportunities and/or funding that urban schools have. Ten years ago my school's computer lab was already outdated, and when I visited for the first couple years out, it hadn't been upgraded. Science in high schools is being ignored and underfunded to the point where they can't even replace essential basic equipment.
This probably sounds like "I didn't have it, so you shouldn't either." It's not. Today's educational system is ignoring the basics and focusing on glitz, tech, and "teaching theories". Get back to teaching math and science.
There's an interesting thought. Would today's kids, without the "leg up" that already having computer gives, be able to bring about the PC revolution that Woz, et al, began back in the 70's?
Dude, that's me exactly. Let's start up our own company or something. Sticks Internet, Inc. Or maybe boonies.com instead. What do you think?:)
Seriously, I empathise with you. I grew up in the rural Midwest. I loved it. Ditto for the girlfriend. We'd like to move to a small town and raise a family, but it's dang unlikely I'd be able to do what I want (web dev). If telecommuting were a reality, that would be great, but as you said, hi-speed connectivity is not easily available.
I went through the candidate selector thingie, too, just for giggles. Very interesting.
It leads me to wonder if a "geek platform" could exist at all. The original commenter said he might be in favor of supporting McReynolds. Now, granted, there weren't many questions that directly related to "geek issues", but on my results McReynolds was #16...dead last with a score of 3 (out of 100 I guess). (If you're curious, Howard Philips, whom I've never heard of, was at the top.)
This leads to believe (albeit scant evidence) that "geek issues" aren't a unifying force in the community. Other things are more important to us. Patent laws and such are rather nebulous. We want to know what the candidate thinks about things that affect us directly and daily. Now if a question regarding privacy was on that quiz, it would be more telling. The average joe would have an opinion, and it's something that geeks tend to be well-informed (and often opinionated) about.
What do you think? What questions would you add to that quiz, to possibly make it more geek-relevant?
I read about that back around the 7th over at BrowserWatch. Three weeks later it shows up here. I guess my take on what would make a good/. story just isn't quite on, or I'd be posting more of this browser stuff. Either that, or I assume someone's already posted anything good I've found...
IBM is producing an open-hardware PPC motherboard, aren't they? If the design is open, it's bound to get cheaper.
Personally, I'm also drooling over the idea of having Linux or BSD running on PPC. I'll avoid anything Intel if possible. I'd like to go one further and avoid the x86 family altogether. PPC is just a better architecture. I'd love to see it get more mainstream.
confusion over the difference between FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. Maybe it would server BSD better (marketing-wise) to have a single name for their OS, and varying distribution
OK, maybe I'm off my rocker here, but aren't Free/Net/Open basically equivalent to a distribution? How is it different to say "I run NetBSD" than "I run Red Hat Linux"? If anything, I think Free/Net/Open is alot less confusing than SuSE/Red Hat/Yellow Dog/Caldera/Slackware/Debian/etc. The BSDs are borrowing from each other all the time, so it remains relatively unified. One tweaks this and another tweaks that, no different than the Linux distros.
Interesting. But it doesn't support style sheets, etc. Simple table layouts are nice, but tables-for-layout is something I try to avoid anyway. It really doesn't give the author much influence over appearance in the way the text-Opera does.
It would be interesting to see Gecko embedded in a text-only browser. Lynx is nice and all, but would it be possible to get "real" layout with text, color (on displays that support color), etc? That would rock. Often I just want to skip all the graphics, animations, and other junk and get to the content.
Personally I'm fine with sales taxes. The state has to create a hospitable environment for businesses to set up shop there (as the poster of "What right does NC have to this money?" said).
It's the income taxes that tick me off. I'm the one working, not the gov't. Why do they get a share of my work? A hundred years ago the gov't could run itself without income tax. The only reason we have one now is that the gov't become increasingly bloated. Even when first instated it was only 1%.
God does want us to be happy. And knowing more about the human condition than we do (since He created us, and became one of us), He knows that the best way to be happy is to love and obey Him. He says things like, "I love mankind. If you love Me, then you'll also love mankind. If you love mankind, you won't hurt each other, but seek to bless (help) each other. Then things will go well with you and you'll be happy." But we (mankind) don't go for that. Looking out for many other people sounds like more work than just looking out for myself (never mind that means you have many others looking out for you, too). So we think we can just take what we want, and be happy right now. That's sin, it's in our nature. (Notice it's not a sin to be happy, but to put your own gratification above serving God.) That's why we have wars. But God has already considered this, and provided a way out for us. He's forgiven us for not loving Him as much as we love ourselves, and encourages us to keep trying.
If you're going to a church with boring music and sermons, you're going to the wrong church. I have a blast at mine.
I didn't mean to imply that morals cannot exist without religion. I did mean to say that religions believe that morality is their province and domain. Hence a moral issue is going to pull in the religious types.
That brings up another topic, which I won't go into much, except this. From what does one derive their moral position unless their is some higher reasoning than "I feel like it" or "it's good for me"? My own position is that this leads to relativism, which doesn't hold any water. What's "good" for you may be "evil" for me and then where does that leave us? Law is, at some level, based on right and wrong (hopefully), which derives from our concept of morals and ethics. I can see law being refined to handle new situations that didn't exist before, but I can't hold to the notion that morality can flip-flop from day to day based on how people "feel". There has to be a right and there has to be a wrong. It just makes more sense to me. And for that to work, there has to be a God that sets those rules. Mankind can't, because of what I've just said.
Anyway, that being said, you also mention that "artificially creating life is not mentioned in religious texts". Of course not. But the values that God stands for, the morality, is clearly laid out. That standard is an eternal truth you can apply at any time. That's what makes religious texts relevant beyond the period in which they were written. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" is just as valid now as when Y'shua stated it almost 2000 years ago.
I also don't understand why people try to separate their religious life from the rest. I am an integrated person, a whole person. My opinions in one "section" of my interests carry over to many other things. To be otherwise would make me two-faced at best. I don't live a double life. Do the rest of you? (Not an accusation, just curious.) I think it perfectly reasonable for a scientist to have moral questions regarding his work, and turn to God for the answers.
First off, you want to talk to religious groups for the same reason you want to talk to anybody else. You need a second opinion. Everyone else also has to live in the world that will be the result of the choice to do this or not do this.
That aside, looking more specifically at the "religious" nature of the argument. Life is fundamentally a moral, hence religious, issue. Stoppage of life (death, murder, suicide) and beginning of life (abortion, cloning, sex). These are moral issues. Where you stand on them is your own decision. Maybe you don't agree that they are moral issues, ie you think sex is simply an act akin to scratching your armpit, but you'd be in the minority. By and large people think that these are highly significant things. You can't get much more fundamental than life. Hence they are moral issues. They are things a Deity would be interested in (if the Deity is not amoral, obviously) hence they are religious issues. It only makes sense to consult those who have education in such matters. If I suddenly had the parts to build a rocketship, I'd probably consult an aerospace engineer before proceeding. I don't know all the ramifications that might decision to build one (maybe incorrectly) and use it might be.
Anyway, technology can be great when used properly. However, anyone can see that technology isn't always used as it should be. Everything gets abused by someone somewhere along the line. And when it comes to life itself, it is something that should be very carefully considered first.
Religion isn't going to like this, but then traditional religions generally don't seem as relavent to 20th century folk as they might have hundreds of years ago. Most people don't really like the idea of appending a religious text the way we'd append a constitution or law, either, so traditional religions can't very well deal with things like genetic engineering that didn't exist until a few decades ago. They have to rely on some subjective interpretation...
Most world religions are based on the fact that there is an eternal truth, something that carries through every generation of humanity. Just because the religious texts were written at a time when scientific progress wasn't as advanced as now doesn't negate the fundamental truth they speak of. So saying that "religion is not relevant" is ignorant (for lack of a better term at the moment). God is always relevant.
Speaking as a Christian, the fundamental truth is "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." (Jesus, paraphrased, Mark 12:29-31) There are always new situations to apply this to, and I suppose that's what you meant by "subjective interpretation," but that fundamental is still there. It is timeless.
All actions have consequences. They're spelled out, and you get to choose what to do. It's not a threat.
To pick a more apt analogy, it's like a parent telling a kid, "Johnny, if you pull this hot pot off the stove, you're going to burn yourself badly. If you don't touch it, you'll have a nice chicken soup for supper." It's not a threat, "either you get supper or you get burned" based on whether you pull the pot off the stove, it's just the consequences of the actions you take. If you do the right thing you get good results, and if you do the wrong thing you get bad results. There's alot of freedom within the realm of "right things" to allow plenty of free will and decisions without ever going near the "wrong things".
You may see "bad consequences" as punishment. OK. But it's not arbitrary, it's just. My parents let me know what "bad" behavior was, and I knew I'd be spanked if I crossed the line. The consequences for crossing the line was punishment. What would be unfair and unjust is arbitrary punishment and arbitrary rules. If God made up morals/ethics at whim, and randomly chose to apply the consequences of sin, to varying degrees, that would be unfair.
To put it another way, if you know the speed limit is 60, and you know you'll be fined if you go faster, do you whine about having a car that allows you to go faster than 60 if you choose to do so? "It's not my fault, I shouldn't be punished, it's just that the car would go 85!"
This sounds like a very sensible solution. Which is probably why the courts will decide on something else.:P
Real life is all about shared responsibility. Ultimately, everyone makes his/her own choices. Other people may be able to influence you, so they share the responsibility somewhat, but you still have the choice. I think your comment summarized that nicely.
You can also download a patch from Comet that will remove the unique download ID from your installation of the Comet Cursor. Without an ID associated with your instance of the software, all they can track is that the cursor is being used and where, so they can charge clients, like Foxtrot, for the advertising. They can't track who is visiting that page (your surfing habits). So go download the patch now.
Does this alleviate any/all concerns? In my mind it seems to be OK again. My cursor-using sites will link to the patch DL page, though.
Several cartoon sites use it (Garfield, Doonesbury, Foxtrot, Peanuts) as well as Star Trek. I just put it on my site (www.christtrek.org) but now I'm thinking that I'll remove it.
b) I can see, but not a). Cigarettes, IMO, have no redeeming value at all. All they're going to do (given enough of them) is kill you (statistically speaking). Guns have other users besides killing people, like hunting and deterring criminals.
If we take away guns, what's next? Class-action suits against Ginsu? "Your knives were used to kill my boy!" People will always find a means to hurt one another if they want to, be it guns or knives or rocks or snowballs.
Besides, if you take away our guns, how will we protect ourselves from tyrannous gov't?:) 1776
CT
Re:So what happened to 1/1/2001
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 1
Yes.
In case you weren't following, the thing that makes it rare is that you consider the individual digits. If you look at the entire number, about 1/4 of days are odd days, and that's boring. (Roughly every other day in an "odd" year, you see.)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with that wholeheartedly. The NSI (or someone) needs to do a little better enforcement if just anyone can have a .com, .net, .web, or whatever. If there's an Acme Widgets, they are acme.com, and Acme Internet gets acme.net, etc. The new TLDs need to get in soon, and who is allowed to use which TLD needs to be better regulated.
It would also help if everyone had to use the geographical TLDs. Right now, .com and the others are a mish-mash of everyone in the world.
Good question. I echo the sentiment.
Clinton's pushing for computers in every classroom. I don't think it's necessary. What are first graders going to do with a computer? Run "learn basic addition" games? That can be done just as effectively, and much more cheaply, with flash cards. (Remember those?)
While I think it's becoming more and more important for people to be computer literate, I don't think "throwing money at the problem" will fix it. Kids shouldn't be using a calculator til high school, IMO. Use your head! That's what it's for! There's a discipline developed by actually learning something and internalizing it.
Anyway, I think the money could be better spent by helping smaller schools, rural schools, that don't have all the opportunities and/or funding that urban schools have. Ten years ago my school's computer lab was already outdated, and when I visited for the first couple years out, it hadn't been upgraded. Science in high schools is being ignored and underfunded to the point where they can't even replace essential basic equipment.
This probably sounds like "I didn't have it, so you shouldn't either." It's not. Today's educational system is ignoring the basics and focusing on glitz, tech, and "teaching theories". Get back to teaching math and science.
There's an interesting thought. Would today's kids, without the "leg up" that already having computer gives, be able to bring about the PC revolution that Woz, et al, began back in the 70's?
Exactly why I don't like Seattle much. All geeks are not created equal. That basically sums up my post on yesterday's politics thread, too.
Dude, that's me exactly. Let's start up our own company or something. Sticks Internet, Inc. Or maybe boonies.com instead. What do you think? :)
Seriously, I empathise with you. I grew up in the rural Midwest. I loved it. Ditto for the girlfriend. We'd like to move to a small town and raise a family, but it's dang unlikely I'd be able to do what I want (web dev). If telecommuting were a reality, that would be great, but as you said, hi-speed connectivity is not easily available.
I went through the candidate selector thingie, too, just for giggles. Very interesting.
It leads me to wonder if a "geek platform" could exist at all. The original commenter said he might be in favor of supporting McReynolds. Now, granted, there weren't many questions that directly related to "geek issues", but on my results McReynolds was #16...dead last with a score of 3 (out of 100 I guess). (If you're curious, Howard Philips, whom I've never heard of, was at the top.)
This leads to believe (albeit scant evidence) that "geek issues" aren't a unifying force in the community. Other things are more important to us. Patent laws and such are rather nebulous. We want to know what the candidate thinks about things that affect us directly and daily. Now if a question regarding privacy was on that quiz, it would be more telling. The average joe would have an opinion, and it's something that geeks tend to be well-informed (and often opinionated) about.
What do you think? What questions would you add to that quiz, to possibly make it more geek-relevant?
I read about that back around the 7th over at BrowserWatch. Three weeks later it shows up here. I guess my take on what would make a good /. story just isn't quite on, or I'd be posting more of this browser stuff. Either that, or I assume someone's already posted anything good I've found...
IBM is producing an open-hardware PPC motherboard, aren't they? If the design is open, it's bound to get cheaper.
Personally, I'm also drooling over the idea of having Linux or BSD running on PPC. I'll avoid anything Intel if possible. I'd like to go one further and avoid the x86 family altogether. PPC is just a better architecture. I'd love to see it get more mainstream.
OK, maybe I'm off my rocker here, but aren't Free/Net/Open basically equivalent to a distribution? How is it different to say "I run NetBSD" than "I run Red Hat Linux"? If anything, I think Free/Net/Open is alot less confusing than SuSE/Red Hat/Yellow Dog/Caldera/Slackware/Debian/etc. The BSDs are borrowing from each other all the time, so it remains relatively unified. One tweaks this and another tweaks that, no different than the Linux distros.
Interesting. But it doesn't support style sheets, etc. Simple table layouts are nice, but tables-for-layout is something I try to avoid anyway. It really doesn't give the author much influence over appearance in the way the text-Opera does.
It would be interesting to see Gecko embedded in a text-only browser. Lynx is nice and all, but would it be possible to get "real" layout with text, color (on displays that support color), etc? That would rock. Often I just want to skip all the graphics, animations, and other junk and get to the content.
The Opera for Linux team might have something similar in the works. We'll have to see.
Or in VirtualPC on a Mac.
Personally I'm fine with sales taxes. The state has to create a hospitable environment for businesses to set up shop there (as the poster of "What right does NC have to this money?" said).
It's the income taxes that tick me off. I'm the one working, not the gov't. Why do they get a share of my work? A hundred years ago the gov't could run itself without income tax. The only reason we have one now is that the gov't become increasingly bloated. Even when first instated it was only 1%.
So what's up with that???
So then you put invisible content in the page instead. Same result.
There will always be a way to "fool" indexing robots if you're creative enough.
God does want us to be happy. And knowing more about the human condition than we do (since He created us, and became one of us), He knows that the best way to be happy is to love and obey Him. He says things like, "I love mankind. If you love Me, then you'll also love mankind. If you love mankind, you won't hurt each other, but seek to bless (help) each other. Then things will go well with you and you'll be happy." But we (mankind) don't go for that. Looking out for many other people sounds like more work than just looking out for myself (never mind that means you have many others looking out for you, too). So we think we can just take what we want, and be happy right now. That's sin, it's in our nature. (Notice it's not a sin to be happy, but to put your own gratification above serving God.) That's why we have wars. But God has already considered this, and provided a way out for us. He's forgiven us for not loving Him as much as we love ourselves, and encourages us to keep trying.
If you're going to a church with boring music and sermons, you're going to the wrong church. I have a blast at mine.
CT
I didn't mean to imply that morals cannot exist without religion. I did mean to say that religions believe that morality is their province and domain. Hence a moral issue is going to pull in the religious types.
That brings up another topic, which I won't go into much, except this. From what does one derive their moral position unless their is some higher reasoning than "I feel like it" or "it's good for me"? My own position is that this leads to relativism, which doesn't hold any water. What's "good" for you may be "evil" for me and then where does that leave us? Law is, at some level, based on right and wrong (hopefully), which derives from our concept of morals and ethics. I can see law being refined to handle new situations that didn't exist before, but I can't hold to the notion that morality can flip-flop from day to day based on how people "feel". There has to be a right and there has to be a wrong. It just makes more sense to me. And for that to work, there has to be a God that sets those rules. Mankind can't, because of what I've just said.
Anyway, that being said, you also mention that "artificially creating life is not mentioned in religious texts". Of course not. But the values that God stands for, the morality, is clearly laid out. That standard is an eternal truth you can apply at any time. That's what makes religious texts relevant beyond the period in which they were written. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" is just as valid now as when Y'shua stated it almost 2000 years ago.
I also don't understand why people try to separate their religious life from the rest. I am an integrated person, a whole person. My opinions in one "section" of my interests carry over to many other things. To be otherwise would make me two-faced at best. I don't live a double life. Do the rest of you? (Not an accusation, just curious.) I think it perfectly reasonable for a scientist to have moral questions regarding his work, and turn to God for the answers.
CT
First off, you want to talk to religious groups for the same reason you want to talk to anybody else. You need a second opinion. Everyone else also has to live in the world that will be the result of the choice to do this or not do this.
That aside, looking more specifically at the "religious" nature of the argument. Life is fundamentally a moral, hence religious, issue. Stoppage of life (death, murder, suicide) and beginning of life (abortion, cloning, sex). These are moral issues. Where you stand on them is your own decision. Maybe you don't agree that they are moral issues, ie you think sex is simply an act akin to scratching your armpit, but you'd be in the minority. By and large people think that these are highly significant things. You can't get much more fundamental than life. Hence they are moral issues. They are things a Deity would be interested in (if the Deity is not amoral, obviously) hence they are religious issues. It only makes sense to consult those who have education in such matters. If I suddenly had the parts to build a rocketship, I'd probably consult an aerospace engineer before proceeding. I don't know all the ramifications that might decision to build one (maybe incorrectly) and use it might be.
Anyway, technology can be great when used properly. However, anyone can see that technology isn't always used as it should be. Everything gets abused by someone somewhere along the line. And when it comes to life itself, it is something that should be very carefully considered first.
CT
Most world religions are based on the fact that there is an eternal truth, something that carries through every generation of humanity. Just because the religious texts were written at a time when scientific progress wasn't as advanced as now doesn't negate the fundamental truth they speak of. So saying that "religion is not relevant" is ignorant (for lack of a better term at the moment). God is always relevant.
Speaking as a Christian, the fundamental truth is "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." (Jesus, paraphrased, Mark 12:29-31) There are always new situations to apply this to, and I suppose that's what you meant by "subjective interpretation," but that fundamental is still there. It is timeless.
CT
All actions have consequences. They're spelled out, and you get to choose what to do. It's not a threat.
To pick a more apt analogy, it's like a parent telling a kid, "Johnny, if you pull this hot pot off the stove, you're going to burn yourself badly. If you don't touch it, you'll have a nice chicken soup for supper." It's not a threat, "either you get supper or you get burned" based on whether you pull the pot off the stove, it's just the consequences of the actions you take. If you do the right thing you get good results, and if you do the wrong thing you get bad results. There's alot of freedom within the realm of "right things" to allow plenty of free will and decisions without ever going near the "wrong things".
You may see "bad consequences" as punishment. OK. But it's not arbitrary, it's just. My parents let me know what "bad" behavior was, and I knew I'd be spanked if I crossed the line. The consequences for crossing the line was punishment. What would be unfair and unjust is arbitrary punishment and arbitrary rules. If God made up morals/ethics at whim, and randomly chose to apply the consequences of sin, to varying degrees, that would be unfair.
To put it another way, if you know the speed limit is 60, and you know you'll be fined if you go faster, do you whine about having a car that allows you to go faster than 60 if you choose to do so? "It's not my fault, I shouldn't be punished, it's just that the car would go 85!"
CT
This sounds like a very sensible solution. Which is probably why the courts will decide on something else. :P
Real life is all about shared responsibility. Ultimately, everyone makes his/her own choices. Other people may be able to influence you, so they share the responsibility somewhat, but you still have the choice. I think your comment summarized that nicely.
CT
Comet has issued a statement about the privacy concern. They have also formalized their privacy statement.
You can also download a patch from Comet that will remove the unique download ID from your installation of the Comet Cursor. Without an ID associated with your instance of the software, all they can track is that the cursor is being used and where, so they can charge clients, like Foxtrot, for the advertising. They can't track who is visiting that page (your surfing habits). So go download the patch now.
Does this alleviate any/all concerns? In my mind it seems to be OK again. My cursor-using sites will link to the patch DL page, though.
CT
Woo! Another Veggie fan on /.!!!
CT
Several cartoon sites use it (Garfield, Doonesbury, Foxtrot, Peanuts) as well as Star Trek. I just put it on my site (www.christtrek.org) but now I'm thinking that I'll remove it.
CT
b) I can see, but not a). Cigarettes, IMO, have no redeeming value at all. All they're going to do (given enough of them) is kill you (statistically speaking). Guns have other users besides killing people, like hunting and deterring criminals.
If we take away guns, what's next? Class-action suits against Ginsu? "Your knives were used to kill my boy!" People will always find a means to hurt one another if they want to, be it guns or knives or rocks or snowballs.
Besides, if you take away our guns, how will we protect ourselves from tyrannous gov't? :) 1776
CT
Yes.
In case you weren't following, the thing that makes it rare is that you consider the individual digits. If you look at the entire number, about 1/4 of days are odd days, and that's boring. (Roughly every other day in an "odd" year, you see.)
CT
Oh I guess hers was College. Hmm. OK, so where is WS University?
CT