Nope. He's fine. You're not. great grandparent said, "Don't quote me on that" (emphasis mine). Obviously that line was not included, and therefore quotable.
I wish that was accurate. Unfortunately, the profession really needs to get its act together and make it true. Until it does, they are a reflection on the profession, regardless of how ethical its other members are.
I don't suppose you could make a case for why Obama is a worse candidate for these things than McCain, citing actual things they've said as their policies? To me, given what you want, voting for McCain would be counterproductive.
I'm to believe Obama is a villain because one of his fundraisers was taking bribes? And it took 22 days of deliberations to convict him? And nobody else was charged with any wrongdoing? Yep, Obama's one nasty guy.
I, of all the people here, don't now and never will, blindly make assumptions based on ideals.
Yes, you do. You may not know it, and you may try to fix it, but you, like everyone, does these things.
And you can't fully divest Mr. Gates of all responsibility. I've heard him spout the usual crap and lies about Microsoft, so, while he may not be fully responsible, he endorses it, or he's a hypocrite. Ballmer is likely more to blame than Gates, but Gates is still partly to blame, and he did choose Ballmer as his successor.
My point is, you are just being as biased as anyone else here. You just happen to swing the other way. The truth is that he's probably a better man than what everyone here assumes he is, but he's no angel like you make him out to be, either. All in all, from what I have to judge him on, I'm not a fan.
I think the problem is likely that you can only build up a large amount of antiprotons and positrons. As soon as you start making hydrogen, you can't trap it anymore and it falls out.
I think the reason you can't measure the hydrogen is because there's not enough. It falls out before you can get enough to tell what its velocity is. Keep in mind that hydrogen is very light and won't fall downwards because of gravity. Instead, you have to measure the curvature of its path to try to see which way it's accelerating. I'm guessing we hit another problem here, which is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If you just have one or two particles, you can't really tell which way they are headed. I think the idea behind this experiment is to create a stream of particles so that you have enough of them to really measure where they are going.
Of course, I could be completely wrong about all that, too.
What makes you think the downfalling case would be any better? If it falls down, then it will annihilate with whatever it falls into. If it falls up, then it won't be around anymore. Either way, it's not going to stick around for long.
This is a little silly to me. If the scriptures could be proved true, I'd be rather appalled given how hateful it is. But if it were true, what other choice would I have? But really, what are the odds of it being true over any of the other religious texts? Maybe the Mormons, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Muslims, the Zionists, the Norse, or the Satanists have it right? Isn't it all so very silly in that context? You say I'm closer to heaven because of this admission, but if that were true (which I find rather insulting), wouldn't I also be closer to Satan, Buddha, the Dalai Lama, and all the other crazies?
If you want to look for spiritual truth in the bible, then go for it. If you think it's a moral book, then either you're ignorant or depraved. If you think it's historically accurate, then you're in denial. If you think the bible is anything more than a book written by imperfect men trying to understand a harsh world, then you're naive. But I think there's a lot to be said for reading it as if it were any other philosophical text. It has a lot of interesting parts and a lot of good ideas amongst the pettiness, hate, and superstition.
Well, obviously.:-) I said most politicians, not all. I thought I had implied that, but, from the flamebait mod, I'm guessing the mods (and people who reply to me) are having difficulty with subtlety today.
Then why is the old testament included? And, what's more, the other two examples I quoted were straight from the old testament. The new testament also doesn't agree with itself, with different ancestry of Jesus, as well as different accounts of Jesus' apparent resurrection, so my point stands.
The great thing about the bible is that, for everything it supports, it condemns it, too, and vice versa. Turn the other cheek? An eye for an eye. Though shalt not kill/murder? Never suffer a witch to live, and kill any child that does not follow the faith. Plus it becomes very unclear whether children can be punished for the sins of the father. Various books disagree on this point.
What's the point of arguing over this? The book is not internally consistent, and there's no way to assign weight, so why bother? Do what you think is right. The bible doesn't have the answers.
No. He's just described what most politicians are best at, and what they should spend most of their time doing. It's better to have an ineffective government than an active, misguided one. I'd much prefer it if Bush suddenly got a lot more interested in bikeshed paint jobs, for example.
Ha! But I wonder at the whole redirect to her web site from Obama's... I'm surprised her site didn't get DOSed from the traffic increase.:-)
But it also wouldn't surprise me if that was done by some republicans rather than Hillary supporters (not that it's always easy to tell the difference sometimes...). Remember the Limbaugh thing? There are lots of people who are interested in helping Hillary. You could even wonder if it wasn't done by an Obama supporter (or the campaign itself) to make Hillary look bad (not that she needs any help with that).
I'm not even going to try to fix that up. Instead, I'll just make a few points below.
First, we do have bias in all ways. You just need to read news from multiple sources to get it. You can't expect one source to be biased in multiple ways. Most sources who want something like that just try for unbiased.
You also seem to think that it's ok for the government to censor what its citizens can see because some people died. I don't care what their intentions are. That this is allowed means it can be abused.
Anyway, now on to the more important issue. Let me spell this out, because it seems you don't get it:
Responsibility is not control.
Let me say it even more clearly:
Responsibility cannot exist with control.
If I don't let you push a button, are you responsible for not pushing it? No. I am. If the press cannot report on certain things, it cannot be responsible. It is just subservient.
So if you want to argue further, please learn the terminology and start making sense.
Anyway, the rest of your post seems to be pretty meaningless. You don't address my points, so I won't address yours. You say I don't understand without providing proof when I give you logical arguments. Good day. Go find someone else's time to waste.
I couldn't resist answering your idiotic post that just asked lots of pointless, stupid questions (without a question mark no less!), that seemed to lead the reader into random circles of thought like a labyrinth with no exit.
I note with interest, over the past 6 months, the noticiable uninformed anti chinese bias of the articles on Slashdot.
Um, do you even read Slashdot? Point to one topic here that isn't covered in a biased manner.
You didn't need to dig very far to find out that China is in 3 days of mourning.
So if the government declares a day of mourning, I'm not allowed to laugh at a funny television show? That sounds completely unhealthy. I don't care what your culture is.
You guys appear intellegent but incapable of independent thought when it comes to China.
It seems that you really just don't get the cultural differences and you don't understand the inter-realtionship between responsibile reporting and control.
Ooh, this one's easy. Responsible reporting and control have nothing to do with each other. If it's controlled, it's propaganda, not reporting. Deal with it.
You flap about over freedom of the press, and yet appear to have no understanding of what that is or what it means.
Another easy one. It means the press can report whatever they like without fear of being prosecuted for it.
China is made up of 56 different ethnics groups, 800 million of which are on less than $2 a day. You want to throw into that the irresponsible, almost unaccountable, sensationalist press we have in the West?
So what? The US started off with lots of poor farmers, too. I frankly don't see how this can have anything to do with freedom of the press. Do people get docked pay every time a reporter criticizes the government?
Yeah that would really work. Reporting without responsibility great invention.
And reporting with censorship is better, how? I can think of a number of ways it's worse.
A truely free press is a dangerous thing. It allows everyone to peddle whatever truth the desire and to encourage others to believe it.
Oh, so you criticize the people on Slashdot for not thinking for themselves, then say that you need to limit the spread of opinion because people might actually believe it? Either you want people to think critically or you don't. Make up your mind.
Do you believe that any Western country allows a truely free press in that sense.
Well, no. But again, I don't see your point. Just because the west does it doesn't mean China should. If we don't have a perfect free press, then maybe China could beat us at it. As-is, though, the Western system seems quite superior.
Push a negative story a little, someone starts a rumor, and you have a blood bath on your hands.
A blood bath? Really? Where? The only blood bath I can think of is Iraq, and that wasn't the media, though you can maybe blame the media for not being critical enough. You certainly can't blame them for warmongering (well, except Fox, but that's not news).
In the UK many kinds of story are not covered here by agreement between the press and Government. There is a code of practice for journalist and editors covering what should be reported.
Well, whatever works for you. It might even make sense assuming it's a gentlemanly agreement to be civil rather than a "I'll scratch your back" thing.
The reason you have this is to try to instil some degree of responsibility into the press. Even with this totally ficticious and inflamatory stories are still run.
So it doesn't work? Go figure. Of course, you spoke of an agreement not to cover stories, not about making sure they were true, so it's an even bigger surprise that it fails to accomplish a goal it doesn't seem to have in the first
1. Alice sends the key to Bob, in the open, unencrypted, but using a random base-4 encoding. There are two states for a 1 bit and two states for a 0 bit.
2. Bob reads the key, but, due to the random encoding, he can read only half of it (you can read only if the receiver is in the same state as the sender), so Bob sees some random subset of the bits. This random subset is the key. Alice does not know which subset this is.
3. Bob transmits the configuration he used to read the stream back to Alice. Alice compares the configuration to her own configuration for sending data and derives which bits Bob saw. They now both know the key.
It is impossible to read the bits without changing them, in which case Bob will see something different from what was sent, so the keys won't match.
It is also impossible to derive the key from the configuration that is sent back by Bob because it only specifies how the bits were read, not what the bits were.
This is, of course, vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack, however.
Right. It's good to know that I've been running my computer on docs all this time. No, docs just let you write more drivers.
Porting drivers is more work that you seem to think.
And writing drivers is more work than you seem to think. Do you honestly believe that writing a driver from scratch, given the docs, is easier than porting a working driver given the docs?
Why are you even bothering to argue this? The data doesn't tell us anything about Linux vs. Windows security. Just look at the top 5 methods by which the defacement happened:
1. Attack against the administrator/user (password stealing/sniffing): 141.660 2. Shares misconfiguration: 67.437 3. File Inclusion: 61.011 4. SQL Injection: 35.407 5. Access credentials through Man In the Middle attack: 28.046
(Those are the 2007 numbers)
That's a total of 333,561 total intrusions, and not one of those is due to inherent insecurity in anything. They are all configuration problems or bugs in the web apps themselves. And that's about 70% of the intrusions. Plus, many of the other attack vectors were of the same class. Only 13,405 were "web server intrusions" which is about 3%. If you take "RPC Server Intrusion" and "Other server intrusion" together as platform bugs (and I'm guessing most aren't), then you still only end up with another 3%.
Therefore, all this story tells us is that the software industry has to do a lot of work to protect users from themselves. It doesn't tell us that Apache or IIS or Windows or Linux is more secure than something else. It tells us users suck at security and programmers suck at making security simple.
I'm not sure how a religion expanding is supposed to benefit the people in that religion. Some people might prefer it being smaller so they believe they are part of a more exclusive, less diluted group. But they might be taken more seriously and avoid persecution in a larger group. But does a Christian in Brazil benefit when someone in Chile converts to Christianity? Probably not.
However, your second point makes sense to me. It seems logical that most believiers of a religion think that the religion has some inherent benefits and therefore society as a whole would benefit by having more parishioners. However, I don't think this differs from a cult in any way, nor does it justify the various injustices performed even by ordinary people in the name of spreading religion.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. He's fine. You're not. great grandparent said, "Don't quote me on that" (emphasis mine). Obviously that line was not included, and therefore quotable.
I wish that was accurate. Unfortunately, the profession really needs to get its act together and make it true. Until it does, they are a reflection on the profession, regardless of how ethical its other members are.
> Cheap +5 Insightful: just say "All Americans suck because {insert generalization here}"
All Americans suck because all generalizations are false.
He used up his vowel quota in the first word.
No.
It's 42.
Trust me.
> I have 150 slashdot freaks!
That might be a sign, you know.
I don't suppose you could make a case for why Obama is a worse candidate for these things than McCain, citing actual things they've said as their policies? To me, given what you want, voting for McCain would be counterproductive.
I'm to believe Obama is a villain because one of his fundraisers was taking bribes? And it took 22 days of deliberations to convict him? And nobody else was charged with any wrongdoing? Yep, Obama's one nasty guy.
Yes, you do. You may not know it, and you may try to fix it, but you, like everyone, does these things.
And you can't fully divest Mr. Gates of all responsibility. I've heard him spout the usual crap and lies about Microsoft, so, while he may not be fully responsible, he endorses it, or he's a hypocrite. Ballmer is likely more to blame than Gates, but Gates is still partly to blame, and he did choose Ballmer as his successor.
My point is, you are just being as biased as anyone else here. You just happen to swing the other way. The truth is that he's probably a better man than what everyone here assumes he is, but he's no angel like you make him out to be, either. All in all, from what I have to judge him on, I'm not a fan.
I think the problem is likely that you can only build up a large amount of antiprotons and positrons. As soon as you start making hydrogen, you can't trap it anymore and it falls out.
I think the reason you can't measure the hydrogen is because there's not enough. It falls out before you can get enough to tell what its velocity is. Keep in mind that hydrogen is very light and won't fall downwards because of gravity. Instead, you have to measure the curvature of its path to try to see which way it's accelerating. I'm guessing we hit another problem here, which is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If you just have one or two particles, you can't really tell which way they are headed. I think the idea behind this experiment is to create a stream of particles so that you have enough of them to really measure where they are going.
Of course, I could be completely wrong about all that, too.
What makes you think the downfalling case would be any better? If it falls down, then it will annihilate with whatever it falls into. If it falls up, then it won't be around anymore. Either way, it's not going to stick around for long.
Oh, dear. I think you should write these guys a letter before they waste all this time and money on an experiment with such an obvious flaw!
This is a little silly to me. If the scriptures could be proved true, I'd be rather appalled given how hateful it is. But if it were true, what other choice would I have? But really, what are the odds of it being true over any of the other religious texts? Maybe the Mormons, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Muslims, the Zionists, the Norse, or the Satanists have it right? Isn't it all so very silly in that context? You say I'm closer to heaven because of this admission, but if that were true (which I find rather insulting), wouldn't I also be closer to Satan, Buddha, the Dalai Lama, and all the other crazies?
If you want to look for spiritual truth in the bible, then go for it. If you think it's a moral book, then either you're ignorant or depraved. If you think it's historically accurate, then you're in denial. If you think the bible is anything more than a book written by imperfect men trying to understand a harsh world, then you're naive. But I think there's a lot to be said for reading it as if it were any other philosophical text. It has a lot of interesting parts and a lot of good ideas amongst the pettiness, hate, and superstition.
Well, obviously. :-) I said most politicians, not all. I thought I had implied that, but, from the flamebait mod, I'm guessing the mods (and people who reply to me) are having difficulty with subtlety today.
Then why is the old testament included? And, what's more, the other two examples I quoted were straight from the old testament. The new testament also doesn't agree with itself, with different ancestry of Jesus, as well as different accounts of Jesus' apparent resurrection, so my point stands.
:-)
Your religion is bunk, my friend.
The great thing about the bible is that, for everything it supports, it condemns it, too, and vice versa. Turn the other cheek? An eye for an eye. Though shalt not kill/murder? Never suffer a witch to live, and kill any child that does not follow the faith. Plus it becomes very unclear whether children can be punished for the sins of the father. Various books disagree on this point.
What's the point of arguing over this? The book is not internally consistent, and there's no way to assign weight, so why bother? Do what you think is right. The bible doesn't have the answers.
No. He's just described what most politicians are best at, and what they should spend most of their time doing. It's better to have an ineffective government than an active, misguided one. I'd much prefer it if Bush suddenly got a lot more interested in bikeshed paint jobs, for example.
Ha! But I wonder at the whole redirect to her web site from Obama's... I'm surprised her site didn't get DOSed from the traffic increase. :-)
But it also wouldn't surprise me if that was done by some republicans rather than Hillary supporters (not that it's always easy to tell the difference sometimes...). Remember the Limbaugh thing? There are lots of people who are interested in helping Hillary. You could even wonder if it wasn't done by an Obama supporter (or the campaign itself) to make Hillary look bad (not that she needs any help with that).
Since they invented the difference between first and second degree murder. Intent matters.
Dear god, man, learn to use the quote tag.
I'm not even going to try to fix that up. Instead, I'll just make a few points below.
First, we do have bias in all ways. You just need to read news from multiple sources to get it. You can't expect one source to be biased in multiple ways. Most sources who want something like that just try for unbiased.
You also seem to think that it's ok for the government to censor what its citizens can see because some people died. I don't care what their intentions are. That this is allowed means it can be abused.
Anyway, now on to the more important issue. Let me spell this out, because it seems you don't get it:
Responsibility is not control.
Let me say it even more clearly:
Responsibility cannot exist with control.
If I don't let you push a button, are you responsible for not pushing it? No. I am. If the press cannot report on certain things, it cannot be responsible. It is just subservient.
So if you want to argue further, please learn the terminology and start making sense.
Anyway, the rest of your post seems to be pretty meaningless. You don't address my points, so I won't address yours. You say I don't understand without providing proof when I give you logical arguments. Good day. Go find someone else's time to waste.
I couldn't resist answering your idiotic post that just asked lots of pointless, stupid questions (without a question mark no less!), that seemed to lead the reader into random circles of thought like a labyrinth with no exit.
I note with interest, over the past 6 months, the noticiable uninformed anti chinese bias of the articles on Slashdot.
Um, do you even read Slashdot? Point to one topic here that isn't covered in a biased manner.
You didn't need to dig very far to find out that China is in 3 days of mourning.
So if the government declares a day of mourning, I'm not allowed to laugh at a funny television show? That sounds completely unhealthy. I don't care what your culture is.
You guys appear intellegent but incapable of independent thought when it comes to China.
It seems that you really just don't get the cultural differences and you don't understand the inter-realtionship between responsibile reporting and control.
Ooh, this one's easy. Responsible reporting and control have nothing to do with each other. If it's controlled, it's propaganda, not reporting. Deal with it.
You flap about over freedom of the press, and yet appear to have no understanding of what that is or what it means.
Another easy one. It means the press can report whatever they like without fear of being prosecuted for it.
China is made up of 56 different ethnics groups, 800 million of which are on less than $2 a day. You want to throw into that the irresponsible, almost unaccountable, sensationalist press we have in the West?
So what? The US started off with lots of poor farmers, too. I frankly don't see how this can have anything to do with freedom of the press. Do people get docked pay every time a reporter criticizes the government?
Yeah that would really work. Reporting without responsibility great invention.
And reporting with censorship is better, how? I can think of a number of ways it's worse.
A truely free press is a dangerous thing. It allows everyone to peddle whatever truth the desire and to encourage others to believe it.
Oh, so you criticize the people on Slashdot for not thinking for themselves, then say that you need to limit the spread of opinion because people might actually believe it? Either you want people to think critically or you don't. Make up your mind.
Do you believe that any Western country allows a truely free press in that sense.
Well, no. But again, I don't see your point. Just because the west does it doesn't mean China should. If we don't have a perfect free press, then maybe China could beat us at it. As-is, though, the Western system seems quite superior.
Push a negative story a little, someone starts a rumor, and you have a blood bath on your hands.
A blood bath? Really? Where? The only blood bath I can think of is Iraq, and that wasn't the media, though you can maybe blame the media for not being critical enough. You certainly can't blame them for warmongering (well, except Fox, but that's not news).
In the UK many kinds of story are not covered here by agreement between the press and Government. There is a code of practice for journalist and editors covering what should be reported.
Well, whatever works for you. It might even make sense assuming it's a gentlemanly agreement to be civil rather than a "I'll scratch your back" thing.
The reason you have this is to try to instil some degree of responsibility into the press. Even with this totally ficticious and inflamatory stories are still run.
So it doesn't work? Go figure. Of course, you spoke of an agreement not to cover stories, not about making sure they were true, so it's an even bigger surprise that it fails to accomplish a goal it doesn't seem to have in the first
1. Alice sends the key to Bob, in the open, unencrypted, but using a random base-4 encoding. There are two states for a 1 bit and two states for a 0 bit.
2. Bob reads the key, but, due to the random encoding, he can read only half of it (you can read only if the receiver is in the same state as the sender), so Bob sees some random subset of the bits. This random subset is the key. Alice does not know which subset this is.
3. Bob transmits the configuration he used to read the stream back to Alice. Alice compares the configuration to her own configuration for sending data and derives which bits Bob saw. They now both know the key.
It is impossible to read the bits without changing them, in which case Bob will see something different from what was sent, so the keys won't match.
It is also impossible to derive the key from the configuration that is sent back by Bob because it only specifies how the bits were read, not what the bits were.
This is, of course, vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack, however.
Right. It's good to know that I've been running my computer on docs all this time. No, docs just let you write more drivers.
Porting drivers is more work that you seem to think.And writing drivers is more work than you seem to think. Do you honestly believe that writing a driver from scratch, given the docs, is easier than porting a working driver given the docs?
Why are you even bothering to argue this? The data doesn't tell us anything about Linux vs. Windows security. Just look at the top 5 methods by which the defacement happened:
1. Attack against the administrator/user (password stealing/sniffing): 141.660
2. Shares misconfiguration: 67.437
3. File Inclusion: 61.011
4. SQL Injection: 35.407
5. Access credentials through Man In the Middle attack: 28.046
(Those are the 2007 numbers)
That's a total of 333,561 total intrusions, and not one of those is due to inherent insecurity in anything. They are all configuration problems or bugs in the web apps themselves. And that's about 70% of the intrusions. Plus, many of the other attack vectors were of the same class. Only 13,405 were "web server intrusions" which is about 3%. If you take "RPC Server Intrusion" and "Other server intrusion" together as platform bugs (and I'm guessing most aren't), then you still only end up with another 3%.
Therefore, all this story tells us is that the software industry has to do a lot of work to protect users from themselves. It doesn't tell us that Apache or IIS or Windows or Linux is more secure than something else. It tells us users suck at security and programmers suck at making security simple.
I'm not sure how a religion expanding is supposed to benefit the people in that religion. Some people might prefer it being smaller so they believe they are part of a more exclusive, less diluted group. But they might be taken more seriously and avoid persecution in a larger group. But does a Christian in Brazil benefit when someone in Chile converts to Christianity? Probably not.
However, your second point makes sense to me. It seems logical that most believiers of a religion think that the religion has some inherent benefits and therefore society as a whole would benefit by having more parishioners. However, I don't think this differs from a cult in any way, nor does it justify the various injustices performed even by ordinary people in the name of spreading religion.