There is a very important difference between science and religion: One is evidence-based, and the other isn't.
And that's entirely beside the point. History isn't Science either, nor is Flower Arranging, but they can all be studied, and students benefit from teachers.
In the other, you are asked to believe with no evidence or proof. In one, if you can show your teacher was wrong and a different answer is better, you are a hero.
Believe it or not, a great deal of religious study is very much like any other historical science combining linguistics, archaeology, history, etc.
I don't dispute there are frothing at the mouth raving lunatics claiming to be religious authority - usually at the front of causes, on TV, etc -- Pat Robertson springs to mind as an example. But that's the vocal minority.
And yes, there are tenets of all faiths that are doctrinal.
But I've found most priests are remarkably unlike the stereotype you are applying. They don't pretend they have "the answers", and they aren't trying to tell people what to do. They tend to largely be more interested in guiding people to find their own answers.
If ones ask an average priest "is it ok to do X"; they may remind one of the relevant doctrine and the lessons of the bible, they'll suggest passages of scripture they believe are relevant, and they'll practically always suggest prayer.
In the other... well, fortunately the times where you'd be burnt at the stake are past.
Yeah, because there is no ego or politics in science, right? There are plenty of scientists in history who would have burnt their rivals at the stake if they'd had the authority. The biggest difference there is that the church had the authority.
Religion isn't about indoctrination but sometimes its used that way. Usually by the corrupted vs the least educated. But most good religious leaders are very much in favor of higher education, independent thought, and even of questioning their faith.
I don't think that would happen if it doesn't matter.
It matters in the sense that it is the center of the Catholic Church, but even if it were removed (along with the all the people currently occupying it) the religion would cope just fine. New leadership would emerge, a new headquarters would be established. Catholics don't actually require a city state. They have one, and I'm sure they'd never willingly let it go at this point, but its not in anyway necessary to the religion.
I'm disturbed by the mixup of two different sorts of beliefs.
I'm not sure why; it isn't really germane to the point. The point was simply to illustrate the value in teachers. A person can learn the scientific method and explore science without one. Similarly he can pursue his religious study without one, but in either case there is clear benefit to having access to teachers, and even institutions dedicated to study to draw upon.
Your delving into their being different aspects of 'belief' is accurate but misses the point. Whether I want to study the effect of radiation on seeds or the letters from Paul to Timothy I can benefit a lot from access to people and resources who have studied these things before me. They will save me a great deal of time, and provide a great deal of enlightenment in either case.
Now, given that I've succinctly proven that science does not need universities to exist or operate
No but science does benefit greatly from teachers. Whether they are institutionalized in a particular way or not.
The existence of people who figured out the scientific method on their own in the dark ages all on their own doesn't make it a 'good' way to further science.
Religion is the same. People can be self taught, but who has the time? You'll get a lot further a lot faster in your study of anything with good teachers.
In small words it says "whether one wishes to know about science or religion, there is a place for teachers."
It is neither an argument, nor even coherent. Meaningless rambling does not make a point, you know?
Yet other people figured it out.
The church is not identical to the Vatican. You are not addressing the GPs point but a similar one you invented yourself.
I beleive he was taking a more inclusive view about the abstract hierarchy of church leadership and the preisthood in general rather than the very narrow view of the Vatican specifically.
Really, If the GP only meant the Vatican specifically then his point would have been specious. I'm sure nobody thinks the "Vatican" is itself necessary for anything. I don't think that, I seriously doubt the GP does. Catholicism would not end if the Vatican and everyone in it were destroyed by a meteor tomorrow.
If one is to follow religion in it's rather black and white conception of how people should act
Very little is black and white. Morality is not simple.
then priests in general should practically be model citizens, free of sin and so on [...]
Um. No. Priests are not 'better'. They have merely dedicated their lives to religious teaching and study instead of farming or designing CPUs. They are not 'free from sin'.
It's not me that vowed not to lie
All followers of Christianity are presumably equally bound by the commandments, not just priests.
be celibate
That is a Catholic tradition and is in place as an essentially symbolic sacrifice to show their dedication to the calling; it doesn't make them more 'holy'. If they violate their vow of celibacy... then yes there should be consequences. But the point is that, yes, we should expect that some of them will fail to live up to their vow. They are just people.
They will make mistakes. And some of them will be criminals.
or is it that priests are just as humane as any average Joe
Would you argue that they are less human? Or more? I'd think they are exactly as human as the rest of us.
and thus are not deserving of any special treatment, even by the church
Define "special treatment". If you mean should their criminals be exposed and punished, then yes, absolutely, but I can understand why they would simultaneously seek to mitigate the harm to the church. If prominent executives at a major corporation were to be criminals, the corporation would surely wish to deal with it as discreetly as possible as well.
If I claim to live in a certain way, to serve the public, church etc
Forget the church a moment, and just consider public life in politics. Where your opponents take every thing you say, take it out of context, and twist it around, and then spend more money than you'll make in a lifetime telling everyone else that twisted out of context lie. Eventually, you too will start being gaurded about what you say in public, and will seek to keep large parts of your life private, not because there is anything wrong with what you say or do but simply because your opponents will have that much more to use against you.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
I would welcome transparency.
And you would be hung. Go you!
I don't believe the word of god needs to be "explained" - one might be lead to believe god wrote it wrong. Or the person that wrote it was not divinely inspired as to write it correctly.
Now you are just being hopelessly naive. The texts of the bible are hundreds to thousands of years old. Languages have changed and died. Few today are familiar with the societies that they were written for, or the historical contexts.
Who wrote what, when, where and why they wrote it, who they were writing it for, who they were, why is it in the bible vs other things that are not. The meanings of various names. Right on down to why a particular english word chosen; and which of the english words several definitions aligns best with the original sense of the original text.
Its just plain silly to seriously argue that a guy with a standard modern American high school education is going to have even half a clue about half of what's going on in there.
I believe the only reason people need to explain the word of god is because any literal interpretation would be impossible to live by in today's society.
It would have been impossible to live by literally in any society. It -never- was all neatly wrapped up for a particular point in time.
Anyone who can read can read shakespeare, but its absurd to suggest that everyone who reads it gets as much from it. Cole's notes, and a good teacher can bring more from it than the average person could even imagine. And one could spend and some have
They may be trying to correct things going forward with a strong stance on some pain points but it is obvious that the Vatican as an organization does not feel comfortable to risk transparency.
To be fair, the media and our society are not interested in the big picture, or the full truth. The church could be as transparent as glass, and we'd just point a microscope at the dirt and make a giant fuss over it, and anyone who had the slightest conflict with the church would raise these items up at every opportunity.
We might say we want transparency and truth, but we'll collectively crucify (forgive the incidental allusion) anyone who gives it to us.
I don't want to be transparent in a world where the hint of suspicion of a crime can be front page news, and can destroy someones life, while the follow up story that one is completely innocent is a half inch on page E11 after the obituaries, if it makes the news at all, because someone elses live is busily being ruined on the front page.
No in that world, which sadly is this world, I'd rather it not get out at all. Because I know it won't be treated fairly or objectively, or with an eye to the whole story. Just sensationalist nonsense and then move on.
Only a fool would really want transparency.
surely men of the cloth would be much more noble, moral and ethical than the norm.
Because why?
If you really do believe in god, as described in Christianity why do you need the Vatican?
If you truly believe in science why do you need universities? What possible benefit could there be to gained from people who dedicate their lives to research and teaching? Surely one does not need teachers. Full knowledge springs into the minds of those who want it. Or not.
Just as your average layperson has pretty poor grasp of advanced physics they have an equally naive grasp of religion.
Sure we can argue that the Vatican's role has been corrupted perhaps, that it has been subverted by greed and politics, that its purpose is to collect and secure power, rather than enlighten followers with the teachings of their scriptures... sure we can have that conversation. And there'd be plenty of legitimacy to it.
But likewise we can argue that the university is more interested in securing grant money, generating prestige, and enticing ever more profitable foreign students than in imparting any knowlege or skills to the student body which it views largely as an inconvenient necessity in the pursuit of its aforementioned primary purposes.
The church, like the university may not be perfect, but its not as entirely ridiculous as you imply.
Pretty every much hardware/software stack combination that I ever encountered over 30+ years of programming had a "back door" admin account to allow the vendor to get into the systems to repair damage. This is nothing new.
Those other ones tended to be acknowledged and documented.
There is a big difference between a hole in the wall you know about, and one you don't.
But it's also standard practice and should come as no surprise to anyone.
You can't plug or safeguard against security holes that are kept secret.
Show me anything on a tenth of the scale of the atrocities of Soviet Russia, DPRK, and Democratic Kampuchea. Until then, dont even pretend the two are on the same scale.
None of those even got close to communism. They were simply fascist military dictatorships with the alledged (or at least initial goal) of eventually instituting communism that never got around to it.
You might as well hold up Saddam's Iraq or Hitler's Germany as being democracy's. They weren't democracies in anything but name. And they line up neatly with Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. Which weren't communisms in anything but name.
The most screwed up countries outside of Africa tend to have that one thing-- attempted communism-- in common. Why do you suppose that is?
I'd have to accept the premise before I bothered to suppose anything, and I don't. Screwed up countries outside of Africa include Libya, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Cambodia, El Salvador, Columbia...
On the flip side, most successful countries (by whatever measure) have embraced capitalism, and generally democracy. Why do you suppose that is?
Less than 150 years ago the most successful countries by any measure were constitutional monarchies. 2000 years ago you'd point at the success of the Roman Empire, the unprecedented Pax Romana, and claim that the recently failed Roman Republic which ended in series of bloody civil wars marked the failures of democracy and republic. Give it another couple hundred years; I predict we'll look back at the failed experiment that was "Constutional Republic".
As for communism, I've already speculated that it doesn't appear to work beyond populations of a couple hundred. Capitalism has plenty of grotesque failures of its own. Socialism - a hybrid of capitalism with communism seems to be the true mark of modern developed countries. Even the USA is far from a pure capitalism after all.
And we evidently still haven't figured out how to define a democracy that doesn't become hopelessly corrupted. Clearly electing our representatives has proven to be an abject failure.The populace has proven too easy for the monied to manipulate. Candidates seek election over policy, and the field of possibilities amount to those who can secure enough money to run. And once elected have little power to effect positive change, and end up spending all their time posturing for re-election.
Perhaps election by lottery of anyone over the age of X that meets minimal qualifications; mandatory political duty akin to the mandatory military service in some countries, coupled with a constitution that enshrines the right to an education and the teaching of critical thinking... I don't know I could spitball all night about ways to better reform after a revolution.
Well, except for Hutterite and Amish colonies and Aboriginal tribal societies in a number of places.
Not that they are "pure" communism, but that isn't a requirement here. They are approximations of communism that have proven to work.
Capitalist / democratic states, however, continue to be represented by every major world power.
And history has shown plenty of examples of them getting millions killed, and leaving nations in crippled dysfunctional states. The current modern examples are no exception, and are generally beleived to be in a state of decline, gradually devolving into corporatist fascist / states.
So it turns out small groups can live just fine as a communism but it doesn't seem to scale well. Then again, no functional solution has been found that is particularly stable or beneficial for large groups in the long term.
If the device you're booting from has its option rom signed by Microsoft and you remove their key, can you boot from the device anymore?
You should also be able to authorize the option roms you need by hash.
My educated guess is no (you can't truly get away from Microsoft) and you are forced to trust Microsoft even if you don't want to because hardware OEMs can only ever assume one key is available due to the (poor) architecture.
This problem is at least solvable by market forces, and is not a defect in the design of the system. Vendors going after linux marketshare could make it a value add to publishing option rom hashes, or making the roms available so we can sign them ourselves etc or preinstall a manufacturer key along with the microsoft key and sign the option roms with their key as well to simplify removing the ms key.
The upshot is that there ARE ways of removing the MS key and getting a usable system if you want, but its less convenient than it could be if vendors thought about supporting it ahead of time.
I doubt we'll see much improvement with windows 8 preloaded systems from HP etc. But server offerings and enthusiast offerings, and open hardware initiatives... they might take the small amount of time to simplify running it without the MS key at all if there is any demand for that.
Which is nothing to do with secureboot, and everything to do with the hardware manufacturer.
Hardware manufacturers have been technically able to make it so you can't go into BIOS, and have been technically able to restrict what bootloader you use since as long as BIOS has existed.
Secureboot really has nothing to do with it one way or the other.
That the hardware manufacturer is telling me what I can and can't run on hardware I own?
They haven't done so in the past, and they aren't doing so now.
Your gripe is that they might do so in the future, which they have always been able to do, even without secure boot.
If they wanted to force you to run windows they could have done so with a much less complicated solution than secure boot,and they could have done this a LONG time ago. They could have just hard coded the windows boot loader into the bios itself, and locked you out of it.
a whistlblower holed up like a rat is actually far better than one in custody that you have to convict via judge or jury and under public scrutiny.
You assume the system isn't so corrupted that due process and trials would actually work.
Like manning. Who waited years in prison for a trial, which is occurring now with nearly a complete blackout on public scrutiny? I'd love to see the inside of that kangaroo court room.
Would Snowden get a fair trial, with appropriate public scrutiny? Who knows. I have no faith he would. Frankly I'd be less suprised if he 'committed suicide' in prison (make careful note of the quotes there) than if he were given a fair trial. At best he'll get Manning treatment... a farce of a trial with no public scrutiny.
The problem isn't that a "normal" OSX machine doesn't exist. The imac, mac mini and mac pro are all good at particular things, but there is no "normal machine" for people who need more flexibility.
I actually see ads for things I'm interested in...
The goal of advertising and marketing is to convince you to buy their product, convince you that you want to buy it. To implant a brand name so when you think of a product you think of them, or trigger an impulse purchase.
It is literally a form of brainwashing with the end result of separating you from your money.
Only a complete idiot would willing participate by making it easier for marketers to get inside their heads.
How does his being armed as he walked back to his truck have any bearing on the fact that Martin
Why did he get out of his truck in the first place? To follow Martin.
How does his being armed as he walked back to his truck have any bearing on the fact that Martin - who had already made it to his destination - doubled back, and ran up behind Zimmerman to sucker punch him and begin the physical assault from which Zimmerman had to defend himself?
Yeah, that's one version of the story.
So your saying Zimmerman's been following this guy who he views as a dangerous threat, then he even testifies the guy notices he's being followed, and then a few minutes later he's walking along with his guard down and gets jumped from behind?
Carrying a pistol doesn't magically control people who are sneaking up behind you to attack you.
He wouldn't be doubling back and sneaking up behind you if you weren't sneaking around following him around in the first place.
Does following someone around somehow justify being attacked? Of course not, but it robs you of credibility when you say "I was just minding my own business, walking back to my truck, when he jumped me." I have a reasonable doubt about the truth of that claim. Maybe its true. Maybe its not.
We need a trial to sort it out. I'm not saying Zimmerman is guilty and I'll assume the jury makes the right decision based on the evidence presented at trial, regardless of whether they acquit or convict.
Update July 4: Visa Europe told us that it âoehas not been involved in this matter in any way, and has not made any such stipulations to Payson or to any other organisation.â Visa believes that the issue was raised by Paysonâ(TM)s acquiring bank, which acts as an intermediary between payment processors and card associations such as Visa and MasterCard.
We have asked Payson to clarify the discrepancy and will update the article when we hear back from them.
Ah, so you ARE being deliberately misleading. Why are you doing that? What's the point of lying about it?
Zimmerman was armed, and in his car and Zimmerman was following Martin, not the other way around.
Your scenario amounts to: "The armed man in a car following an unarmed man on foot was unable to avoid a confrontation in which he shoots the unarmed guy."
The most anybody usually upgrades a graphics workstation (what this is mainly meant for) is expanding RAM
That precisely because that's the ONLY thing its any good at. By not giving us more flexibility its too expensive / ill suited to be anything else.
CPU and graphics are usually pretty stable, upgraded at the next machine purchase, although sometimes graphics is updated (and Apple is seriously future-proofing that with dual integrated cards)
Quite the contrary. Graphics, in a graphics workstation might get upgraded annually or every 2 years. That's a fraction of what I'd expect the base platform to last. Apple has shot that in the foot with completely custom form factor cards.
. Storage? Anybody who does any type of serious work wouldn't use in-machine storage anyway, so why bother putting it in the machine? They'd use a fast connection to external storage like a SAN.
What if they already have a SAN? What if they need fibrechannel? What if -gasp- they want a desktop computer for something that isn't a "graphics workstation"? Can I buy a thunderbolt to 16gbps fibrechannel adapter? In theory thunderbolt can do the speed... but does the adapter exist? At what price? I mean the only people on the planet who are likely to need a 16gbps fibrechannel to thunderbolt 2 adapter are people who bought a new mac pro and already have a SAN...
Now I -know- I'm in the minority, but I still regularly work with proprietary stuff accessed via PCI and PCI-express boards. So now I'm getting what? A thunderbolt to pci-express expansion chassis for each one. Yeah... that costs as much as a regular PC.
Or I can just buy a normal machine with expansion slots.
Just ask them if Trayvon Martin had shot Zimmerman with Zimmerman's gun, if they'd be asking for Martin to be put on trial, or declaring his actions self-defense.
Who is "them"?
As for me, I'd probably want a murder trial for that scenario too. He can plead self defense, and we'll see how it goes. Although self-defense seems pretty likely... or do you regularly imagine "unarmed thugs" confronting and then attacking people with guns, taking those guns by force, and then using them to shoot the owner?
If your son was not a THUG, he would be still be here.
I didn't realize it was ok to seek out, confront, and then shoot someone, as long as that person is a THUG?
Martin may well have been a THUG; I know i don't buy the media portrayal of him as a perfect angel showing a photo of him several years younger etc. But Zimmerman was armed and deliberately sought a confrontation with him, not the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
Religious indoctrination is not teaching.
Not all religious teaching is "indoctrination".
There is a very important difference between science and religion: One is evidence-based, and the other isn't.
And that's entirely beside the point. History isn't Science either, nor is Flower Arranging, but they can all be studied, and students benefit from teachers.
In the other, you are asked to believe with no evidence or proof. In one, if you can show your teacher was wrong and a different answer is better, you are a hero.
Believe it or not, a great deal of religious study is very much like any other historical science combining linguistics, archaeology, history, etc.
I don't dispute there are frothing at the mouth raving lunatics claiming to be religious authority - usually at the front of causes, on TV, etc -- Pat Robertson springs to mind as an example. But that's the vocal minority.
And yes, there are tenets of all faiths that are doctrinal.
But I've found most priests are remarkably unlike the stereotype you are applying. They don't pretend they have "the answers", and they aren't trying to tell people what to do. They tend to largely be more interested in guiding people to find their own answers.
If ones ask an average priest "is it ok to do X"; they may remind one of the relevant doctrine and the lessons of the bible, they'll suggest passages of scripture they believe are relevant, and they'll practically always suggest prayer.
In the other... well, fortunately the times where you'd be burnt at the stake are past.
Yeah, because there is no ego or politics in science, right? There are plenty of scientists in history who would have burnt their rivals at the stake if they'd had the authority. The biggest difference there is that the church had the authority.
Religion isn't about indoctrination but sometimes its used that way. Usually by the corrupted vs the least educated. But most good religious leaders are very much in favor of higher education, independent thought, and even of questioning their faith.
I don't think that would happen if it doesn't matter.
It matters in the sense that it is the center of the Catholic Church, but even if it were removed (along with the all the people currently occupying it) the religion would cope just fine. New leadership would emerge, a new headquarters would be established. Catholics don't actually require a city state. They have one, and I'm sure they'd never willingly let it go at this point, but its not in anyway necessary to the religion.
I'm disturbed by the mixup of two different sorts of beliefs.
I'm not sure why; it isn't really germane to the point. The point was simply to illustrate the value in teachers. A person can learn the scientific method and explore science without one. Similarly he can pursue his religious study without one, but in either case there is clear benefit to having access to teachers, and even institutions dedicated to study to draw upon.
Your delving into their being different aspects of 'belief' is accurate but misses the point. Whether I want to study the effect of radiation on seeds or the letters from Paul to Timothy I can benefit a lot from access to people and resources who have studied these things before me. They will save me a great deal of time, and provide a great deal of enlightenment in either case.
Now, given that I've succinctly proven that science does not need universities to exist or operate
No but science does benefit greatly from teachers. Whether they are institutionalized in a particular way or not.
The existence of people who figured out the scientific method on their own in the dark ages all on their own doesn't make it a 'good' way to further science.
Religion is the same. People can be self taught, but who has the time? You'll get a lot further a lot faster in your study of anything with good teachers.
What is this?
In small words it says "whether one wishes to know about science or religion, there is a place for teachers."
It is neither an argument, nor even coherent. Meaningless rambling does not make a point, you know?
Yet other people figured it out.
The church is not identical to the Vatican. You are not addressing the GPs point but a similar one you invented yourself.
I beleive he was taking a more inclusive view about the abstract hierarchy of church leadership and the preisthood in general rather than the very narrow view of the Vatican specifically.
Really, If the GP only meant the Vatican specifically then his point would have been specious. I'm sure nobody thinks the "Vatican" is itself necessary for anything. I don't think that, I seriously doubt the GP does. Catholicism would not end if the Vatican and everyone in it were destroyed by a meteor tomorrow.
If one is to follow religion in it's rather black and white conception of how people should act
Very little is black and white. Morality is not simple.
then priests in general should practically be model citizens, free of sin and so on [...]
Um. No. Priests are not 'better'. They have merely dedicated their lives to religious teaching and study instead of farming or designing CPUs. They are not 'free from sin'.
It's not me that vowed not to lie
All followers of Christianity are presumably equally bound by the commandments, not just priests.
be celibate
That is a Catholic tradition and is in place as an essentially symbolic sacrifice to show their dedication to the calling; it doesn't make them more 'holy'. If they violate their vow of celibacy... then yes there should be consequences. But the point is that, yes, we should expect that some of them will fail to live up to their vow. They are just people.
They will make mistakes. And some of them will be criminals.
or is it that priests are just as humane as any average Joe
Would you argue that they are less human? Or more? I'd think they are exactly as human as the rest of us.
and thus are not deserving of any special treatment, even by the church
Define "special treatment". If you mean should their criminals be exposed and punished, then yes, absolutely, but I can understand why they would simultaneously seek to mitigate the harm to the church. If prominent executives at a major corporation were to be criminals, the corporation would surely wish to deal with it as discreetly as possible as well.
If I claim to live in a certain way, to serve the public, church etc
Forget the church a moment, and just consider public life in politics. Where your opponents take every thing you say, take it out of context, and twist it around, and then spend more money than you'll make in a lifetime telling everyone else that twisted out of context lie. Eventually, you too will start being gaurded about what you say in public, and will seek to keep large parts of your life private, not because there is anything wrong with what you say or do but simply because your opponents will have that much more to use against you.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
I would welcome transparency.
And you would be hung. Go you!
I don't believe the word of god needs to be "explained" - one might be lead to believe god wrote it wrong. Or the person that wrote it was not divinely inspired as to write it correctly.
Now you are just being hopelessly naive. The texts of the bible are hundreds to thousands of years old. Languages have changed and died. Few today are familiar with the societies that they were written for, or the historical contexts.
Who wrote what, when, where and why they wrote it, who they were writing it for, who they were, why is it in the bible vs other things that are not. The meanings of various names. Right on down to why a particular english word chosen; and which of the english words several definitions aligns best with the original sense of the original text.
Its just plain silly to seriously argue that a guy with a standard modern American high school education is going to have even half a clue about half of what's going on in there.
I believe the only reason people need to explain the word of god is because any literal interpretation would be impossible to live by in today's society.
It would have been impossible to live by literally in any society. It -never- was all neatly wrapped up for a particular point in time.
Anyone who can read can read shakespeare, but its absurd to suggest that everyone who reads it gets as much from it. Cole's notes, and a good teacher can bring more from it than the average person could even imagine. And one could spend and some have
They may be trying to correct things going forward with a strong stance on some pain points but it is obvious that the Vatican as an organization does not feel comfortable to risk transparency.
To be fair, the media and our society are not interested in the big picture, or the full truth. The church could be as transparent as glass, and we'd just point a microscope at the dirt and make a giant fuss over it, and anyone who had the slightest conflict with the church would raise these items up at every opportunity.
We might say we want transparency and truth, but we'll collectively crucify (forgive the incidental allusion) anyone who gives it to us.
I don't want to be transparent in a world where the hint of suspicion of a crime can be front page news, and can destroy someones life, while the follow up story that one is completely innocent is a half inch on page E11 after the obituaries, if it makes the news at all, because someone elses live is busily being ruined on the front page.
No in that world, which sadly is this world, I'd rather it not get out at all. Because I know it won't be treated fairly or objectively, or with an eye to the whole story. Just sensationalist nonsense and then move on.
Only a fool would really want transparency.
surely men of the cloth would be much more noble, moral and ethical than the norm.
Because why?
If you really do believe in god, as described in Christianity why do you need the Vatican?
If you truly believe in science why do you need universities? What possible benefit could there be to gained from people who dedicate their lives to research and teaching? Surely one does not need teachers. Full knowledge springs into the minds of those who want it. Or not.
Just as your average layperson has pretty poor grasp of advanced physics they have an equally naive grasp of religion.
Sure we can argue that the Vatican's role has been corrupted perhaps, that it has been subverted by greed and politics, that its purpose is to collect and secure power, rather than enlighten followers with the teachings of their scriptures... sure we can have that conversation. And there'd be plenty of legitimacy to it.
But likewise we can argue that the university is more interested in securing grant money, generating prestige, and enticing ever more profitable foreign students than in imparting any knowlege or skills to the student body which it views largely as an inconvenient necessity in the pursuit of its aforementioned primary purposes.
The church, like the university may not be perfect, but its not as entirely ridiculous as you imply.
Pretty every much hardware/software stack combination that I ever encountered over 30+ years of programming had a "back door" admin account to allow the vendor to get into the systems to repair damage. This is nothing new.
Those other ones tended to be acknowledged and documented.
There is a big difference between a hole in the wall you know about, and one you don't.
But it's also standard practice and should come as no surprise to anyone.
You can't plug or safeguard against security holes that are kept secret.
Show me anything on a tenth of the scale of the atrocities of Soviet Russia, DPRK, and Democratic Kampuchea. Until then, dont even pretend the two are on the same scale.
None of those even got close to communism. They were simply fascist military dictatorships with the alledged (or at least initial goal) of eventually instituting communism that never got around to it.
You might as well hold up Saddam's Iraq or Hitler's Germany as being democracy's. They weren't democracies in anything but name. And they line up neatly with Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. Which weren't communisms in anything but name.
The most screwed up countries outside of Africa tend to have that one thing-- attempted communism-- in common. Why do you suppose that is?
I'd have to accept the premise before I bothered to suppose anything, and I don't. Screwed up countries outside of Africa include Libya, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Cambodia, El Salvador, Columbia...
On the flip side, most successful countries (by whatever measure) have embraced capitalism, and generally democracy. Why do you suppose that is?
Less than 150 years ago the most successful countries by any measure were constitutional monarchies. 2000 years ago you'd point at the success of the Roman Empire, the unprecedented Pax Romana, and claim that the recently failed Roman Republic which ended in series of bloody civil wars marked the failures of democracy and republic. Give it another couple hundred years; I predict we'll look back at the failed experiment that was "Constutional Republic".
As for communism, I've already speculated that it doesn't appear to work beyond populations of a couple hundred. Capitalism has plenty of grotesque failures of its own. Socialism - a hybrid of capitalism with communism seems to be the true mark of modern developed countries. Even the USA is far from a pure capitalism after all.
And we evidently still haven't figured out how to define a democracy that doesn't become hopelessly corrupted. Clearly electing our representatives has proven to be an abject failure.The populace has proven too easy for the monied to manipulate. Candidates seek election over policy, and the field of possibilities amount to those who can secure enough money to run. And once elected have little power to effect positive change, and end up spending all their time posturing for re-election.
Perhaps election by lottery of anyone over the age of X that meets minimal qualifications; mandatory political duty akin to the mandatory military service in some countries, coupled with a constitution that enshrines the right to an education and the teaching of critical thinking... I don't know I could spitball all night about ways to better reform after a revolution.
Communism has never worked in any of its forms
Well, except for Hutterite and Amish colonies and Aboriginal tribal societies in a number of places.
Not that they are "pure" communism, but that isn't a requirement here. They are approximations of communism that have proven to work.
Capitalist / democratic states, however, continue to be represented by every major world power.
And history has shown plenty of examples of them getting millions killed, and leaving nations in crippled dysfunctional states. The current modern examples are no exception, and are generally beleived to be in a state of decline, gradually devolving into corporatist fascist / states.
So it turns out small groups can live just fine as a communism but it doesn't seem to scale well. Then again, no functional solution has been found that is particularly stable or beneficial for large groups in the long term.
an unattainable standard that is constantly held up as a model of perfection despite having no functional real world example past or present.
How clever!
That's also the definition of Democracy, Capitalism, Constitutional Republic,...
Guess it wasn't that clever after all.
If the device you're booting from has its option rom signed by Microsoft and you remove their key, can you boot from the device anymore?
You should also be able to authorize the option roms you need by hash.
My educated guess is no (you can't truly get away from Microsoft) and you are forced to trust Microsoft even if you don't want to because hardware OEMs can only ever assume one key is available due to the (poor) architecture.
This problem is at least solvable by market forces, and is not a defect in the design of the system. Vendors going after linux marketshare could make it a value add to publishing option rom hashes, or making the roms available so we can sign them ourselves etc or preinstall a manufacturer key along with the microsoft key and sign the option roms with their key as well to simplify removing the ms key.
The upshot is that there ARE ways of removing the MS key and getting a usable system if you want, but its less convenient than it could be if vendors thought about supporting it ahead of time.
I doubt we'll see much improvement with windows 8 preloaded systems from HP etc. But server offerings and enthusiast offerings, and open hardware initiatives ... they might take the small amount of time to simplify running it without the MS key at all if there is any demand for that.
Unless the hardware manufacturer won't let you.
Which is nothing to do with secureboot, and everything to do with the hardware manufacturer.
Hardware manufacturers have been technically able to make it so you can't go into BIOS, and have been technically able to restrict what bootloader you use since as long as BIOS has existed.
Secureboot really has nothing to do with it one way or the other.
That the hardware manufacturer is telling me what I can and can't run on hardware I own?
They haven't done so in the past, and they aren't doing so now.
Your gripe is that they might do so in the future, which they have always been able to do, even without secure boot.
If they wanted to force you to run windows they could have done so with a much less complicated solution than secure boot,and they could have done this a LONG time ago. They could have just hard coded the windows boot loader into the bios itself, and locked you out of it.
Until it is something that allows for end-user control of the process instead of Microsoft,
In that the end user can remove the microsoft key? Yes, it can do that.
In that the end user can install their own key, sign their own software, and boot from that? Yes, it can do that too.
What exactly is your gripe?
a whistlblower holed up like a rat is actually far better than one in custody that you have to convict via judge or jury and under public scrutiny.
You assume the system isn't so corrupted that due process and trials would actually work.
Like manning. Who waited years in prison for a trial, which is occurring now with nearly a complete blackout on public scrutiny? I'd love to see the inside of that kangaroo court room.
Would Snowden get a fair trial, with appropriate public scrutiny? Who knows. I have no faith he would. Frankly I'd be less suprised if he 'committed suicide' in prison (make careful note of the quotes there) than if he were given a fair trial. At best he'll get Manning treatment... a farce of a trial with no public scrutiny.
Governments have been spying on their own citizens since the day "governments" were born.
Some of their own citizens some of the time sure. All of them all of the time? No.
Your country spies just like mine does.
Maybe. Maybe not. I'm sure it spies. I'm certainly not sure it spies as much as yours does.
The problem isn't that a "normal" OSX machine doesn't exist. The imac, mac mini and mac pro are all good at particular things, but there is no "normal machine" for people who need more flexibility.
I actually see ads for things I'm interested in...
The goal of advertising and marketing is to convince you to buy their product, convince you that you want to buy it. To implant a brand name so when you think of a product you think of them, or trigger an impulse purchase.
It is literally a form of brainwashing with the end result of separating you from your money.
Only a complete idiot would willing participate by making it easier for marketers to get inside their heads.
What else is there really to say?
Are there even any star wars fans who care all that much how disney resolves this apparently complicated and difficult conundrum?
How does his being armed as he walked back to his truck have any bearing on the fact that Martin
Why did he get out of his truck in the first place? To follow Martin.
How does his being armed as he walked back to his truck have any bearing on the fact that Martin - who had already made it to his destination - doubled back, and ran up behind Zimmerman to sucker punch him and begin the physical assault from which Zimmerman had to defend himself?
Yeah, that's one version of the story.
So your saying Zimmerman's been following this guy who he views as a dangerous threat, then he even testifies the guy notices he's being followed, and then a few minutes later he's walking along with his guard down and gets jumped from behind?
Carrying a pistol doesn't magically control people who are sneaking up behind you to attack you.
He wouldn't be doubling back and sneaking up behind you if you weren't sneaking around following him around in the first place.
Does following someone around somehow justify being attacked? Of course not, but it robs you of credibility when you say "I was just minding my own business, walking back to my truck, when he jumped me." I have a reasonable doubt about the truth of that claim. Maybe its true. Maybe its not.
We need a trial to sort it out. I'm not saying Zimmerman is guilty and I'll assume the jury makes the right decision based on the evidence presented at trial, regardless of whether they acquit or convict.
From the full article:
Update July 4: Visa Europe told us that it âoehas not been involved in this matter in any way, and has not made any such stipulations to Payson or to any other organisation.â Visa believes that the issue was raised by Paysonâ(TM)s acquiring bank, which acts as an intermediary between payment processors and card associations such as Visa and MasterCard.
We have asked Payson to clarify the discrepancy and will update the article when we hear back from them.
Mastercard has not responded yet.
Ah, so you ARE being deliberately misleading. Why are you doing that? What's the point of lying about it?
Zimmerman was armed, and in his car and Zimmerman was following Martin, not the other way around.
Your scenario amounts to:
"The armed man in a car following an unarmed man on foot was unable to avoid a confrontation in which he shoots the unarmed guy."
Yeah, sure, maybe. I'm glad there's a trial.
No, what Zimmerman did was observe Martin from a distance and call the police,
By which you mean he followed him.
he didn't seek to confront Martin.
Who was following who? Oh, right.
It was Martin that described Zimmerman with a racial slur, confronted and attacked Zimmerman.
Wasn't Zimmerman in his car when he called 911? ... checks transcript... yes... yes he was. So, why didn't he just drive away?
Your theory is the guy with the gun sitting in is car, somehow got attacked by an unarmed man and had to shoot him to save his own life?
Yeah, maybe. But I'm glad we're having a trial.
The most anybody usually upgrades a graphics workstation (what this is mainly meant for) is expanding RAM
That precisely because that's the ONLY thing its any good at. By not giving us more flexibility its too expensive / ill suited to be anything else.
CPU and graphics are usually pretty stable, upgraded at the next machine purchase, although sometimes graphics is updated (and Apple is seriously future-proofing that with dual integrated cards)
Quite the contrary. Graphics, in a graphics workstation might get upgraded annually or every 2 years. That's a fraction of what I'd expect the base platform to last. Apple has shot that in the foot with completely custom form factor cards.
. Storage? Anybody who does any type of serious work wouldn't use in-machine storage anyway, so why bother putting it in the machine? They'd use a fast connection to external storage like a SAN.
What if they already have a SAN? What if they need fibrechannel? What if -gasp- they want a desktop computer for something that isn't a "graphics workstation"? Can I buy a thunderbolt to 16gbps fibrechannel adapter? In theory thunderbolt can do the speed... but does the adapter exist? At what price? I mean the only people on the planet who are likely to need a 16gbps fibrechannel to thunderbolt 2 adapter are people who bought a new mac pro and already have a SAN...
Now I -know- I'm in the minority, but I still regularly work with proprietary stuff accessed via PCI and PCI-express boards. So now I'm getting what? A thunderbolt to pci-express expansion chassis for each one. Yeah... that costs as much as a regular PC.
Or I can just buy a normal machine with expansion slots.
Just ask them if Trayvon Martin had shot Zimmerman with Zimmerman's gun, if they'd be asking for Martin to be put on trial, or declaring his actions self-defense.
Who is "them"?
As for me, I'd probably want a murder trial for that scenario too. He can plead self defense, and we'll see how it goes. Although self-defense seems pretty likely... or do you regularly imagine "unarmed thugs" confronting and then attacking people with guns, taking those guns by force, and then using them to shoot the owner?
How often does that happen?
If your son was not a THUG, he would be still be here.
I didn't realize it was ok to seek out, confront, and then shoot someone, as long as that person is a THUG?
Martin may well have been a THUG; I know i don't buy the media portrayal of him as a perfect angel showing a photo of him several years younger etc. But Zimmerman was armed and deliberately sought a confrontation with him, not the other way around.
A murder trial is appropriate.