I would point out that if Evangelical Christians are simply teaching a message of "loving others" they are missing the most important commandment that preceded it to love God, but yes, a part of a valid Christian world view should be loving others and seeing that they have no more issues than we do.
I never said it would fix everything, I said it would help reduce fear and reduce conflict, not stop it. There are and will always be people who don't like anyone being different from them. As you even pointed out, we have that in the US just as much as anywhere else, but fundamentally, that is based on fear of the impact of others. Communication and relationships are what make it so that other people aren't monsters and aren't unknown.
Yes, there will still be problems, yes, there will ALWAYS be people who are willing to cause physical violence to get their way, but building interpersonal relationships is always the best way to work towards reducing problems. Access to good information that can reduce fear and misinformation can't hurt either. I never said we should surrender to a crocodile, but if you feed the criters in the the pond, some of them may have just been suspicious fish. You'll still have some crocodiles that need to be put down for everyone's sake (including the other fish), but you can limit how good the conditions are for the crocodiles to mate.
Also, don't get me wrong, I still think war will exist. Governments will do what is in their interest to get power and wealth, but they will do it more against the will of informed people. Just look at the number of wars that America has been involved in that had little to no popular support. It also won't stop some people from being insurrectionists, but removing the fear of unknown and the ability to spread uncheckable propaganda is certainly a significant benefit in limiting it.
Precisely how many wars have we had directly between nations that have cheap, easily available international calling in the last 50 years? Also, international calling failed to connect people internationally en masse. It may have allowed for it, but it was too difficult and expensive to meet and socialize with people from other parts of the world. That isn't the case with the Internet. I have friends throughout the world in just about any area that has Internet access. I have access to information about what things are actually like on the ground in many regions of the world without having to go through potentially influenced media. That kind of access to information and that kind of interpersonal relationships with people around the world makes a huge difference.
Yes, some people will still want to smash and destroy things that are different (the same can be said for plenty of people in just about any country) but for the most part, people don't want that and most frequently, it is fear that causes that.
Except that rabies wouldn't make people start eating other people. It just makes them hallucinate, delirious, causes partial paralysis and fear of consuming water or fluids (and a few other things, but none of which are eating people.)
Giving people the ability to connect to world and understand people from other parts of it is key to peace just about anywhere? When you understand that people are people everywhere, it's far more difficult to get the general populace revved up against some great enemy. People fear the unknown and in the absence of contrary evidence, anything can be said. Now granted, it may have a more limited impact since the Internet itself is perceived as Western, but having people be able to communicate more freely is rarely a bad thing when it comes to trying to prevent popular support for attacking others.
Lets see... 7 billion people / 206 countries is an average of 33 million people per country, so YES, 300+ million people is in fact a large country. Nobody said we are a majority of the worlds population, just a large country. You should perhaps work on your basic math skills and reading comprehension prior to speaking in public.
I suggest you check your facts before you correct someone. Maybe it is different where you are but police can arrest someone for suspicion of a crime, they just have to release within a certain time or file charges. The police may also arrest someone after the prosecutor decides to press charges, but that is NOT always the order.
The crime is probably posting it to youtube, not using the app. It looks like the video may have just had parts of it in the school though, which makes it a much harder case. It also doesn't say if he was actually charged in the article, just that he was arrested. It makes sense that they would arrest and question him about it. It's just law enforcement doing their do diligence as long as they don't actually end up pressing charges when it is determined that he didn't intend anything nefarious. (Though again, the Youtube video itself may be a crime if it can be seen as threatening, though I'd question the wisdom of a prosecutor prosecuting for something that was posted as a kid showing off his cool app on his phone.)
This has been done numerous times before with various levels of success. Appware was a Borland attempt back in the day that fell flat on it's face, LEGO actually has several such interfaces for programing Mindstorm robots. Microsoft SSIS is probably the most successful platform and is used for DB translation. The problem is always the same however, it is impossible to build any thing of beyond moderate complexity and far too difficult to figure out what you were doing when you come back to it, let alone figuring out what someone else's program is doing.
Code is written as a human readable language because it is something we naturally understand easily. The typing interface isn't the most natural method of data entry, but we can understand and read it easily when we are looking at it later. The structure and lexical simplicity is key to this and trying to abstract it to a graphical system like you are describing necessarily makes it too difficult to work with. It is possible, with sufficient effort, to write complex and reusable subroutines, but it is far FAR more difficult than doing the same with a typed language. (I have personally done this back in high school when programming an old robotics system with a flowchart language that needed all kinds of complex logic that I had to nest.) It took me months to write what I could have done in days, if not hours, in a standard language.
You mean like the literally DOZENS if not hundreds of flowchart programming languages that have tried it before and failed outright because it simply isn't an easy format for us to follow the logic from when designing complex logic?
The most wanted list has frequently (probably the majority of the time) been primarily composed of people that aren't within the US. It isn't people they think they CAN go after necessarily, it's just people they want if the opportunity arises. So basically, it's more a way to provide information about the group and give a heads up to authorities everywhere to be aware of them. Traditionally, it was to limit someone's ability to operate in the US, though the value of listing a hacker group is possibly a little more dubious, though as members are identified, I would assume their information would be posted along with the entry. If they were ever dumb enough to try and come in to the US, a whole lot of law enforcement and border protection people would know what they look like.
Agreed. There is some information you simply won't find about me online. period. But for the most part, while I understand and appreciate the value of privacy, there isn't a whole lot I personally care about keeping private. Mostly some key financial details, my closest circle of contact info, and certain business details that could compromise financial things. Mostly, if it isn't terribly inconvenient (cellphone number) or a financial risk for people to know it, then I don't care if people know it.
That said, there are plenty of situations where being able to keep private is a huge benefit to society even if they don't personally apply to me.
Yeah, although honestly, I'm particularly not impressed by them when they can't get information that is publicly posted on my website (which is also my name) right. I've never particularly cared about anonymity on the Internet. They don't know anything about me that I care if everyone knows about me and I'd rather have ads that might be useful and go to pay for the services I'm using than have them waste my time. I'm all for making companies pay for stuff I use so that they can hope that I'll buy something from them, and maybe just maybe, occasionally, I actually will see something useful (though I don't know that I've ever actually bought something from an ad other than maybe food items that looked tasty.)
But then the price of the patent would go up too. Patents help innovation by making it cost 110% of the purchase price of the device in licensing, didn't you know?
They think I'm 59(29) and have a 6 year old kid of unknown gender(no kids), they think I own a dog(2 cats, no dog), think I watch basketball(watch no sports, don't even have cable TV) and think I research parenting and woodworking... (all of which is quite wrong.) I'm a bit surprised how inaccurate the data actually is seeing as I make no efforts what-so-ever to confuse marketing efforts.
Not to tell who is involved, to tell what servers have copies of the data. Say I make 5 copies of the data and upload them when you aren't watching. If you delete my copy locally, I have to go get one of those 5 copies and you can follow me to see where I put it. Then you can try to take out that copy too. Keep at it long enough, you might manage to get rid of all of them. It's a long shot, but still worth trying.
You can still trace a VPN. They may be more worried about what servers copies are on. Each time they access a server, it's an opportunity to try to track down a copy and destroy it. If they are smart though, they'll use random Internet access locations and will make it difficult to actually track anything down.
If they tell me in advance that is what they do, I agree with it, they keep my data protected and can provide me with services for ads that are more applicable to me, I fail to see how that is evil. They don't go around stealing people's data. They provide valuable services that are worth the exchange of information and while some of the collection is done by deals with websites instead of the consumer directly, it's still disclosed what they do and the end result is still the same that it funds the content you want with less of a waste of your time on irrelevant ads (at least in theory).
If they start selling my information instead of offering ads to people that match certain criteria or if they start collecting in ways other than what they disclose, or even if they stop giving back to the consumers who they depend on for their business, then I'll see it as evil. Otherwise, they are just doing a better job of getting money out of advertisers that can pay for the services I want to use. If they can do a better job getting advertisers to fund my activities and can simultaneously waste less of my time with irrelevant ads (which also means more valuable targeted ads and thus, generally, fewer ads), then I am not seeing the problem unless they start lying or failing to safeguard my info. (Incidentally, that's where I think Facebook crosses the line is that they don't properly safeguard the information in the same way Google does. For Facebook, sharing my data is their business model, for Google, the business model is controlling my data and charging people to have them use it, which means they have to protect it.)
Slashdot Mirror
From what I understand, this one IS self guided.
I would point out that if Evangelical Christians are simply teaching a message of "loving others" they are missing the most important commandment that preceded it to love God, but yes, a part of a valid Christian world view should be loving others and seeing that they have no more issues than we do.
I never said it would fix everything, I said it would help reduce fear and reduce conflict, not stop it. There are and will always be people who don't like anyone being different from them. As you even pointed out, we have that in the US just as much as anywhere else, but fundamentally, that is based on fear of the impact of others. Communication and relationships are what make it so that other people aren't monsters and aren't unknown.
Yes, there will still be problems, yes, there will ALWAYS be people who are willing to cause physical violence to get their way, but building interpersonal relationships is always the best way to work towards reducing problems. Access to good information that can reduce fear and misinformation can't hurt either. I never said we should surrender to a crocodile, but if you feed the criters in the the pond, some of them may have just been suspicious fish. You'll still have some crocodiles that need to be put down for everyone's sake (including the other fish), but you can limit how good the conditions are for the crocodiles to mate.
Also, don't get me wrong, I still think war will exist. Governments will do what is in their interest to get power and wealth, but they will do it more against the will of informed people. Just look at the number of wars that America has been involved in that had little to no popular support. It also won't stop some people from being insurrectionists, but removing the fear of unknown and the ability to spread uncheckable propaganda is certainly a significant benefit in limiting it.
Precisely how many wars have we had directly between nations that have cheap, easily available international calling in the last 50 years? Also, international calling failed to connect people internationally en masse. It may have allowed for it, but it was too difficult and expensive to meet and socialize with people from other parts of the world. That isn't the case with the Internet. I have friends throughout the world in just about any area that has Internet access. I have access to information about what things are actually like on the ground in many regions of the world without having to go through potentially influenced media. That kind of access to information and that kind of interpersonal relationships with people around the world makes a huge difference.
Yes, some people will still want to smash and destroy things that are different (the same can be said for plenty of people in just about any country) but for the most part, people don't want that and most frequently, it is fear that causes that.
Except that rabies wouldn't make people start eating other people. It just makes them hallucinate, delirious, causes partial paralysis and fear of consuming water or fluids (and a few other things, but none of which are eating people.)
Giving people the ability to connect to world and understand people from other parts of it is key to peace just about anywhere? When you understand that people are people everywhere, it's far more difficult to get the general populace revved up against some great enemy. People fear the unknown and in the absence of contrary evidence, anything can be said. Now granted, it may have a more limited impact since the Internet itself is perceived as Western, but having people be able to communicate more freely is rarely a bad thing when it comes to trying to prevent popular support for attacking others.
Lets see... 7 billion people / 206 countries is an average of 33 million people per country, so YES, 300+ million people is in fact a large country. Nobody said we are a majority of the worlds population, just a large country. You should perhaps work on your basic math skills and reading comprehension prior to speaking in public.
I suggest you check your facts before you correct someone. Maybe it is different where you are but police can arrest someone for suspicion of a crime, they just have to release within a certain time or file charges. The police may also arrest someone after the prosecutor decides to press charges, but that is NOT always the order.
The crime is probably posting it to youtube, not using the app. It looks like the video may have just had parts of it in the school though, which makes it a much harder case. It also doesn't say if he was actually charged in the article, just that he was arrested. It makes sense that they would arrest and question him about it. It's just law enforcement doing their do diligence as long as they don't actually end up pressing charges when it is determined that he didn't intend anything nefarious. (Though again, the Youtube video itself may be a crime if it can be seen as threatening, though I'd question the wisdom of a prosecutor prosecuting for something that was posted as a kid showing off his cool app on his phone.)
This just means my skills will become more valuable. Besides, you can use an IDE to build an IDE, just like you use compilers to build compilers.
This has been done numerous times before with various levels of success. Appware was a Borland attempt back in the day that fell flat on it's face, LEGO actually has several such interfaces for programing Mindstorm robots. Microsoft SSIS is probably the most successful platform and is used for DB translation. The problem is always the same however, it is impossible to build any thing of beyond moderate complexity and far too difficult to figure out what you were doing when you come back to it, let alone figuring out what someone else's program is doing.
Code is written as a human readable language because it is something we naturally understand easily. The typing interface isn't the most natural method of data entry, but we can understand and read it easily when we are looking at it later. The structure and lexical simplicity is key to this and trying to abstract it to a graphical system like you are describing necessarily makes it too difficult to work with. It is possible, with sufficient effort, to write complex and reusable subroutines, but it is far FAR more difficult than doing the same with a typed language. (I have personally done this back in high school when programming an old robotics system with a flowchart language that needed all kinds of complex logic that I had to nest.) It took me months to write what I could have done in days, if not hours, in a standard language.
You mean like the literally DOZENS if not hundreds of flowchart programming languages that have tried it before and failed outright because it simply isn't an easy format for us to follow the logic from when designing complex logic?
FUEL energy drink perhaps?
Fair enough, but if we are getting technicali should point out most cameras now are CMOS, not CCD.
They often put physical IR filters in place on cameras for the specific reason of preventing people from using it to see through clothes.
But then the evil pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be getting rich off our tax dollars...!! /sarcasm
The most wanted list has frequently (probably the majority of the time) been primarily composed of people that aren't within the US. It isn't people they think they CAN go after necessarily, it's just people they want if the opportunity arises. So basically, it's more a way to provide information about the group and give a heads up to authorities everywhere to be aware of them. Traditionally, it was to limit someone's ability to operate in the US, though the value of listing a hacker group is possibly a little more dubious, though as members are identified, I would assume their information would be posted along with the entry. If they were ever dumb enough to try and come in to the US, a whole lot of law enforcement and border protection people would know what they look like.
Agreed. There is some information you simply won't find about me online. period. But for the most part, while I understand and appreciate the value of privacy, there isn't a whole lot I personally care about keeping private. Mostly some key financial details, my closest circle of contact info, and certain business details that could compromise financial things. Mostly, if it isn't terribly inconvenient (cellphone number) or a financial risk for people to know it, then I don't care if people know it.
That said, there are plenty of situations where being able to keep private is a huge benefit to society even if they don't personally apply to me.
Yeah, although honestly, I'm particularly not impressed by them when they can't get information that is publicly posted on my website (which is also my name) right. I've never particularly cared about anonymity on the Internet. They don't know anything about me that I care if everyone knows about me and I'd rather have ads that might be useful and go to pay for the services I'm using than have them waste my time. I'm all for making companies pay for stuff I use so that they can hope that I'll buy something from them, and maybe just maybe, occasionally, I actually will see something useful (though I don't know that I've ever actually bought something from an ad other than maybe food items that looked tasty.)
But then the price of the patent would go up too. Patents help innovation by making it cost 110% of the purchase price of the device in licensing, didn't you know?
They think I'm 59(29) and have a 6 year old kid of unknown gender(no kids), they think I own a dog(2 cats, no dog), think I watch basketball(watch no sports, don't even have cable TV) and think I research parenting and woodworking... (all of which is quite wrong.) I'm a bit surprised how inaccurate the data actually is seeing as I make no efforts what-so-ever to confuse marketing efforts.
Not to tell who is involved, to tell what servers have copies of the data. Say I make 5 copies of the data and upload them when you aren't watching. If you delete my copy locally, I have to go get one of those 5 copies and you can follow me to see where I put it. Then you can try to take out that copy too. Keep at it long enough, you might manage to get rid of all of them. It's a long shot, but still worth trying.
You can still trace a VPN. They may be more worried about what servers copies are on. Each time they access a server, it's an opportunity to try to track down a copy and destroy it. If they are smart though, they'll use random Internet access locations and will make it difficult to actually track anything down.
If they tell me in advance that is what they do, I agree with it, they keep my data protected and can provide me with services for ads that are more applicable to me, I fail to see how that is evil. They don't go around stealing people's data. They provide valuable services that are worth the exchange of information and while some of the collection is done by deals with websites instead of the consumer directly, it's still disclosed what they do and the end result is still the same that it funds the content you want with less of a waste of your time on irrelevant ads (at least in theory).
If they start selling my information instead of offering ads to people that match certain criteria or if they start collecting in ways other than what they disclose, or even if they stop giving back to the consumers who they depend on for their business, then I'll see it as evil. Otherwise, they are just doing a better job of getting money out of advertisers that can pay for the services I want to use. If they can do a better job getting advertisers to fund my activities and can simultaneously waste less of my time with irrelevant ads (which also means more valuable targeted ads and thus, generally, fewer ads), then I am not seeing the problem unless they start lying or failing to safeguard my info. (Incidentally, that's where I think Facebook crosses the line is that they don't properly safeguard the information in the same way Google does. For Facebook, sharing my data is their business model, for Google, the business model is controlling my data and charging people to have them use it, which means they have to protect it.)