When actual reform happens, then they can be called similar. Until then, Islam today is like Christianity centuries ago: intolerant, authoritarian, and violent.
They did more than just sue him. They went after all his personal devices, they censored him from speaking about the jailbreak, and they went after the information of all the people that viewed or commented on his site, his Google blog, his YouTube videos, or Twitter.
The Gestapo wasn't all about gas chambers. It was also about excessive police tactics. All this because somebody exposed a security flaw, something that is done all the time with operating systems, browsers, and other applications.
You need some sense of perspective. For example, while in the US it is true that a non-Christian is unlikely to be made President, it is also true that Christianity is not an official part of the government. I can follow any religion and badmouth Christianity all I want. Abortions are legal, which Christianity is completely against. The priests aren't in direct power.
Now compare the situation to a country like Iran, where it's a theocracy. Compare it to countries where people are sent to jail for calling a teddy bear Muhammed. Compare it to Taliban Afghanistan. You'd have to go back centuries to find comparable countries where Christianity was a similar authority.
A large enough asteroid will sear the planet's surface and the first couple kilometers of rock underneath to the temperature of molten steel.
Well, if you follow the thread, I was replying specifically to Yellowstone, which is "due" now, as opposed to your life-ending asteroid, an event which hasn't happened since life began on Earth billions of years ago.
An aggressive enough pathogen can (and eventually will) get into any nook and cranny you can possibly conceive of.
It'd have to be a 100% killer pathogen. Extremely unlikely. Even a 99.999% killer would still leave a large enough population behind to continue the species.
On Earth, no matter how bad-assed your shelter may be, it may well be surrounded by folks who want in there with you real badly, and will do whatever they can to either get your shelter, or at least help themselves to your stuff.
Still not going to cause the demise of the species, and people probably have secret shelters, anyways.
It's quite likely at some point we'll get off this planet. We just don't need to do it as immediately as some people pretend. China's operating with a big surplus. Let them put their people to work building colonies on the moon.
From a preservationist's standpoint, colonizing space provides more options. Sure, it might be more hospitable on earth, but if you've also got colonies on the moon and (best case) mars too, you've got backups so to speak.
It's also much more expensive, and it's going to be an extremely long time before a self-sustaining colony is in place. The only thing it's really saving you against is a disaster so large it basically wipes out all life on Earth (which Yellowstone likely won't), and that's only if the colony is self-sustaining. Any near-term colony is going to require regular shipments from Earth.
but variance between major earthquakes, flooding, ash clouds and whatever will ensue in a supervolcanic eruption lead to a lot more... variables than you have in say, an underground martian or lunar base
The species has lived through such an eruption before, and we have the science to know what the problems are. It's basically ash and winter climate.
Also: what can you do to prepare for a supervolcano?
Have plans in place to deal with the immediate aftermath (mostly ash), have stockpiles of several years worth of food, and optimize ways to grow food in such an environment. If you think you can come up with a self-sustaining colony on another planet, surely you can build it here on Earth first (as has been tried in the Biosphere 2 experiment).
How much is "quite a bit", and how does it compare with their budget? If you're going to speak authoritatively, then you should be able to provide some numbers.
That's unlikely to be an end to the species. Any money you spent colonizing another world would have more impact preparing for such an event on Earth instead.
The worst part would be a nuclear winter scenario and ensuing famine, but as bad as the environment would be, it would be much more hospital than Mars or the moon.
You've got to be kidding me. GeoHot and fail0verflow uncovered security flaws, and some pathetic gamer responds that they should be shot in the head. Sony was the one to act like a bunch of Gestapo in response to the security flaws. GeoHot and fail0verflow are not responsible for any attacks on Sony's network.
The parent poster also said nothing about supporting attacks on Sony's network, and Anonymous has disavowed that this is their doing. For all anybody knows, Sony is having trouble of their own making and blaming it on outside parties.
As an atheist I find all religion to be unnecessary but if I'm being honest, Islam isn't that much different to Christianity.
I'd think you'd admit that Christianity as a whole has become much more tolerant of criticism and alternate views, is less prone to violence, and is no longer a dominant force in governments. All these things took time.
The situation with Islam today is like looking in the rear-view mirror when Christianity was most oppressive.
You ignored the part about being in a steady state. Not explosively growing doesn't mean you are dying. Your binary view of the business world misses a big middle ground.
Walmart is scared. [..] Walmart's years of explosive growth have ended. The stock price has barely budged over the last 10 years. [..] Walmart isn't going away anytime soon, but they are going away.
I don't understand this idea that a company that isn't undergoing explosive growth is dying. If they rake in billions of profit every year and have a steady market share, but aren't exponentially growing, then they are still doing great.
When they start exponentially losing market share, then you can claim they are dying.
I want the people stealing the information caught, and locked up. They are criminals.
If the suspects were actually breaking into the business and removing papers from filing cabinets, you could call that "stealing information". What's actually occurring is that these businesses are broadcasting their information in an insecure manner. In a free country, how can it be a crime to pick up on that information?
Now, if they then use that information to commit fraud, that's where the true crime is taking place.
Are you comparing what I wrote to the ravings of Mel Gibson now?
I used an extreme example to show that all criticism is not equal. I'm not saying your post was that extreme, but by your logic nobody could ever criticize anybody else's criticism.
I'm sure people do think that mainstream literature includes some beautiful and artistic stuff, because it does, and I never said otherwise.
And sometimes they like it to the exclusion of other stuff. That's the nature of lofty praise.
Now it sounds like you are denying that Sci Fi includes beautiful and artistic works, the way you take issue with me describing it that way.
I'm not denying that it does. It's just that your tone was sounding like the people you were criticizing.
There's no accounting for taste, or so I'm told.
Of course there isn't. I don't know anything about James Patterson except for what I just looked up on Wikipedia, and it amusingly has a note about Stephen King bashing him for his work, but tons of people bash Stephen King in the same vein.
No, you just denigrated me, personally, which of course makes it okay and not hypocritical at all.
Well, yeah. I recently listened to Mel Gibson's tapes where goes off on his wife like a raving lunatic. Can I insult him? Am I being a hypocrite for doing so? Not all criticism is equal.
I'm sorry, but the literary portion of the art world is just as snobby and elitist as the rest of the art world.
The way you were waxing poetic about waxing poetic about your own genre sounded pretty snobby to me too. What is "mainstream literature"? Some people like certain books more than others. Maybe they think it "includes some of the most beautiful and mature artistic works ever published".
I wonder when that particular usage made it into the dictionary. I recall it coming about during the dotcom era of the late 90s by marketing people instead of the word "use".
It may take a lot of skill to do 500 clicks a minute but I don't consider it a sport. A sport IMHO requires a physical component and mental component.
Clicking accurately and fast is a physical component. I agree that mouse-clickers are hardly athletes, but it does require good reflexes, hand-eye coordination, and fast thinking. So in my opinion it just barely qualifies as a sport, though a very weak one in the traditional sense of the term.
So when people tell me their sport of choice is poker I also raise an eyebrow (I don't discriminate).
I agree with you there. If an old man who needs a cane can compete with a young player, calling the game a "sport" is laughable and just sports envy.
Slashdot Mirror
Gartner? Have they ever been right on a consistent basis? They're just a bunch of pundits, no better than any random Slashdotter.
When actual reform happens, then they can be called similar. Until then, Islam today is like Christianity centuries ago: intolerant, authoritarian, and violent.
They did more than just sue him. They went after all his personal devices, they censored him from speaking about the jailbreak, and they went after the information of all the people that viewed or commented on his site, his Google blog, his YouTube videos, or Twitter.
The Gestapo wasn't all about gas chambers. It was also about excessive police tactics. All this because somebody exposed a security flaw, something that is done all the time with operating systems, browsers, and other applications.
You need some sense of perspective. For example, while in the US it is true that a non-Christian is unlikely to be made President, it is also true that Christianity is not an official part of the government. I can follow any religion and badmouth Christianity all I want. Abortions are legal, which Christianity is completely against. The priests aren't in direct power.
Now compare the situation to a country like Iran, where it's a theocracy. Compare it to countries where people are sent to jail for calling a teddy bear Muhammed. Compare it to Taliban Afghanistan. You'd have to go back centuries to find comparable countries where Christianity was a similar authority.
A large enough asteroid will sear the planet's surface and the first couple kilometers of rock underneath to the temperature of molten steel.
Well, if you follow the thread, I was replying specifically to Yellowstone, which is "due" now, as opposed to your life-ending asteroid, an event which hasn't happened since life began on Earth billions of years ago.
An aggressive enough pathogen can (and eventually will) get into any nook and cranny you can possibly conceive of.
It'd have to be a 100% killer pathogen. Extremely unlikely. Even a 99.999% killer would still leave a large enough population behind to continue the species.
On Earth, no matter how bad-assed your shelter may be, it may well be surrounded by folks who want in there with you real badly, and will do whatever they can to either get your shelter, or at least help themselves to your stuff.
Still not going to cause the demise of the species, and people probably have secret shelters, anyways.
It's quite likely at some point we'll get off this planet. We just don't need to do it as immediately as some people pretend. China's operating with a big surplus. Let them put their people to work building colonies on the moon.
From a preservationist's standpoint, colonizing space provides more options. Sure, it might be more hospitable on earth, but if you've also got colonies on the moon and (best case) mars too, you've got backups so to speak.
It's also much more expensive, and it's going to be an extremely long time before a self-sustaining colony is in place. The only thing it's really saving you against is a disaster so large it basically wipes out all life on Earth (which Yellowstone likely won't), and that's only if the colony is self-sustaining. Any near-term colony is going to require regular shipments from Earth.
but variance between major earthquakes, flooding, ash clouds and whatever will ensue in a supervolcanic eruption lead to a lot more... variables than you have in say, an underground martian or lunar base
The species has lived through such an eruption before, and we have the science to know what the problems are. It's basically ash and winter climate.
Also: what can you do to prepare for a supervolcano?
Have plans in place to deal with the immediate aftermath (mostly ash), have stockpiles of several years worth of food, and optimize ways to grow food in such an environment. If you think you can come up with a self-sustaining colony on another planet, surely you can build it here on Earth first (as has been tried in the Biosphere 2 experiment).
How much is "quite a bit", and how does it compare with their budget? If you're going to speak authoritatively, then you should be able to provide some numbers.
Oh, what's that? You have nothing to say?
Do you have any idea how much money NASA has made over the years selling new technologies that they have invented as part of the space program?
How much have they "made", then? And why do they need an operating budget if that's the case, instead of running self-sufficiently?
That's unlikely to be an end to the species. Any money you spent colonizing another world would have more impact preparing for such an event on Earth instead.
The worst part would be a nuclear winter scenario and ensuing famine, but as bad as the environment would be, it would be much more hospital than Mars or the moon.
You've got to be kidding me. GeoHot and fail0verflow uncovered security flaws, and some pathetic gamer responds that they should be shot in the head. Sony was the one to act like a bunch of Gestapo in response to the security flaws. GeoHot and fail0verflow are not responsible for any attacks on Sony's network.
The parent poster also said nothing about supporting attacks on Sony's network, and Anonymous has disavowed that this is their doing. For all anybody knows, Sony is having trouble of their own making and blaming it on outside parties.
As an atheist I find all religion to be unnecessary but if I'm being honest, Islam isn't that much different to Christianity.
I'd think you'd admit that Christianity as a whole has become much more tolerant of criticism and alternate views, is less prone to violence, and is no longer a dominant force in governments. All these things took time.
The situation with Islam today is like looking in the rear-view mirror when Christianity was most oppressive.
You ignored the part about being in a steady state. Not explosively growing doesn't mean you are dying. Your binary view of the business world misses a big middle ground.
Walmart is scared. [..] Walmart's years of explosive growth have ended. The stock price has barely budged over the last 10 years. [..] Walmart isn't going away anytime soon, but they are going away.
I don't understand this idea that a company that isn't undergoing explosive growth is dying. If they rake in billions of profit every year and have a steady market share, but aren't exponentially growing, then they are still doing great.
When they start exponentially losing market share, then you can claim they are dying.
I want the people stealing the information caught, and locked up. They are criminals.
If the suspects were actually breaking into the business and removing papers from filing cabinets, you could call that "stealing information". What's actually occurring is that these businesses are broadcasting their information in an insecure manner. In a free country, how can it be a crime to pick up on that information?
Now, if they then use that information to commit fraud, that's where the true crime is taking place.
Are you comparing what I wrote to the ravings of Mel Gibson now?
I used an extreme example to show that all criticism is not equal. I'm not saying your post was that extreme, but by your logic nobody could ever criticize anybody else's criticism.
I'm sure people do think that mainstream literature includes some beautiful and artistic stuff, because it does, and I never said otherwise.
And sometimes they like it to the exclusion of other stuff. That's the nature of lofty praise.
Now it sounds like you are denying that Sci Fi includes beautiful and artistic works, the way you take issue with me describing it that way.
I'm not denying that it does. It's just that your tone was sounding like the people you were criticizing.
There's no accounting for taste, or so I'm told.
Of course there isn't. I don't know anything about James Patterson except for what I just looked up on Wikipedia, and it amusingly has a note about Stephen King bashing him for his work, but tons of people bash Stephen King in the same vein.
No, you just denigrated me, personally, which of course makes it okay and not hypocritical at all.
Well, yeah. I recently listened to Mel Gibson's tapes where goes off on his wife like a raving lunatic. Can I insult him? Am I being a hypocrite for doing so? Not all criticism is equal.
I'm sorry, but the literary portion of the art world is just as snobby and elitist as the rest of the art world.
The way you were waxing poetic about waxing poetic about your own genre sounded pretty snobby to me too. What is "mainstream literature"? Some people like certain books more than others. Maybe they think it "includes some of the most beautiful and mature artistic works ever published".
I wonder when that particular usage made it into the dictionary. I recall it coming about during the dotcom era of the late 90s by marketing people instead of the word "use".
I didn't try to denigrate a whole class of people while singing the praises of a particular genre.
I'm not personally offended. I just said you sound like an elitist snob with a persecution complex. Just my "hypocrite" radar going off.
You sound like an elitist snob yourself with a persecution complex.
It may take a lot of skill to do 500 clicks a minute but I don't consider it a sport. A sport IMHO requires a physical component and mental component.
Clicking accurately and fast is a physical component. I agree that mouse-clickers are hardly athletes, but it does require good reflexes, hand-eye coordination, and fast thinking. So in my opinion it just barely qualifies as a sport, though a very weak one in the traditional sense of the term.
So when people tell me their sport of choice is poker I also raise an eyebrow (I don't discriminate).
I agree with you there. If an old man who needs a cane can compete with a young player, calling the game a "sport" is laughable and just sports envy.
Are you a macro kind of player? Micro kind of player? no matter, you both have the opportunity to be the best.
If you can't both macro and micro you aren't going to be the "best".
Life's about competition. Darwinism and all that.
Bravo, sir.