That's a vague anecdote and could have been caused by any number of things. IE6 doesn't allow malware by design, which seemed to be the gist of your post. Surely there have been bugs and security flaws, but even Firefox has had those. Firefox is no more secure than IE.
I forgot, your browser is clearly supposed to install all kinds of random crap that messes with settings and toolbars without prompts. Oh wait, other browsers don't do that? Other browsers prompt you before they do things like that? Yes, MS managed to fix a lot of that with IE7, but its still not an excuse for them doing that for the ~2-3 years of IE6.
What, exactly, are you talking about? When I ran IE6 I never had malware install itself. Most malware results from people explicitly installing stuff. The same thing could happen with Firefox.
You actually think being robbed at gun/bomb point is ok, but paying for somebody's music kills your soul? Pretty fucked up. Why don't you and everybody else just listen to off-label music?
That is why it needs to be counterbalanced with a good grounding in critical thinking.
Try that in a country ruled by religious law. That's right, there are whole nations where religion is the law of the land. Even in the United States there are constant battles over teaching evolution in school. We've got "In God We Trust" on the damn currency.
However, to demand that someone not teach their child their religion is just as tyrannical as trying to force people into one.
I never made any such demand. I would certainly argue against it, but that wasn't the point of my reply. My point was the way you paper over the serious conflicts, as if only extremists had a basis for any.
Going back to what I originally posted: As long as they aren't forcing that belief on others. Or trying to harm others who disagree with them.
It's right in the damn book that is the basis for their religion -- from God's mouth to the prophet's ear.
I've never understood why many people can't accept the co-existence of science and religion.
That's because you want to avoid all conflict and pretend there is none. You'll squint and wave your hands to get around it, and call those "extremists" when they don't accept your hand waving.
You know, maybe the Bible/Koran/Torah aren't really literal versions of what happened.
And no matter how fun it is to pick on religious folk, there is really no harm in them believing that there is an invisible sky wizard behind everything. As long as they aren't forcing that belief on others. Or trying to harm others who disagree with them.
You're coming from a modern, multicultural, liberal view of religion. A strict reading of many religious scriptures isn't compatible with this view. You think there's "no harm" in teaching people to accept bullshit and argument by authority? What do you say to a Muslim who says "It's right there in the Koran, somebody who leaves the religion must be killed."?
For example, Windows NT worked too well, so Microsoft released Windows 98
You're mixing up NT with desktop Windows. NT was meant to compete with Unix workstations and servers. People upgrading to Windows 98 were coming from Windows 95, not NT.
I have to pile on here. It's funny to hear you talk admonish one poster over safety and then admit that you try to draft behind trucks. I looked around on the web and the only way you can do that is by following too closely.
Live sports is a special case. For regular programming it doesn't matter if it's seen at original air time or at some later time. DVD sales are big these days. Rights to Internet distribution is getting bigger all the time.
Many still do not understand the Open Source model. If you look at financial markets and talk to business people they don't understand how RedHat and Novell plan to make money selling free software.
Many people in the open source community don't even understand the model. Red Hat makes money via trademark poisoning -- go ahead, try and find a free byte-for-byte copy of Enterprise Red Hat. It's open source, you should be able to, right? Oh, the product source needs to be "scrubbed" and relabeled first?
Novell got married to Microsoft, and offers patent "protection". Yep, pay your protection money to Novel-->Microsoft so you can use open source.
Not many have gotten filthy rich from open source.
How many can even feed themselves doing open source? Making money on open source is like winning the lottery. Most people need a day job writing proprietary software.
All episodes were broadcast to my house "for free" -- and somehow the "TV dudes" made money on it.
The "somehow" is right to distribution based on copyright. The "TV dudes" made money by selling advertising. If there is no copyright, then anybody can copy the program and show it without advertising and without compensating the original producers.
Now, discuss why the support people will NOT make residuals. [...] Since I won't be harming any of those people
Those people would have been paid in the first place if there wasn't an expectation of revenue, which was based on copyright.
I think the type of question i'd ask these bots is something that would require them to extemporize and they'd all fail. For example: "You have two rubber ducks, what are the possible ways you could use them if you don't have a bathtub?"
I'd be impressed if the computer answered: "That's a stupid fucking question."
"Concurrent Programming in Java" is pretty awful for somebody new to threads and looking for practical advice. The writing is just plain bad, and too encyclopedic. The Goetz book is much better.
"I don't have time to read/learn/experience." Excuses. What could be more important than exploring and understanding the nature of the reality you live in? Make time. It's not that hard.
I have a finite amount of time to go on these kinds of investigations -- and that would be the case under any political system. There are more things to investigate than there is time for. I have already spent enough time looking at religions and political whatnots, so I don't go off on random goose chases.
Most people in the West spend a great deal of time with their brains quite fuzzed. This is not accidental.
Yet millions of people every day manage to carry on complex tasks that require intelligent thinking. Do you wear a tinfoil hat to keep the waves out?
I have found that in many areas which count, there is a great deal of garbage, false signal injected which serves to muddy the waters.
How do I know that you aren't a false signal? You're of the type that give conspiracy theories a bad name.
There is a reason there have been SO many court room dramas featured on television over the years, instilling in people a rigid set of rules for the acceptable manner through which knowledge may be collected and conveyed.
If your life hung in the balance, then yes, you'd like that rigid set of rules. Television dramatizes court because it sells. It sells because courts are part of people's lives. No grand conspiracy needed.
One cannot even prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sky is blue without the aid and application of direct experience. But adults feel secure and right in saying, "No. I will not go to see your amazing thing in the backyard. I will sit here in my easy chair, (the jury box), and you must provide me with proof, even extraordinary proof, of your claims before I will deign to accept what you say as true."
That's life. If it were as simple as running out to the backyard, people would do it. If you want to send people out on a wild good chase involving a lot of travel and time, then people will be skeptical, as well they should be. People make up shit all the time, either intentionally or just through naiveté and perception bias. You could spend your whole life investigating bullshit.
"Your level of awareness is YOUR problem. Not anybody else's. If you reject an idea, or 'win' a court case against the acceptance of an idea, then who has truly lost? The one who has the direct experience personally loses nothing by the successfully defended ignorance of another."
If you're trying to get some message out to cause an action (which may ultimately benefit you), then it also becomes YOUR problem if the message isn't accepted.
And this system of thought control is largely implanted through the broad application of television on a population. It is, as I have said, ingenious, if dark in intention.
Or, alternatively, there is no grand conspiracy that orchestrates are lives in some sinister symphony. Do you really think when television was invented it was by "Elitists" to control the masses, using a strobe effect? Do you really think wireless cell phones were invented to replace television for mind control?
You've gotten so deep into your conspiracy that you fit everything into it, instead of taking much simpler explanations.
There are conspiracies, propaganda, and the like, that go on all the time. It's just that many times there aren't conspiracies involved.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a vague anecdote and could have been caused by any number of things. IE6 doesn't allow malware by design, which seemed to be the gist of your post. Surely there have been bugs and security flaws, but even Firefox has had those. Firefox is no more secure than IE.
Unlike those completely innocent people you represent, right?
I forgot, your browser is clearly supposed to install all kinds of random crap that messes with settings and toolbars without prompts. Oh wait, other browsers don't do that? Other browsers prompt you before they do things like that? Yes, MS managed to fix a lot of that with IE7, but its still not an excuse for them doing that for the ~2-3 years of IE6.
What, exactly, are you talking about? When I ran IE6 I never had malware install itself. Most malware results from people explicitly installing stuff. The same thing could happen with Firefox.
You actually think being robbed at gun/bomb point is ok, but paying for somebody's music kills your soul? Pretty fucked up. Why don't you and everybody else just listen to off-label music?
That is why it needs to be counterbalanced with a good grounding in critical thinking.
Try that in a country ruled by religious law. That's right, there are whole nations where religion is the law of the land. Even in the United States there are constant battles over teaching evolution in school. We've got "In God We Trust" on the damn currency.
However, to demand that someone not teach their child their religion is just as tyrannical as trying to force people into one.
I never made any such demand. I would certainly argue against it, but that wasn't the point of my reply. My point was the way you paper over the serious conflicts, as if only extremists had a basis for any.
Going back to what I originally posted:
As long as they aren't forcing that belief on others. Or trying to harm others who disagree with them.
It's right in the damn book that is the basis for their religion -- from God's mouth to the prophet's ear.
OpenBSD made me what I am today.
A dork?
I've never understood why many people can't accept the co-existence of science and religion.
That's because you want to avoid all conflict and pretend there is none. You'll squint and wave your hands to get around it, and call those "extremists" when they don't accept your hand waving.
You know, maybe the Bible/Koran/Torah aren't really literal versions of what happened.
God of the Gaps
And no matter how fun it is to pick on religious folk, there is really no harm in them believing that there is an invisible sky wizard behind everything. As long as they aren't forcing that belief on others. Or trying to harm others who disagree with them.
You're coming from a modern, multicultural, liberal view of religion. A strict reading of many religious scriptures isn't compatible with this view. You think there's "no harm" in teaching people to accept bullshit and argument by authority? What do you say to a Muslim who says "It's right there in the Koran, somebody who leaves the religion must be killed."?
Sure, plenty. Politicians in general don't like holding unpopular positions.
None of those are as bad as the next version of the Wii: the Nintendo Wang.
For example, Windows NT worked too well, so Microsoft released Windows 98
You're mixing up NT with desktop Windows. NT was meant to compete with Unix workstations and servers. People upgrading to Windows 98 were coming from Windows 95, not NT.
In the computer world, I always consider "security" to be a matter of allowing authorized people in and keeping unauthorized people out.
Humans are authorized, automated systems are not. Sounds like security to me.
I'll sell them to you for only $49.99.
People like Icaza are mislead by MS
People like Icaza are smart enough to know the game. If they are mislead it is because of their own choosing.
I have to pile on here. It's funny to hear you talk admonish one poster over safety and then admit that you try to draft behind trucks. I looked around on the web and the only way you can do that is by following too closely.
Live sports is a special case. For regular programming it doesn't matter if it's seen at original air time or at some later time. DVD sales are big these days. Rights to Internet distribution is getting bigger all the time.
You're doing an excellent job :)
Did I make it clear how much of a fool you are making yourself look?
No, try harder.
Many still do not understand the Open Source model. If you look at financial markets and talk to business people they don't understand how RedHat and Novell plan to make money selling free software.
Many people in the open source community don't even understand the model. Red Hat makes money via trademark poisoning -- go ahead, try and find a free byte-for-byte copy of Enterprise Red Hat. It's open source, you should be able to, right? Oh, the product source needs to be "scrubbed" and relabeled first?
Novell got married to Microsoft, and offers patent "protection". Yep, pay your protection money to Novel-->Microsoft so you can use open source.
Not many have gotten filthy rich from open source.
How many can even feed themselves doing open source? Making money on open source is like winning the lottery. Most people need a day job writing proprietary software.
All episodes were broadcast to my house "for free" -- and somehow the "TV dudes" made money on it.
The "somehow" is right to distribution based on copyright. The "TV dudes" made money by selling advertising. If there is no copyright, then anybody can copy the program and show it without advertising and without compensating the original producers.
Now, discuss why the support people will NOT make residuals. [...] Since I won't be harming any of those people
Those people would have been paid in the first place if there wasn't an expectation of revenue, which was based on copyright.
is the sound of a company dieing
Oh, my eyes. It's spelled dying.
I think the type of question i'd ask these bots is something that would require them to extemporize and they'd all fail. For example: "You have two rubber ducks, what are the possible ways you could use them if you don't have a bathtub?"
I'd be impressed if the computer answered: "That's a stupid fucking question."
An e-reader will be worthwhile when it costs $100 or less and is the size of a magazine.
"Concurrent Programming in Java" is pretty awful for somebody new to threads and looking for practical advice. The writing is just plain bad, and too encyclopedic. The Goetz book is much better.
"I don't have time to read/learn/experience." Excuses. What could be more important than exploring and understanding the nature of the reality you live in? Make time. It's not that hard.
I have a finite amount of time to go on these kinds of investigations -- and that would be the case under any political system. There are more things to investigate than there is time for. I have already spent enough time looking at religions and political whatnots, so I don't go off on random goose chases.
Most people in the West spend a great deal of time with their brains quite fuzzed. This is not accidental.
Yet millions of people every day manage to carry on complex tasks that require intelligent thinking. Do you wear a tinfoil hat to keep the waves out?
I have found that in many areas which count, there is a great deal of garbage, false signal injected which serves to muddy the waters.
How do I know that you aren't a false signal? You're of the type that give conspiracy theories a bad name.
There is a reason there have been SO many court room dramas featured on television over the years, instilling in people a rigid set of rules for the acceptable manner through which knowledge may be collected and conveyed.
If your life hung in the balance, then yes, you'd like that rigid set of rules. Television dramatizes court because it sells. It sells because courts are part of people's lives. No grand conspiracy needed.
One cannot even prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sky is blue without the aid and application of direct experience. But adults feel secure and right in saying, "No. I will not go to see your amazing thing in the backyard. I will sit here in my easy chair, (the jury box), and you must provide me with proof, even extraordinary proof, of your claims before I will deign to accept what you say as true."
That's life. If it were as simple as running out to the backyard, people would do it. If you want to send people out on a wild good chase involving a lot of travel and time, then people will be skeptical, as well they should be. People make up shit all the time, either intentionally or just through naiveté and perception bias. You could spend your whole life investigating bullshit.
"Your level of awareness is YOUR problem. Not anybody else's. If you reject an idea, or 'win' a court case against the acceptance of an idea, then who has truly lost? The one who has the direct experience personally loses nothing by the successfully defended ignorance of another."
If you're trying to get some message out to cause an action (which may ultimately benefit you), then it also becomes YOUR problem if the message isn't accepted.
And this system of thought control is largely implanted through the broad application of television on a population. It is, as I have said, ingenious, if dark in intention.
Or, alternatively, there is no grand conspiracy that orchestrates are lives in some sinister symphony. Do you really think when television was invented it was by "Elitists" to control the masses, using a strobe effect? Do you really think wireless cell phones were invented to replace television for mind control?
You've gotten so deep into your conspiracy that you fit everything into it, instead of taking much simpler explanations.
There are conspiracies, propaganda, and the like, that go on all the time. It's just that many times there aren't conspiracies involved.