Religion is the original strong belief system upon which all others are based. Stalin may have been an atheist, but his regime and cult of personality was a lot like a religion.
If you make the statement, "religion has caused so much more suffering in the world than it has ever managed to prevent, for example how wars may be started by people, but wartime atrocities almost always require religion to be involved", then it's bullshit to include governments that specifically denied religion.
What is being argued against is supernatural belief in a deity. If you move the goalposts to include any strong belief system, the original argument is meaningless.
So when Stalin wanted somebody executed, for example, there were plenty of unthinking people around him who would blindly follow his orders.
Those that didn't follow his orders would be tortured and killed. He was a tyrannical dictator. But you don't need Stalin to find war atrocities. Name a war and you can find them, such as the My Lai Massacre.
What the Internet did, however, was to introduce me to the writings of authors such as, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Their books describe in great detail how religion has caused so much more suffering in the world than it has ever managed to prevent, for example how wars may be started by people, but wartime atrocities almost always require religion to be involved.
I'm an atheist, but I still see this as a bullshit argument. It's just redefining religion as any strong belief system. The communists explicitly said religion is bullshit and committed atrocities aplenty.
I pondered it for quite a while because the logic is very appealing, but it truly doesn't hold up under careful scrutiny when confronted with either life or Christian doctrine. I'm surprised how often atheists like to make it.
And as an atheist, I'm surprised when rational adults appeal to primitive mythological stories.
I have a son. I allow him to play hockey even though it could result in a serious injury or even death. I let him date girls even though he could get his heart broken. When he was two, I let him work his way up and down flights of steps. And yet I love him and would give up my life for him. I see the big picture even when he doesn't.
[bold mine]
So you admit you wouldn't stand by while he was gang raped, tortured, and murdered. What would you think of a parent who did?
I didn't sign the contract. I was just doing a favor.
This is entirely the problem. On one hand you say you were just doing a friend a favor, on the other hand you enabled advertisements for the video. Now it isn't just a pro bono favor anymore. You say you were just trying to recoup expenses, but what happens if the video goes viral? Who gets the money then?
Since your friend is in business and so are you, it's best to get these things worked out in advance, especially when it comes to ownership and money.
Ever seen a non-compete clause in a contract? They are standard operating procedure now and companies will actively threaten you with them. So my point stands.
No, your point doesn't stand. They can't lock you out of the entire computer industry. At best they are against direct competition. They aren't even valid in California. You also have the freedom not to sign one. And even if you did sign one, you can still quit.
You seem to have the Hollywood definition in your head when the reality is very different. Most slaves were indentured servants and still are.
Even if I accepted that, it still isn't the case here. But even that is a stretch because the "Hollywood" version of slavery did exist. The agricultural industry of the Southern United States was based on it, and the issue resulted in a civil war.
The slavery angle is a stupid analogy by privileged and highly paid tech workers.
Yes, there's a huge difference. In one scenario, if you try to leave your owner you are a fugitive of the law. In this scenario, you can always get another job. Just because a few big name companies prevented poaching doesn't mean you couldn't find work at the countless number of startups or established companies. The comparison is ridiculous and insulting to the people who experienced the atrocities of slavery.
You're just redefining terms in contradictory fashion. There was no appeal to a divine being, hence no theocracy. Putting the leader on a pedestal is not the same as saying the supernatural ruler in the sky has blessed your rule. It may share similar dogmatic values, but it is still different.
A site admin dropping in a Facebook-authenticated comment system isn't doing so in order to make lots of money for Facebook in selling your data, he's doing it because he's heard that forcing a modicum of self-identification cuts down in flame wars.
Or he's a lazy slackass that thinks "everybody uses Facebook".
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to more than mathematics. You could apply it to the system that makes up a server. You might be able to prove that you could not prove that the system is secure.
Handwaving at Godel is a very poor argument. Now you introduce the qualifier "might". The original (and incorrect) statement was: "If you think you can make something hack-proof purely out of software, let me introduce you to Kurl Godel."
Not that you'd need Godel for that. Experience and common sense should point you in the same direction.
Experience and common sense tells me that very little effort is spent trying to write software that is provably secure. It is entirely possible to prove properties about programs.
If it's server-accessible, it's hackable and subject to theft. If you think you can make something hack-proof purely out of software, let me introduce you to Kurl Godel.
You don't know what you are talking about. Godel's theorems were specifically about mathematical axiom systems, consistency, and completeness. It does not say it is impossible to write hack-proof software.
Correct me if I'm wrong... Poland broke away and became independent from Russia during the Russian Civil War.
Poland's east was Russia. West is Germany.
I'm not really sure what your point is. You can read the history of Poland on Wikipedia just as well as I can. Like many countries and territories, it was ruled over and conquered by different countries, and at various times gained independence. What does any of this have to do with Poland conquering Russia, as was claimed?
That statement reads to me as though Polish forces tried to capitalise on the mayhem in Russia and took advantage of the situation.
Which says nothing different than what I already summarized in my last post, per "least favorable view" and "most favorable". Still don't see any evidence that Poland was out to conquer Russia.
The American settlers fought wars and drove the native Americans off their land onto reservations. But they were no more exterminated than were the Tatars.
If you were not indoctrinated into a specific school of thought, you would not have asked that ignorant question.
Maybe you mean if I was indoctrinated into a specific school of thought, in particular the Soviet Union era? And perhaps modern Russia, too? I don't know what they teach in their history books, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was one-sided.
OP was referring to the most recent war before Soviet Russia invaded Poland for the last time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...â"Soviet_War
You screwed up your link, but it seems you were trying to point here. Note it does not support the view that Poland was trying to conquer Russia. It explicitly says it wasn't:
"On the other hand, Poland had no intention of joining the Western intervention in the Russian Civil War[16] or of conquering Russia itself.[37]"
In the least favorable view of Poland, it was trying to do a land grab alongside its borders. In the most favorable view, they were trying to secure their country from an imperialistic Russia that was going to invade them anyways when the opportunity arose. It's all in the Wikipedia article.
I'm not assuming either right or wrong. What I am assuming is that he clearly moved to Las Vegas to avoid paying California taxes. Whether it was legal or not is one thing, but it's a shady tactic either way.
Pardon me if I don't take your biased word on any of this.
Some originally joined Russian Empire completely voluntarily like Georgia.
Annexed into the Russian Empire, then became independent, and then conquered by the USSR.
Some didn't even have a state when those territories were colonized and have them now simply because they weren't exterminated like American natives.
The native Americans weren't exterminated. Since we're talking about Crimea, you can draw parallels to the forced deportation of the Tatars.
Some are failed conquerors of Russia themselves, like Poland and Lithuania.
When did Poland ever try to conquer Russia? It's the other way around. They've been subjugated by Russian rule numerous times.
Most post soviet countries are artificial. Some of peoples that stayed within Russian Federation have more claims to sovereignty than those states. Making them independent was pointless. Many of them got even worse regimes than the past soviet one. Russian Federation happens to be one of more democratic ones. I think all of them would be better off staying in the same state and building their post-soviet future together.
Partition of Soviet Union was a joke, most of its people was against it.
If you mean most Russians were against it, that wouldn't surprise me. If you mean the people in the countries being subjugated to rule from Russia, you're clearly biased.
Under dispute. Actually, he eventually lost his patent, but not until after he managed to extract millions in licensing fees from it. An anti-Hyatt page.
successfully sued the state of California for nearly $400 million because they tried to extort taxes he didn't owe out of him
Whether he owes them or not is still not settled. He won money from California on the basis of a Nevada jury for California's auditory process. The bottom line is that he moved to Las Vegas to avoid California taxes from his license windfall.
So far, everything he's done relating to tech has been righteous imo, let's cut him some slack.
From the article: "While some of Hyatt's patents predate or are contemporary with those granted to executives at Intel and Texas Instruments Inc., those companies made products that changed the world, Bassett said.
"I respect Gilbert Hyatt's work -- the process of engineering is difficult," Bassett said in a telephone interview. "But innovations are more than ideas. The broader context matters. If Gilbert Hyatt had never existed, I believe the microprocessor would have developed in the same way that it did.""
Slashdot Mirror
The fundamental limit to resolution is signal-to-nose.
Otherwise known as the Pinocchio ratio.
Religion is the original strong belief system upon which all others are based. Stalin may have been an atheist, but his regime and cult of personality was a lot like a religion.
If you make the statement, "religion has caused so much more suffering in the world than it has ever managed to prevent, for example how wars may be started by people, but wartime atrocities almost always require religion to be involved", then it's bullshit to include governments that specifically denied religion.
What is being argued against is supernatural belief in a deity. If you move the goalposts to include any strong belief system, the original argument is meaningless.
So when Stalin wanted somebody executed, for example, there were plenty of unthinking people around him who would blindly follow his orders.
Those that didn't follow his orders would be tortured and killed. He was a tyrannical dictator. But you don't need Stalin to find war atrocities. Name a war and you can find them, such as the My Lai Massacre.
Rather than weaselly, theodp is just dumb.
He's both.
What the Internet did, however, was to introduce me to the writings of authors such as, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Their books describe in great detail how religion has caused so much more suffering in the world than it has ever managed to prevent, for example how wars may be started by people, but wartime atrocities almost always require religion to be involved.
I'm an atheist, but I still see this as a bullshit argument. It's just redefining religion as any strong belief system. The communists explicitly said religion is bullshit and committed atrocities aplenty.
I pondered it for quite a while because the logic is very appealing, but it truly doesn't hold up under careful scrutiny when confronted with either life or Christian doctrine. I'm surprised how often atheists like to make it.
And as an atheist, I'm surprised when rational adults appeal to primitive mythological stories.
I have a son. I allow him to play hockey even though it could result in a serious injury or even death. I let him date girls even though he could get his heart broken. When he was two, I let him work his way up and down flights of steps. And yet I love him and would give up my life for him. I see the big picture even when he doesn't.
[bold mine]
So you admit you wouldn't stand by while he was gang raped, tortured, and murdered. What would you think of a parent who did?
I didn't sign the contract. I was just doing a favor.
This is entirely the problem. On one hand you say you were just doing a friend a favor, on the other hand you enabled advertisements for the video. Now it isn't just a pro bono favor anymore. You say you were just trying to recoup expenses, but what happens if the video goes viral? Who gets the money then?
Since your friend is in business and so are you, it's best to get these things worked out in advance, especially when it comes to ownership and money.
If it just that high
That should read "If it jumped that high.
Tiobe is notoriously inaccurate. If it just that high, it was probably due to a change in their dodgy methodology.
Ever seen a non-compete clause in a contract? They are standard operating procedure now and companies will actively threaten you with them. So my point stands.
No, your point doesn't stand. They can't lock you out of the entire computer industry. At best they are against direct competition. They aren't even valid in California. You also have the freedom not to sign one. And even if you did sign one, you can still quit.
You seem to have the Hollywood definition in your head when the reality is very different. Most slaves were indentured servants and still are.
Even if I accepted that, it still isn't the case here. But even that is a stretch because the "Hollywood" version of slavery did exist. The agricultural industry of the Southern United States was based on it, and the issue resulted in a civil war.
The slavery angle is a stupid analogy by privileged and highly paid tech workers.
Is it that far off really?
Yes, there's a huge difference. In one scenario, if you try to leave your owner you are a fugitive of the law. In this scenario, you can always get another job. Just because a few big name companies prevented poaching doesn't mean you couldn't find work at the countless number of startups or established companies. The comparison is ridiculous and insulting to the people who experienced the atrocities of slavery.
Wait, it says "RESOLVED FIXED", does that mean Red Hat fired him and revoked his commit access?
Come on, mods. This is either Insightful or Funny, not Interesting.
The essence of theocracy is not an appeal to a divine being.
You're making up your own definitions. A dictionary reference:
"1: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided"
USSR was a secular theocracy.
You're just redefining terms in contradictory fashion. There was no appeal to a divine being, hence no theocracy. Putting the leader on a pedestal is not the same as saying the supernatural ruler in the sky has blessed your rule. It may share similar dogmatic values, but it is still different.
A site admin dropping in a Facebook-authenticated comment system isn't doing so in order to make lots of money for Facebook in selling your data, he's doing it because he's heard that forcing a modicum of self-identification cuts down in flame wars.
Or he's a lazy slackass that thinks "everybody uses Facebook".
So strlen is "perfectly safe to use", except when it isn't. It's just yet another example of a C's error-prone approach to programming.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to more than mathematics. You could apply it to the system that makes up a server. You might be able to prove that you could not prove that the system is secure.
Handwaving at Godel is a very poor argument. Now you introduce the qualifier "might". The original (and incorrect) statement was: "If you think you can make something hack-proof purely out of software, let me introduce you to Kurl Godel."
Not that you'd need Godel for that. Experience and common sense should point you in the same direction.
Experience and common sense tells me that very little effort is spent trying to write software that is provably secure. It is entirely possible to prove properties about programs.
A bad tradesman blames his tools.
A bad tradesman uses poor tools.
If it's server-accessible, it's hackable and subject to theft. If you think you can make something hack-proof purely out of software, let me introduce you to Kurl Godel.
You don't know what you are talking about. Godel's theorems were specifically about mathematical axiom systems, consistency, and completeness. It does not say it is impossible to write hack-proof software.
Correct me if I'm wrong... Poland broke away and became independent from Russia during the Russian Civil War.
Poland's east was Russia. West is Germany.
I'm not really sure what your point is. You can read the history of Poland on Wikipedia just as well as I can. Like many countries and territories, it was ruled over and conquered by different countries, and at various times gained independence. What does any of this have to do with Poland conquering Russia, as was claimed?
That statement reads to me as though Polish forces tried to capitalise on the mayhem in Russia and took advantage of the situation.
Which says nothing different than what I already summarized in my last post, per "least favorable view" and "most favorable". Still don't see any evidence that Poland was out to conquer Russia.
The word "almost" was required.
The American settlers fought wars and drove the native Americans off their land onto reservations. But they were no more exterminated than were the Tatars.
If you were not indoctrinated into a specific school of thought, you would not have asked that ignorant question.
Maybe you mean if I was indoctrinated into a specific school of thought, in particular the Soviet Union era? And perhaps modern Russia, too? I don't know what they teach in their history books, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was one-sided.
OP was referring to the most recent war before Soviet Russia invaded Poland for the last time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...â"Soviet_War
You screwed up your link, but it seems you were trying to point here. Note it does not support the view that Poland was trying to conquer Russia. It explicitly says it wasn't:
"On the other hand, Poland had no intention of joining the Western intervention in the Russian Civil War[16] or of conquering Russia itself.[37]"
In the least favorable view of Poland, it was trying to do a land grab alongside its borders. In the most favorable view, they were trying to secure their country from an imperialistic Russia that was going to invade them anyways when the opportunity arose. It's all in the Wikipedia article.
I'm not assuming either right or wrong. What I am assuming is that he clearly moved to Las Vegas to avoid paying California taxes. Whether it was legal or not is one thing, but it's a shady tactic either way.
The thing is that most of them weren't.
Pardon me if I don't take your biased word on any of this.
Some originally joined Russian Empire completely voluntarily like Georgia.
Annexed into the Russian Empire, then became independent, and then conquered by the USSR.
Some didn't even have a state when those territories were colonized and have them now simply because they weren't exterminated like American natives.
The native Americans weren't exterminated. Since we're talking about Crimea, you can draw parallels to the forced deportation of the Tatars.
Some are failed conquerors of Russia themselves, like Poland and Lithuania.
When did Poland ever try to conquer Russia? It's the other way around. They've been subjugated by Russian rule numerous times.
Most post soviet countries are artificial. Some of peoples that stayed within Russian Federation have more claims to sovereignty than those states. Making them independent was pointless. Many of them got even worse regimes than the past soviet one. Russian Federation happens to be one of more democratic ones. I think all of them would be better off staying in the same state and building their post-soviet future together.
Sorry, your word on this is meaningless.
Partition of Soviet Union was a joke, most of its people was against it.
If you mean most Russians were against it, that wouldn't surprise me. If you mean the people in the countries being subjugated to rule from Russia, you're clearly biased.
This guy invented the microprocessor
Under dispute. Actually, he eventually lost his patent, but not until after he managed to extract millions in licensing fees from it. An anti-Hyatt page.
successfully sued the state of California for nearly $400 million because they tried to extort taxes he didn't owe out of him
Whether he owes them or not is still not settled. He won money from California on the basis of a Nevada jury for California's auditory process. The bottom line is that he moved to Las Vegas to avoid California taxes from his license windfall.
So far, everything he's done relating to tech has been righteous imo, let's cut him some slack.
From the article: "While some of Hyatt's patents predate or are contemporary with those granted to executives at Intel and Texas Instruments Inc., those companies made products that changed the world, Bassett said.
"I respect Gilbert Hyatt's work -- the process of engineering is difficult," Bassett said in a telephone interview. "But innovations are more than ideas. The broader context matters. If Gilbert Hyatt had never existed, I believe the microprocessor would have developed in the same way that it did.""