OK, this is typical. Dishonesty is OK if you're trying to prove a point about your religion? You want to have a "honest conversation"? Your post shows that you don't have a clue what that is.
Your number 10 is conveniently worded to omit the terms "wife" and "manservant/maidservant" from the list of property that one should not covet. That 10th commandment implicitly says that wives are property, as well as slaves.
So don't tell me what's in the Bible. I think I know it better than you. For example, you'll probably deny that there's at least two references to drinking your own urine in there, as well as a threat from god to rub shit in your face unless you believe in him.
Actually, they WOULD be farther ahead. It can't be any worse than listening to people who think "NUCULAR? I don't want no nucular plants in my backyard. It might blow up and destroy the Earth! We've got to stop all this nucular technology because I'm afeard of radiation making my turnips too large to fit into my icebox." All of the people on this thread who didn't post as an anonymous coward don't seem to have that knee-jerk fear that blocks some people from even considering possible alternatives like breeder reactor fuel recycling.
I'm pretty sure that we have breeders. We have plutonium, right? Reactors that make weapons grade plutonium are essentially the same as breeders, except it takes longer to make reactor grade fuel for a power plant. Since the government is handling the waste disposal problem, let them handle the operation of the breeders and the security concerns around the plutonium.
Yes, I didn't mean to say that all reactors are breeders. Most reactors would be regular reactors. The breeders are used for fuel recycling.
And, the possiblity of cool sodium fireworks is something that I hadn't considered, but it definitely is a bonus for the breeder reactor system.:-)
Good idea. I just tried that with my boss. Now I have another question: do you know anybody that is hiring a UNIX/C++ programmer with 12 years experience?
There's always somebody who doesn't understand at all. The Bill of Rights is not a good thing because it's old. It's good because it's a liberal code of values. If the Bill of Rights was 5 minutes old, it would be equally as good.
In other words, the goodness of the Bill of Rights is not at all related to how old it is.
Furthermore, it's not proper to say that something old has lasted because it is good. Your other example, the ten commandments, has among other things, and implicit approval of slavery and classification of women as second class citizens. This clearly is not good at all, and there are newer codifications of law that do a MUCH better job than the ten commandments. The ten commandments is old, but not because it's the best idea that's available. It's old because it is old.
I got my figures the hell from the Internet!:-)
I am aware that breeders generate plutonium. That gets burned in your nuclear reactor along with the uranium. The French do this already.
Did you think I was LYING when I said that documentation was my greatest weakness? What part didn't you understand? SHEESH! This is another reason I hate writing documentation. Most people aren't intelligent enough to understand what you've taken the trouble to write.
This doesn't seem like it's the best solution here. I can think of two alternatives that aren't being used or investigated:
1) subduction zones. Put the waste deep into a subduction zone instead of a stable region like Yucca Mtn. Instead of hanging around basically forever, the waste will be pulled underneath the Earth's crust eventually.
2) Breeder reactors. Using breeder reactors would allow ALL of the Uranium isotopes to be burned in the production of energy, not just the U-235. That means that the ultimate waste product of the reactors would have a half-life of under 30 years instead of thousands of years. France deals with their nuclear waste like this already, and we should too.
The fact that it's a logical fallacy IS the refutation. If the age of something is the only things that's being considered, AND if age is irrelevant, then it's not logically correct to use age to argue that something sucks.
If someone says that such and such a law sucks because it's old, you can ask them if they think that laws against rape and murder suck because they are old.
The next time someone asks you that inane question "What is your greatest weakness?" you can just answer that writing documentation is your greatest weakness, but sometimes you've got to do things you don't like to do, so you tend to rely on document generating tools. Nobody likes to do docs, so he'll know exactly what you mean, and you can pat yourself on the back for answering a stupid question in a way that makes you look smart.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/7444/logic.html">Look Here for fallacies (at the end)</a>
Argumentum ad antiquitatem
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been."
Argumentum ad novitatem
This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it's the fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else.
The keys would be signed like free software is distributed. You can sell it or not. To get on Usenet for free you'd have to find somebody who would sign a key for you. It's up to the key signer to decide if they trust the person they are signing. After all, if that guy spams, then the key signer could ultimately have his certificate revoked.
I see this as a volunteer system. Lots of people currently spend their time tracking down spammers, issuing cancels, etc. So far their success has been incomplete. Much spam is stopped, but much is not. Instead of spending time with cancels and other spam hunting, they would spend time managing the certificate system. That would consist solely of revoking certificates of abusers and optionally the people who sign the keys.
There's a subtle thing here: it works both ways. Suppose you go to a shady person to get your key signed. You're posting along happily, and then everything starts getting rejected back to you. What happened? You discover that the person who signed your key also signed a key for 100 spammers, and got his certificate revoked. That makes your certificate invalid. The pressure here would be for the users to find reliable people to sign their keys, as well as for the signers to find reliable non-spammers to sign keys for.
So you see, there's no need to verify any actual identity. I could get a certificate made out to my dogs Pepper and Darwin, signed by some other dude named "Anonymous Coward" who ultimately has a certificate signed by the root authority, say Linus Torvalds. You don't need to know the actual identities of the people involved, only that their certificates fit into the chain properly. All the details of trust are properly left to the leaves of the tree.
I actually don't have these books on my bookshelf right now, but at various times in the past the copies from the library have been there. Does that count?:-)
I have to second the statement that these are the BEST computer science books available. They were written a long time ago and it is a bit humbling to realize that nearly all of the programming algorithms we use now were figured out by that time. These books are written in an entertaining manner, and they have clear explanations of everything. They are not beginner's books and they don't shy away from the math. I suspect that 100 years from now people will still be reading these books in the same way that English majors still read Shakespeare.
I agree 100% with you, and I'm thinking specifically of Usenet. I can imagine a Usenet where everyone has a certificate signed by a trusted authority, or signed by someone who was signed by a trusted authority.
When a message is posted, the certificate goes along for the ride. Everything must check out before the server accepts the message.
If someone spams, their certificate is revoked. If someone is signing spammers certificates consistently, then THEIR certificate is revoked.
It would make a HUGE dent in the usability of the Usenet, and unlike Usenet II, it wouldn't require a system of trusted servers.
I've thought about this for a while, and I'm very interested in what others think of this scheme.
That didn't count for much. Europe was a theatre in a war, and even in peacetime the output of Europe didn't match the US. Remember that the United States was involved in a fight to the death with two of the most powerful countries in the world, as well as supply arms to all of the other allies, AND sending a large part of the workforce overseas to fight.
Yet, in the middle of all that, the United States undertook the largest and most expensive research project of all time, and did it with what was essentially spare/leftover resources.
THAT's how big the US economy was compared to the rest of the world at that time, and it shows a giant reason why Germany would not have been able to build a bomb in time to be used during the war.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, this is typical. Dishonesty is OK if you're trying to prove a point about your religion? You want to have a "honest conversation"? Your post shows that you don't have a clue what that is.
Your number 10 is conveniently worded to omit the terms "wife" and "manservant/maidservant" from the list of property that one should not covet. That 10th commandment implicitly says that wives are property, as well as slaves.
So don't tell me what's in the Bible. I think I know it better than you. For example, you'll probably deny that there's at least two references to drinking your own urine in there, as well as a threat from god to rub shit in your face unless you believe in him.
No thanks, I'm not about to kneel to a bully.
Actually, they WOULD be farther ahead. It can't be any worse than listening to people who think "NUCULAR? I don't want no nucular plants in my backyard. It might blow up and destroy the Earth! We've got to stop all this nucular technology because I'm afeard of radiation making my turnips too large to fit into my icebox." All of the people on this thread who didn't post as an anonymous coward don't seem to have that knee-jerk fear that blocks some people from even considering possible alternatives like breeder reactor fuel recycling.
I'm pretty sure that we have breeders. We have plutonium, right? Reactors that make weapons grade plutonium are essentially the same as breeders, except it takes longer to make reactor grade fuel for a power plant. Since the government is handling the waste disposal problem, let them handle the operation of the breeders and the security concerns around the plutonium.
Yes, I didn't mean to say that all reactors are breeders. Most reactors would be regular reactors. The breeders are used for fuel recycling. And, the possiblity of cool sodium fireworks is something that I hadn't considered, but it definitely is a bonus for the breeder reactor system. :-)
Good idea. I just tried that with my boss. Now I have another question: do you know anybody that is hiring a UNIX/C++ programmer with 12 years experience?
Not Visible is a tongue in the cheek. Outside of mouth to be seen tongue must be.
There's always somebody who doesn't understand at all. The Bill of Rights is not a good thing because it's old. It's good because it's a liberal code of values. If the Bill of Rights was 5 minutes old, it would be equally as good. In other words, the goodness of the Bill of Rights is not at all related to how old it is. Furthermore, it's not proper to say that something old has lasted because it is good. Your other example, the ten commandments, has among other things, and implicit approval of slavery and classification of women as second class citizens. This clearly is not good at all, and there are newer codifications of law that do a MUCH better job than the ten commandments. The ten commandments is old, but not because it's the best idea that's available. It's old because it is old.
I guess all that plutonium in our nation's nukes was generated by hamasters then?
I got my figures the hell from the Internet! :-)
I am aware that breeders generate plutonium. That gets burned in your nuclear reactor along with the uranium. The French do this already.
Did you think I was LYING when I said that documentation was my greatest weakness? What part didn't you understand? SHEESH! This is another reason I hate writing documentation. Most people aren't intelligent enough to understand what you've taken the trouble to write.
This doesn't seem like it's the best solution here. I can think of two alternatives that aren't being used or investigated: 1) subduction zones. Put the waste deep into a subduction zone instead of a stable region like Yucca Mtn. Instead of hanging around basically forever, the waste will be pulled underneath the Earth's crust eventually. 2) Breeder reactors. Using breeder reactors would allow ALL of the Uranium isotopes to be burned in the production of energy, not just the U-235. That means that the ultimate waste product of the reactors would have a half-life of under 30 years instead of thousands of years. France deals with their nuclear waste like this already, and we should too.
The fact that it's a logical fallacy IS the refutation. If the age of something is the only things that's being considered, AND if age is irrelevant, then it's not logically correct to use age to argue that something sucks. If someone says that such and such a law sucks because it's old, you can ask them if they think that laws against rape and murder suck because they are old.
Check the website: here
Our sun is actually pale green in color. So that's yet another thing that makes us average.
The next time someone asks you that inane question "What is your greatest weakness?" you can just answer that writing documentation is your greatest weakness, but sometimes you've got to do things you don't like to do, so you tend to rely on document generating tools. Nobody likes to do docs, so he'll know exactly what you mean, and you can pat yourself on the back for answering a stupid question in a way that makes you look smart.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/7444 /logic.html">Look Here for fallacies (at the end)</a>
Argumentum ad antiquitatem
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been."
Argumentum ad novitatem
This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it's the fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else.
The keys would be signed like free software is distributed. You can sell it or not. To get on Usenet for free you'd have to find somebody who would sign a key for you. It's up to the key signer to decide if they trust the person they are signing. After all, if that guy spams, then the key signer could ultimately have his certificate revoked.
I see this as a volunteer system. Lots of people currently spend their time tracking down spammers, issuing cancels, etc. So far their success has been incomplete. Much spam is stopped, but much is not. Instead of spending time with cancels and other spam hunting, they would spend time managing the certificate system. That would consist solely of revoking certificates of abusers and optionally the people who sign the keys.
There's a subtle thing here: it works both ways. Suppose you go to a shady person to get your key signed. You're posting along happily, and then everything starts getting rejected back to you. What happened? You discover that the person who signed your key also signed a key for 100 spammers, and got his certificate revoked. That makes your certificate invalid. The pressure here would be for the users to find reliable people to sign their keys, as well as for the signers to find reliable non-spammers to sign keys for.
So you see, there's no need to verify any actual identity. I could get a certificate made out to my dogs Pepper and Darwin, signed by some other dude named "Anonymous Coward" who ultimately has a certificate signed by the root authority, say Linus Torvalds. You don't need to know the actual identities of the people involved, only that their certificates fit into the chain properly. All the details of trust are properly left to the leaves of the tree.
I actually don't have these books on my bookshelf right now, but at various times in the past the copies from the library have been there. Does that count? :-)
I have to second the statement that these are the BEST computer science books available. They were written a long time ago and it is a bit humbling to realize that nearly all of the programming algorithms we use now were figured out by that time. These books are written in an entertaining manner, and they have clear explanations of everything. They are not beginner's books and they don't shy away from the math. I suspect that 100 years from now people will still be reading these books in the same way that English majors still read Shakespeare.
I agree 100% with you, and I'm thinking specifically of Usenet. I can imagine a Usenet where everyone has a certificate signed by a trusted authority, or signed by someone who was signed by a trusted authority.
When a message is posted, the certificate goes along for the ride. Everything must check out before the server accepts the message.
If someone spams, their certificate is revoked. If someone is signing spammers certificates consistently, then THEIR certificate is revoked.
It would make a HUGE dent in the usability of the Usenet, and unlike Usenet II, it wouldn't require a system of trusted servers.
I've thought about this for a while, and I'm very interested in what others think of this scheme.
That didn't count for much. Europe was a theatre in a war, and even in peacetime the output of Europe didn't match the US. Remember that the United States was involved in a fight to the death with two of the most powerful countries in the world, as well as supply arms to all of the other allies, AND sending a large part of the workforce overseas to fight.
Yet, in the middle of all that, the United States undertook the largest and most expensive research project of all time, and did it with what was essentially spare/leftover resources.
THAT's how big the US economy was compared to the rest of the world at that time, and it shows a giant reason why Germany would not have been able to build a bomb in time to be used during the war.
Did I say that I didn't have something implemented? No. I'm just saying that a virus will do real damage to my computer that will take time to fix.
I heard that we narrowly missed TWA being turned into TW@. Huh huh. He said TW@.
Windows ME and QT whatever is on Apple's site right now.
On my systems, the damage would be limited to the account that I would accidentally run a virus in - my user account.
Unfortunately, EVERYTHING that is important is under that account. Everything that's NOT under the account was installed from my Debian CD's.
Limited damage means limited only to the most important files on my machine in this case.
Well actually, since I'm an atheist, you don't exactly express the sentiment I feel.