One is proven by science. The other is "proven" by Al Gore:)
What I resent about the latter is that there was plenty of scientific evidence before/after Al Gore's stupid movie, but that bit of "science" only got momentum because of the movie. We shouldn't make decisions based on what's popular. We should make decision based on scientific fact.
So to reiterate: I'm not arguing whether Global Warning exists or not, but rather that it's stupid that people only began saying it exists because that movie came out.
There are plenty of non-controversial gasses that we know for a fact kill people every day, but instead we're pouring billions of dollars into something controversial for popularity reasons.
We need devices that consume less power and batteries that last longer (retain the same charge across multiple cycles).
Any other formula will lead to devices that waste power and burn through batteries with increasing speed. I'm not looking forward to garbage lots filled to the sky with used batteries.
Impressive but overwhelming. I don't look forward to learning, reading or maintaining such code. So as usual: functionality is inversely proportional to usability:)
Companies laying down the wires and companies offering services over those wires must be separated in order to increase competition. When Israel did this over a decade ago it caused prices to plummet.
Bundling of services is bad for the consumer. It seems like fun in the short term, but in the long term is kills competition.
When "science" is determined by popularism (what else do you call that Al Gore movie) instead of rational thought, then you know that somebody's getting rich on our backs.
Now, it could very well be that Al Gore got it right. But I'd be very careful about conducting science this way. It's a very slippery slope for tomorrow's "facts".
Give students the first X years free (if the expected program length is 4 years, give them 50% more, say 6 years) but beyond that point charge the heck out of them. When education is free/cheap there is way too much abuse of the system by people who are all too comfortable not making any decisions.
For someone who loves his freedoms and humanity so much, you seem to spare no effort in insulting people who don't share your views. The fact that you keep on calling me an insect and wishing violence upon me says more about you than it does about me.
Freedom and respect are earned. You are not born with them, no matter what a piece of paper might say. Don't take the constitution for granted. In order to enjoy its benefits you have to pay a price. Nothing in life is free.
Rights do not exist in a vacuum. When the economy is bad, expect less government handouts. When security is bad, expect less privacy. It all goes hand in hand.
Maybe for you government cheerleaders, it does. However, the US is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," and we aren't free if we give away our freedoms, nor are we brave if we do so.
You sound like you suffer from entitlement syndrome. I'm sorry, but life will not be handed down to you on a silver platter. No one "owes" you anything. I want to live in a world that is as liberal as possible, but there is a limit to what is reasonable without hurting other people.
Meaning: you get privacy from humans, but not machines. As it should be.
Absolute bullshit. For one thing, as of now, we get neither. Second of all, try arguing that in any other case and see what happens. Malware can be automated. Does that make it okay? You can ruin people's life with automation. You obviously didn't think this through.
In reality, it is still a gross violation of the fourth amendment and people's privacy if machines are collecting the information.
Collecting and analyzing information is painless. Acting on it could cause harm. I never implied that computers should be free to act on information without a warrant.
Are you nuts? What is more private than one's health? Is it really anyone's business what diseases I have? Health care is *very* much about privacy!
The government shouldn't really have access to specific information there, either.
Again, you have proven yourself to be willfully ignorant of history and the hundreds of millions lives lost due to corrupt governments. If you honestly think that this will not be abused, or that privacy somehow doesn't matter, then you're living in a literal fantasy land that you need to emerge from. Repeat after me: "The people in the government are human beings; they are not perfect angels." Repeat that enough times until your worthless brain understands what it means.
Now, go get molested at an airport, you insect.
Your view is very US-centric. The US is not the only country in the world. There are many other countries who do not live by the same rules and they are pretty decent places to live, thank you very much. What this should teach you is that there is a gray area of what privacy you can give up without the sky falling down on everyone.
Rights do not exist in a vacuum. When the economy is bad, expect less government handouts. When security is bad, expect less privacy. It all goes hand in hand.
Regarding the forth amendment, it makes sense to protect individuals from another human being reading their mail. It does not make sense to protect them from automated algorithms reading their mail so long as human beings do not get to read those contents without a warrant. Meaning: you get privacy from humans, but not machines. As it should be.
How can you trust them with your health/life (you want "medicare" right?) but not with your communication?
Because medicare has nothing to do with your private communications.
Are you nuts? What is more private than one's health? Is it really anyone's business what diseases I have? Health care is *very* much about privacy!
There are plenty of governments that intercept communications for the sake of security and none of the doomsday prophesies you eluded to have taken place.
Freedom of Expression and police work are not incompatible. What you call "anti-freedom" I call "trust in the government". I don't think you can live in a society where citizens distrust the government to do absolutely anything. How can you trust them with your health/life (you want "medicare" right?) but not with your communication?
My point is that if you take off those cynical glasses and view the government with a little bit more trust then you come to realize that there is a legitimate need to intercept data in order to catch malicious individuals.
I would much rather the government collect metadata for the sake of tracking down criminals/terrorists than actual direct data. At least metadata is somewhat anonymous.
If you honestly think the government can stop collecting *any* data on people and still catch terrorists before they go boom then you are in for a rude awakening. It *will* happen. We just need to make sure that the data remains as anonymous as possible until the last moment, at which point they acquire a warrant to dig out specific names.
The "chosen people" are "chosen" in the sense they have extra requirements, not superiority. They are expected to lead by example, by adhering to 613 commandments while the rest of the world is only expected to adhere to 7 commandments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
All this is to say, anyone who believes they are superior because they were born X or Y is missing the point. People of any ethnic or religious background can achieve the same "level" by helping to make the world a better place. You are judged by your deeds, not your words. That's all that matters.
1. Why do you need to so many computers for your build servers? 2. Why does it cost $20,000 a year to power these computers when it takes a whole order of magnitude to power my entire house for a year?
The constitution should be modified and the right to bear arms should be removed. The rest of the world doesn't have such a constitutional item and yet the world doesn't stop.
While it's true that removing the right to bear arms will not explicitly stop illegal arm owners, it will make them much easier to spot and will eventually reduce the amount of guns in circulation. Reducing the number of arms (not just guns, but also large knives, etc) will reduce the number of violence-related deaths. Sure, people will still get into fights, but those fights are much less likely to end up with a fatality.
My definition of Tech Bubble: Your business doesn't have to generate revenue in order to grab an investment for a few billion. All you need to do is combine some popular buzzwords ("MicroBlogging", "Scalable" and "BitCoin").
This guy can sell himself as the next generation of Twitter: "We use BitCoin technologies to enable Scalable Microblogging":)
Slashdot Mirror
One is proven by science. The other is "proven" by Al Gore :)
What I resent about the latter is that there was plenty of scientific evidence before/after Al Gore's stupid movie, but that bit of "science" only got momentum because of the movie. We shouldn't make decisions based on what's popular. We should make decision based on scientific fact.
So to reiterate: I'm not arguing whether Global Warning exists or not, but rather that it's stupid that people only began saying it exists because that movie came out.
There are plenty of non-controversial gasses that we know for a fact kill people every day, but instead we're pouring billions of dollars into something controversial for popularity reasons.
We need devices that consume less power and batteries that last longer (retain the same charge across multiple cycles).
Any other formula will lead to devices that waste power and burn through batteries with increasing speed. I'm not looking forward to garbage lots filled to the sky with used batteries.
Impressive but overwhelming. I don't look forward to learning, reading or maintaining such code. So as usual: functionality is inversely proportional to usability :)
It seems that every time extremists resort to threats and violence, they have gotten the censorship they were seeking.
Many newspapers are now self-censoring for fear of violence. Is this really where we are headed?
Silly question: what does a**e stand for? :)
Companies laying down the wires and companies offering services over those wires must be separated in order to increase competition. When Israel did this over a decade ago it caused prices to plummet.
Bundling of services is bad for the consumer. It seems like fun in the short term, but in the long term is kills competition.
It will be "next" when mDNS is ubiquitous. Last I checked, it was not.
So my parents have to learn how to configure a DNS in order for me to troubleshoot their networking problems over the phone? :)
On a more serious note, I don't see the possibility of getting non-techies to configure DNS entries for their computer.
I know, but human beings have a problem counting consecutive characters. Two is okay. As the number increases, so do the typos.
"Hey Joe, what's your IP address?"
"Oh, let me see... it's fe80:0:0:0:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf"
Holy crap that's long. The second IP addresses become this difficult to exchange verbally, we're going to stop referring to them altogether.
When "science" is determined by popularism (what else do you call that Al Gore movie) instead of rational thought, then you know that somebody's getting rich on our backs.
Now, it could very well be that Al Gore got it right. But I'd be very careful about conducting science this way. It's a very slippery slope for tomorrow's "facts".
Really ...? At least have the decency to put on your white hood first.
+1000
Give students the first X years free (if the expected program length is 4 years, give them 50% more, say 6 years) but beyond that point charge the heck out of them. When education is free/cheap there is way too much abuse of the system by people who are all too comfortable not making any decisions.
For someone who loves his freedoms and humanity so much, you seem to spare no effort in insulting people who don't share your views. The fact that you keep on calling me an insect and wishing violence upon me says more about you than it does about me.
Freedom and respect are earned. You are not born with them, no matter what a piece of paper might say. Don't take the constitution for granted. In order to enjoy its benefits you have to pay a price. Nothing in life is free.
Have a good day.
Rights do not exist in a vacuum. When the economy is bad, expect less government handouts. When security is bad, expect less privacy. It all goes hand in hand.
Maybe for you government cheerleaders, it does. However, the US is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," and we aren't free if we give away our freedoms, nor are we brave if we do so.
You sound like you suffer from entitlement syndrome. I'm sorry, but life will not be handed down to you on a silver platter. No one "owes" you anything. I want to live in a world that is as liberal as possible, but there is a limit to what is reasonable without hurting other people.
Meaning: you get privacy from humans, but not machines. As it should be.
Absolute bullshit. For one thing, as of now, we get neither. Second of all, try arguing that in any other case and see what happens. Malware can be automated. Does that make it okay? You can ruin people's life with automation. You obviously didn't think this through.
In reality, it is still a gross violation of the fourth amendment and people's privacy if machines are collecting the information.
Collecting and analyzing information is painless. Acting on it could cause harm. I never implied that computers should be free to act on information without a warrant.
Are you nuts? What is more private than one's health? Is it really anyone's business what diseases I have? Health care is *very* much about privacy!
The government shouldn't really have access to specific information there, either.
Again, you have proven yourself to be willfully ignorant of history and the hundreds of millions lives lost due to corrupt governments. If you honestly think that this will not be abused, or that privacy somehow doesn't matter, then you're living in a literal fantasy land that you need to emerge from. Repeat after me: "The people in the government are human beings; they are not perfect angels." Repeat that enough times until your worthless brain understands what it means.
Now, go get molested at an airport, you insect.
Your view is very US-centric. The US is not the only country in the world. There are many other countries who do not live by the same rules and they are pretty decent places to live, thank you very much. What this should teach you is that there is a gray area of what privacy you can give up without the sky falling down on everyone.
Rights do not exist in a vacuum. When the economy is bad, expect less government handouts. When security is bad, expect less privacy. It all goes hand in hand.
Regarding the forth amendment, it makes sense to protect individuals from another human being reading their mail. It does not make sense to protect them from automated algorithms reading their mail so long as human beings do not get to read those contents without a warrant. Meaning: you get privacy from humans, but not machines. As it should be.
How can you trust them with your health/life (you want "medicare" right?) but not with your communication?
Because medicare has nothing to do with your private communications.
Are you nuts? What is more private than one's health? Is it really anyone's business what diseases I have? Health care is *very* much about privacy!
There are plenty of governments that intercept communications for the sake of security and none of the doomsday prophesies you eluded to have taken place.
Freedom of Expression and police work are not incompatible. What you call "anti-freedom" I call "trust in the government". I don't think you can live in a society where citizens distrust the government to do absolutely anything. How can you trust them with your health/life (you want "medicare" right?) but not with your communication?
My point is that if you take off those cynical glasses and view the government with a little bit more trust then you come to realize that there is a legitimate need to intercept data in order to catch malicious individuals.
I would much rather the government collect metadata for the sake of tracking down criminals/terrorists than actual direct data. At least metadata is somewhat anonymous.
If you honestly think the government can stop collecting *any* data on people and still catch terrorists before they go boom then you are in for a rude awakening. It *will* happen. We just need to make sure that the data remains as anonymous as possible until the last moment, at which point they acquire a warrant to dig out specific names.
+1
Everyone makes mistakes, but the individuals who did not act in good faith should be held personally accountable.
Pointy haired bosses never cease to amaze.
Is this on Dilbert? If not, it should be.
The "chosen people" are "chosen" in the sense they have extra requirements, not superiority. They are expected to lead by example, by adhering to 613 commandments while the rest of the world is only expected to adhere to 7 commandments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
All this is to say, anyone who believes they are superior because they were born X or Y is missing the point. People of any ethnic or religious background can achieve the same "level" by helping to make the world a better place. You are judged by your deeds, not your words. That's all that matters.
Typo:
"whole order of magnitude" -> "whole order of magnitude less".
Please enlighten me:
1. Why do you need to so many computers for your build servers?
2. Why does it cost $20,000 a year to power these computers when it takes a whole order of magnitude to power my entire house for a year?
Something doesn't make sense.
The constitution should be modified and the right to bear arms should be removed. The rest of the world doesn't have such a constitutional item and yet the world doesn't stop.
While it's true that removing the right to bear arms will not explicitly stop illegal arm owners, it will make them much easier to spot and will eventually reduce the amount of guns in circulation. Reducing the number of arms (not just guns, but also large knives, etc) will reduce the number of violence-related deaths. Sure, people will still get into fights, but those fights are much less likely to end up with a fatality.
My definition of Tech Bubble: Your business doesn't have to generate revenue in order to grab an investment for a few billion. All you need to do is combine some popular buzzwords ("MicroBlogging", "Scalable" and "BitCoin").
This guy can sell himself as the next generation of Twitter: "We use BitCoin technologies to enable Scalable Microblogging" :)