However, can we be sure that the cosmic ray example provides proof of safety? Will our expirement so directly mimic this that it guarantees similar results? Or will differences and/or imperfections in our version of the expirement create differences and/or imperfections in the results that can be disasterous?
I reiterate that I agree with the non-alarmist view here, just stating that differences in expirements that aren't accounted for, can often have traumatic results.
Thank you for putting together this text so well. You might find this article interesting, the Pope recently held a conference with several scholars, they conclude the same thing. They will soon be releasing text describing their discussions. See this link.
Okay, I'm going to get ripped for saying this, but I find it really amusing that the guy posts a link to the article the news article was referring to and it's modded "Offtopic".
Cute response, but lacking any real content but flame.
Re-reading my post you might see I was actually saying something similar to you, that the 'conjecture' in the original post are arbitrarily trying to declare this to be open source.
My argument is simple, that open source is not served by having an arbitrary and subjective set of rules that make something open source. I was arguing the criteria that was presented in the post, not whether OpenSolaris is open source or not, I don't care.
As open source becomes more 'popular', everyone and their brother is going to claim to be open source, you're already seeing it. So, rather than making some random arguments that indicate something is open source, it would be useful to validate it against agreed to criteria.
"...he pointed out that OpenSolaris takes contributions from all comers, has active public mailing lists, open IRC channels, and several online communities, so Frye's description seems at least overblown."
With my apologies, if these things make something open source,.Net is certainly open source. But it's not. I congratulate Sun on what they're doing, but that's still not true open source. Making the definition of open source muddy is really not a good idea.
I love your link, sorry I missed it the first time. I am a Christian, and I agree wholly with your statements about 'creation'. I believe God created everything, and how it was done is amazing. I know so little about it, however. I love reading about the theories that science has offered. The intricacies of it all are awe inspiring. I can't wait to find out more.
Why is this attitude so hard for people to grasp? I have valid reasons to have the faith I have, science has yet to give me any reason to think I'm wrong (in fact, it honestly has driven me back to faith when I've left it). Nor has my faith given me any reason to blindly discredit scientific foundings.
I am Christian. I love science, it is a study of what God created. The more we find out how things work, the more impressed I am (and the more I can't help but question that this happened, just because?).
However, I abhor that Christians think evolution is a threat, and I mock scientists that think evolution contradicts God. However, it seems, both of these groups are loud in this country and it's annoying.
At least most real scientists will not claim they know everything, they admit there are many mysteries in science. Many traditionalists in faith think they have everything figured out, but for crying out loud, your very definition of who God is, is contradictory to claiming you understand God. Humans cannot possibly know everything about God. Scientists, understand more and more that they know less and less. So?
DROP THIS STUPID CHARADE, both of you! Play nice, believe what you believe, and we'll all learn even more!
Kiffex! Pshaw... Talus and Tralus are far more popular Star Wars binary planets... and it shows that the centerpoint of gravity is a great place for a space station:)
Don't forget... this is something I often see not mentioned, is that once you pay to install the panels, they (usually) increase the value of the house. So if you install them, get the payback in 19 years, then you sell your house, you've likely made money off the effort.
thank you, this is more information than what I had. However, it still doesn't work in one scenario, a scenario that does work in IE and is common to users.
I put.mycompany.net in the config.
If the user goes to myhost1.mycompany.net, myhost2.mycompany.net, it works just fine. However, users are very accustomed to going just to http://myhost1/ or http://myhost2/ which does not work, at least doesn't work with the solution in the article you posted.
Don't get me wrong, the article was good help and I will use that. But it's still missing a key capability.
Does Firefox have the ability to do NTML authentication to a domain? I can currently do it by listing out each and every web host, but I can't just say do it to *.mybiz.net addresses. This is problematic because we have a lot of hosts on *.mybiz.net
To be able to define domains and set up security preferences for those domains is the #1 thing preventing our organization from taking Firefox more seriously.
I admit I haven't had time to investigate this since earlier versions.
I too have to agree. ASP.Net 1.1 should never have been compared to ASP, they're greatly different things (thank the maker). ASP.Net is a great productivity tool. As a developer who is responsible for putting out web applications quickly, that have extremely low maintenance costs (ASP.Net excels here), as well as maintaining a set of global class libraries that align with business processes, ASP.Net is tops.
Now to talk about 2.0, well, MS really focused on productivity with this release. I'm really happy with the changes and the Atlas toolkit.
...that a black psp model came out first...that dark chocolate is more widely available than white chocolate...that lighter coloured backgrounds became more popular on the web than darker backgrounds...that we look up to white clouds and walk all over black asphault
People have made race such a hypersensitive issue. In normal society race is only an issue because we make it an issue. Real racism should be squashed, but when people grasp at straws like this and claim racism in the silliest of things, it really hurts the effort of those who are trying to beat real racism out of the few remaining holdout bastards.
While projects like this can easily be seen as waste, they do a couple things.
This money goes to create hi tech jobs, rewarding people for getting engineering/science/sometimes computing degrees, potentially supporting universities themselves.
These projects generate knowledge by testing out technologies and supporting businesses or universities that sponsor research.
In my opinion, this is not waste, even if the end product never comes to be.
Certainly, this can only go so far, you wouldn't want all your money going to high tech / low success projects, but it is reasonable to have money going towards these things.
It's unfortunate, but this is just more of the same.
But what are we going to do? Intervene more in the politics of other nations? Yeah they love that. We can go to war to get all our copies of Grand Theft Auto back (right before we ban them for being obscene).
Sooner or later India and China will have a larger say in global economics, and their positions on these topics will carry more weight. I wonder what things will be like when other countries don't bend so easily to the will of the U.S.
While my sarcasm shouldn't be construed to mean that all forms of regulation are bad, it does imply my belief that regulation in general is bad. The need for regulation is the exception, and the burden should be on creating regulation to provide proof that it is needed.
See my response to the response above yours, it's related to yours as well.
The problem is, those crappy parents will just buy the game for the kids anyway, so the regulations still didn't do anything but waste our time and money that could be spent on regulation that you and I both agree is important (such as you other examples or any number of other things I'm sure we and others could agree is more important).
Of course... no sarcastic statements should be taken to be blanket statements. I'm not an anarchist, I believe the government has several duties that I happily pay taxes and desire services for.
I do not believe that prohibiting a store owner from selling a video game to minors is one of those services. I'd rather my tax money not be spent on such a thing. Here is why... the minor cannot easily consume the content without parental consent, given acceptable levels of parental responsibility.
This is different than pornography, where the minor can read through the magazine before riding their bike home, or alchohol, where it could be consumed on the spot. A video game is not so easily consumed.
Of course there are ways the minor could view/play the game before the parent should reasonably be aware the minor has purchased the game (one might ask why the minor has $50 anyway, but I'll leave that as a non issue). In this case, I will raise the threat x risk = vulnerability formula. The odds of the minor being able to view the game before the parent is aware of the purchase, times the damage caused to the minor for viewing it, is the 'value' that I'm concerned with. In my opinion, it's a low enough value I do not want my tax money spent on debating, enacting, and enforcing such regulation.
I'm a new parent, so maybe I'm still a bit idealistic, but this is how I feel.
Regulation is good, we need more. We certainly don't have enough. Without regulation, people learn responsibility, and the evil market forces have their way with the economy. Regulation helps us spend our excess tax money, and allows us to avoid tackling really hard issues that will make people all mad.
Slashdot Mirror
I buy this, and I don't fear the expirement.
However, can we be sure that the cosmic ray example provides proof of safety? Will our expirement so directly mimic this that it guarantees similar results? Or will differences and/or imperfections in our version of the expirement create differences and/or imperfections in the results that can be disasterous?
I reiterate that I agree with the non-alarmist view here, just stating that differences in expirements that aren't accounted for, can often have traumatic results.
Thank you for putting together this text so well. You might find this article interesting, the Pope recently held a conference with several scholars, they conclude the same thing. They will soon be releasing text describing their discussions. See this link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14681924/
Comparing ASP.Net to ASP is like comparing Java to JavaScript.
Okay, I'm going to get ripped for saying this, but I find it really amusing that the guy posts a link to the article the news article was referring to and it's modded "Offtopic".
We need more of this. The more obviously fraudulent patent claims that go in, the closer we'll get to patent reform.
Seriously.
Thank you. I think the other guy just wanted an argument.
Cute response, but lacking any real content but flame.
Re-reading my post you might see I was actually saying something similar to you, that the 'conjecture' in the original post are arbitrarily trying to declare this to be open source.
My argument is simple, that open source is not served by having an arbitrary and subjective set of rules that make something open source. I was arguing the criteria that was presented in the post, not whether OpenSolaris is open source or not, I don't care.
As open source becomes more 'popular', everyone and their brother is going to claim to be open source, you're already seeing it. So, rather than making some random arguments that indicate something is open source, it would be useful to validate it against agreed to criteria.
The poster claims
.Net is certainly open source. But it's not. I congratulate Sun on what they're doing, but that's still not true open source. Making the definition of open source muddy is really not a good idea.
"...he pointed out that OpenSolaris takes contributions from all comers, has active public mailing lists, open IRC channels, and several online communities, so Frye's description seems at least overblown."
With my apologies, if these things make something open source,
I love your link, sorry I missed it the first time. I am a Christian, and I agree wholly with your statements about 'creation'. I believe God created everything, and how it was done is amazing. I know so little about it, however. I love reading about the theories that science has offered. The intricacies of it all are awe inspiring. I can't wait to find out more.
Why is this attitude so hard for people to grasp? I have valid reasons to have the faith I have, science has yet to give me any reason to think I'm wrong (in fact, it honestly has driven me back to faith when I've left it). Nor has my faith given me any reason to blindly discredit scientific foundings.
This irritates the hell out of me as well.
I am Christian. I love science, it is a study of what God created. The more we find out how things work, the more impressed I am (and the more I can't help but question that this happened, just because?).
However, I abhor that Christians think evolution is a threat, and I mock scientists that think evolution contradicts God. However, it seems, both of these groups are loud in this country and it's annoying.
At least most real scientists will not claim they know everything, they admit there are many mysteries in science. Many traditionalists in faith think they have everything figured out, but for crying out loud, your very definition of who God is, is contradictory to claiming you understand God. Humans cannot possibly know everything about God. Scientists, understand more and more that they know less and less. So?
DROP THIS STUPID CHARADE, both of you! Play nice, believe what you believe, and we'll all learn even more!
Kiffex! Pshaw... Talus and Tralus are far more popular Star Wars binary planets... and it shows that the centerpoint of gravity is a great place for a space station :)
Don't forget... this is something I often see not mentioned, is that once you pay to install the panels, they (usually) increase the value of the house. So if you install them, get the payback in 19 years, then you sell your house, you've likely made money off the effort.
thank you, this is more information than what I had. However, it still doesn't work in one scenario, a scenario that does work in IE and is common to users.
.mycompany.net in the config.
I put
If the user goes to myhost1.mycompany.net, myhost2.mycompany.net, it works just fine. However, users are very accustomed to going just to http://myhost1/ or http://myhost2/ which does not work, at least doesn't work with the solution in the article you posted.
Don't get me wrong, the article was good help and I will use that. But it's still missing a key capability.
Thanks for the info!
Gah! Visions of Gungans and Faamba dance in my head.
Meh, I suppose as long as it makes cool noises when the lasers hit it.
Does Firefox have the ability to do NTML authentication to a domain? I can currently do it by listing out each and every web host, but I can't just say do it to *.mybiz.net addresses. This is problematic because we have a lot of hosts on *.mybiz.net
To be able to define domains and set up security preferences for those domains is the #1 thing preventing our organization from taking Firefox more seriously.
I admit I haven't had time to investigate this since earlier versions.
I too have to agree. ASP.Net 1.1 should never have been compared to ASP, they're greatly different things (thank the maker). ASP.Net is a great productivity tool. As a developer who is responsible for putting out web applications quickly, that have extremely low maintenance costs (ASP.Net excels here), as well as maintaining a set of global class libraries that align with business processes, ASP.Net is tops.
Now to talk about 2.0, well, MS really focused on productivity with this release. I'm really happy with the changes and the Atlas toolkit.
...that a black psp model came out first ...that dark chocolate is more widely available than white chocolate ...that lighter coloured backgrounds became more popular on the web than darker backgrounds ...that we look up to white clouds and walk all over black asphault
People have made race such a hypersensitive issue. In normal society race is only an issue because we make it an issue. Real racism should be squashed, but when people grasp at straws like this and claim racism in the silliest of things, it really hurts the effort of those who are trying to beat real racism out of the few remaining holdout bastards.
even more junk in the Sea of Japan.
Lock up your energon cubes.
While projects like this can easily be seen as waste, they do a couple things.
This money goes to create hi tech jobs, rewarding people for getting engineering/science/sometimes computing degrees, potentially supporting universities themselves.
These projects generate knowledge by testing out technologies and supporting businesses or universities that sponsor research.
In my opinion, this is not waste, even if the end product never comes to be.
Certainly, this can only go so far, you wouldn't want all your money going to high tech / low success projects, but it is reasonable to have money going towards these things.
It's unfortunate, but this is just more of the same.
But what are we going to do? Intervene more in the politics of other nations? Yeah they love that. We can go to war to get all our copies of Grand Theft Auto back (right before we ban them for being obscene).
Sooner or later India and China will have a larger say in global economics, and their positions on these topics will carry more weight. I wonder what things will be like when other countries don't bend so easily to the will of the U.S.
Yes, I agree with you.
While my sarcasm shouldn't be construed to mean that all forms of regulation are bad, it does imply my belief that regulation in general is bad. The need for regulation is the exception, and the burden should be on creating regulation to provide proof that it is needed.
Yes, it was sarcasm.
See my response to the response above yours, it's related to yours as well.
The problem is, those crappy parents will just buy the game for the kids anyway, so the regulations still didn't do anything but waste our time and money that could be spent on regulation that you and I both agree is important (such as you other examples or any number of other things I'm sure we and others could agree is more important).
Of course... no sarcastic statements should be taken to be blanket statements. I'm not an anarchist, I believe the government has several duties that I happily pay taxes and desire services for.
I do not believe that prohibiting a store owner from selling a video game to minors is one of those services. I'd rather my tax money not be spent on such a thing. Here is why... the minor cannot easily consume the content without parental consent, given acceptable levels of parental responsibility.
This is different than pornography, where the minor can read through the magazine before riding their bike home, or alchohol, where it could be consumed on the spot. A video game is not so easily consumed.
Of course there are ways the minor could view/play the game before the parent should reasonably be aware the minor has purchased the game (one might ask why the minor has $50 anyway, but I'll leave that as a non issue). In this case, I will raise the threat x risk = vulnerability formula. The odds of the minor being able to view the game before the parent is aware of the purchase, times the damage caused to the minor for viewing it, is the 'value' that I'm concerned with. In my opinion, it's a low enough value I do not want my tax money spent on debating, enacting, and enforcing such regulation.
I'm a new parent, so maybe I'm still a bit idealistic, but this is how I feel.
Regulation is good, we need more. We certainly don't have enough. Without regulation, people learn responsibility, and the evil market forces have their way with the economy. Regulation helps us spend our excess tax money, and allows us to avoid tackling really hard issues that will make people all mad.