Comment Reminds Me of EROS (Score 1) 216
I just read about EROS last week . . . don't know how well it works, and it's probably old news to a lot of people. But the concept seemed interesting. EROS OS
This is a hot-button issue where side A tries to convince side B they're wrong, and side B tries to convince side A of same.
There are benefits and drawbacks of full disclosure. There are benefits and drawbacks of responsible disclosure. There will never be a consensus.
I'm not trying to say it's not worth trying, but when doing a Google search for "full disclosure" and "responsible disclosure" on slashdot.org comes up with:
All on the first page . . . all from 2010 . . . All as threads with this debate going on . .
Hasn't the deceased equine been flogged enough?
I believe there are times when full disclosure is better, especially when a company has shown a track record of not following through. I believe there are times when responsible disclosure is better. I don't think it's an absolute and this is not the only criteria I use when trying to decide which one applies to a scenario. But when the debate keeps going on over and over and over and over again . . . perhaps there should be a "Full Disclosure vs Responsible Disclosure" classification for Slashdot.
That's the whole point of a petition - to publicly state your support for a particular position
Sort of. What it's really stating is that you believe this is an issue that should appear on the ballot for a vote of the people. I would suspect that the majority of people who sign the petition likely do support the petition's position, but that's really not the point. It just means you agree it should be voted on.
The ballot is how you state your support (or lack thereof) for a particular position.
Take a moment to consider life from the disabled child's point of view. Obviously, you didn't think this one through.
And you'd be wrong.
How about those children that go on to overcome their adversities? Are you going to avoid having a child because that child may have dyslexia? Cerebral palsy? Diabetes? You don't want your child to go through breast cancer? Perhaps Crohn's disease? Hemophaelia? How about those children that go on to do great things even though their genetic makeups are not what we may consider normal? Are you going to shun Helen Keller? Ever stopped to consider the difficulties through which she was able to navigate? And come out smelling like a rose?
Are all children like this? No. Some will buckle under and just not make it. Some will adapt to their situation. And some will excel beyond their limitations. Sounds like most "normal" children I know too.
We don't understand enough of the little nuances of nature to be able to say we shouldn't pass on gene N because of the pain and suffering it may cause. The passing on of these genes may be the intermediate effects of nature updating the human genome. We just don't know. And by avoiding combinations of certain genes just because we think the offspring will have a bad life may cause delays in generating our future genetic makeup.
We just don't know. We think we're smart, but really we may be too smart for our own good. And do I know any of this for sure? Absolutely not. But I feel I at least have the insight to be able to ask what the potential long-term effects are instead of just living for my generation and perhaps the next -- and know that I don't have all the answers.
If someone learns they both carry the recessive Gene for a harmful genetic disorder (*not* trivial stuff like eye color or crow's peak) then it's important to know.
In our own minds, we feel it's important to know. However, by knowing and avoiding mating with someone with a recessive gene for some condition we consider tragic, we may be preventing the completion of a gene mutation in progress that would strengthen us at some point in the future. No, not all of our offspring live as a result of these inherited diseases but it is likely some will and they may reproduce, potentially passing on a new gene that avoids this condition in the future.
We learn more from adversity. Having the perfect child doesn't teach us anything. I would posit that many of those parents who have to deal with children with disabilities learn a lot more about parenting and selflessness than those whose children are considered "normal" by society.
Yeah.. you're wrong. Telecommunications has always defined KB as 1000 bytes, as have storage manufacturers. In the 80s I had a 9600baud modem that transfered at 9.6KB/s, aka 9.6kbps. I could pull a 9.6KB file in 1.024 seconds.
And you know the reason for this, yes? It was because the units being transferred (given 8N1 - 8 data bits, no parity bit, 1 stop bit - which was very common at the time) WERE 10 bits. You had one start bit, plus 8 data bits, plus 1 stop bit. 10 bits. 7E1 was the same - you excluded a data bit and included a parity bit -- still 10 bits. Each unit being transferred (8N1 or 7E1) was 10 bits. So in this case, it made sense to be measuring it like that. But when you're speaking storage, disk space and RAM, you're referring to the amount of data that can be stored without regard to additional bits that may be needed for ECC, hard drive overhead (sector markings, CRC, etc.). 64 KB of RAM could store 2^16 bytes (octets). Ergo, it is more appropriate to measure in units of 8 bits with respect to RAM and disk space than it is to measure in units of 10 bits.
But the IRS doesn't have all the information it needs. You donate to Goodwill? The IRS doesn't know that. You donate to a local charity? The IRS doesn't know that. A church? Your medical bills (do you REALLY want the IRS knowing automagically about your medical bills?????). Tuition at college. Etc. So ultimately, the information has to go through you because you have information the IRS doesn't which will reduce your tax obligation.
Now, if you want a flat tax system based solely on your income, and forgetting any deductions (children, mortgage interest, contributions to your IRA, etc.), then all the information could go to the IRS and be processed there. But if that were the case, they could just take x% out of your check and be done with it because you would've automatically paid the right percentage every time.
Mod P and GP up!
You can be in whichever religious camp you want, but when it boils right down to it, the right tool for the right job.
Yes, I use Linux. I use it a lot and I much prefer it. But then again, I maintain a 1500+ node network, use home-grown Perl scripts, perform direct command-line SNMP queries (snmpget/snmpwalk from Net-SNMP), and parse that data primarily with sed/awk/grep. Once I write a script or a procedure, I know that it will move from a Linux system to some flavor of UNIX (Solaris in particular) with little-to-no modification. And yes, when I have a lot of data to examine, I'll export it to a
I could use Cygwin for the base utilities and ActivePerl on Windows . . . but why when I know that it's going to end up on a UNIX-type system? OTOH, if we were a Windows-centric shop (we're split pretty evenly, but most of the network management stuff is on UNIX), then I would set up my environment such that I was using Windows so that I could port the solutions to Windows boxes. The right tool for the right job.
The right tool for the right job.
With two prop electric engines, lithium phosphate batteries and a top speed of almost 300 mph
Ahhh, newer, faster, and better ways to auger one's self into the ground.
That's how you know the story isn't true. Russians would have used FidoNET, and GoldED as an editor!
Hey, I was a beta tester for GoldED, you insensitive clod!
(Actually, I was . .
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
