Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score 2) 219

how is it that Asians are any less disadvantaged than Blacks or Latinos?

There are less broken homes in the Asian community, and studies have consistently shown that children raised in two parent households have an advantage over children raised in single parent households, even after external factors like wealth are corrected for.

Of course, if you point this fact out, you're called a racist. It doesn't matter if you're a stodgy old white guy or a famous African-American comedian.

Comment: Re:Impossible (Score 1) 430

by causality (#46822099) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science
I'll add, most of these controversies purportedly about "science" are really controversies about "the status quo that cherrypicks bits of science to lend itself credibility". Powerful men have defined reality for the proles long before they had any sort of science by which to claim legitimacy. "Scientific data proves it (and only an idiot would question THAT)" can be used (abused by dishonest people) in a manner very similar to "God told me I should rule over you!" The purpose is the same: "don't argue with me, accept it as truth".

If you want to see that in action, look at why aspartame as a food additive was originally not allowed, then why the FDA director was pressured out of the agency, and who replaced him and what his primary goal was (which was of course approving aspartame). That's what money does to what was formerly good science.

Comment: Re:Impossible (Score 2) 430

by causality (#46822059) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

It pisses me off to no end when people like you come along and start crying out that we shouldn't teach scientific consensus because "it might be wrong." Yeah, it might be fucking wrong. And there's a chance that 100,000 years of recorded history with the sun coming up in the east might be wrong - it's entirely possible that all those people were colluding in a grand conspiracy! Teach the controversy!

How do you read what he wrote and come up with that in response to it? Do you secretly believe everyone other than yourself is a moron?

It's like Slashdotters think it is weakness to try and understand what the other person believes and in what way it could be reasonable. It depends on the part where what the guy wrote must also be interpreted by the reader, and everything except rigorous mathematical formulae has multiple ways that it can be construed.

There actually are lots of problems with vaccines but you will never find this information without sincerely searching for it yourself, because there are too many monied interests who profit from a single view of the situation.

Comment: Re:Hmm (Score 1) 430

by causality (#46820197) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

I think the KJV has some distinct advantages. For instance:

1. It's written in Shakespearian-era English, which has been proved to be about twenty percent cooler and over seventy percent more epic than modern english.

2. Some of the edits were—pardon the expression—simply divine. "I have become a brother to jackals"? Weak. "I am a brother to dragons"? Loving it. Somebody deserved a bonus for that gem.

It's not as well known as it deserves to be, but the early Christians were actually a very diverse group. What we now call Gnosticism was representative of many if not most of them.

Sadly it was systematically stamped out, largely in part because there is such great power in organized religion and adherence to its dogmas.

Excluded, "non-canonical" books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Enoch, and the Gospel of Judas are really fascinating to read.

Comment: Re:Hmm (Score 3, Interesting) 430

by causality (#46820131) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

Not implying. There are a lot of willfully ignorant people that prefer their religion's tale of a 10,000 year old universe

That's both sad and amusing. Having read and learned about the Bible, I can tell you this much: the geneologies in Genesis and elsewhere are not complete and exhuastive. They do not claim to be complete and exhaustive. Nowhere in the Bible is it so much as implied that they are.

The standard ancient Hebrew practice of listing such geneologies is to list only the most famous/notable ancestors. More mediocre and lesser-known ancestors are left out deliberately because they were not considered worthy of mention. Thus there are large gaps of unknown time in the geneologies listed in Genesis and elsewhere. Nothing to the contrary is ever claimed. This fact is not even difficult to find out, except that it does depend on doing your own homework instead of letting the TV and the culture do the thinking for you. The main point of all the geneologies in the Bible is to establish that the line of King David was known (old testament) and is the same line from which Yeshua (new testament) is descended, which is important because various prophecies concerning the Messiah predicted this (e.g. Isaiah).

To infer some kind of final ultimate Age of Humanity or Age of The Earth from this is madness. The Bible never represents it as such, and anyone claiming it does is simply unfamiliar with the very book (and ancient Hebrew culture) they are claiming to understand. The Bible makes no claims whatsoever concerning things like how long ago Adam lived, how long ago Noah lived, how long ago the Flood was, etc.

Most self-described Christians don't know this and that's just plain fucking lazy, to be frank with you. You believe this is the WORD OF GOD and yet you can't be bothered to learn a few easily researched facts about it?? This is what happens when people always have some excuse for why they won't do their own thinking and their own learning.

Comment: Re:I would think (Score 1) 372

by causality (#46818995) Attached to: OpenSSL Cleanup: Hundreds of Commits In a Week

That's the problem: you're not.

If you are conducting the surveillance of me necessary to make that determination, then your surveillance is faulty. I merely gave an example scenario and I don't share this puerile urge to make everything into a personal matter. So I wrote in such a way that I made no claims about my own programming skill or lack thereof, in order to provide a hypothetical. What I wrote is equally true whether I've never seen a compiler before or whether I am an advanced expert.

The hostility you have makes you appear stupid because it prevents you from thinking of such things. After all, such things might make me seem reasonable and level-headed. That would be like giving aid and comfort to The Enemy, right?

That the old tired meme used to keep honest competent people out of critical jobs; but unlike generals and politicians, programmers able to work on OpenSSL don't grow up in trees, so you will have to make do with (almost) the same people and stuff your "incentives" and "reactions" up your ass.

At no point did I say that anyone should or shouldn't work on this project. Re-read it yourself if you doubt I know what I wrote. To paraphrase: what I said is that it's an unusually important project and therefore the work involves higher stakes. No one is really going to care very much if you screw up a free single-player solitaire game. If you screw up SSL, that can impact many other people in negative ways. By saying that I am hardly keeping competent people from their jobs, though it's flattering that you would ascribe to me such power.

This isn't difficult to acknowledge; at least, it certainly shouldn't be. Is there something about saying it that makes you so angry? Were you built up by praise you didn't really earn and are coming to realize how fragile a foundation that really is, or what (by means of my "platitudes")? Beware of hating someone for no good reason, someone who means well by you and wants good things for you. It's one of the more toxic ways you can pollute yourself.

Comment: Re:I would think (Score 1) 372

by causality (#46818919) Attached to: OpenSSL Cleanup: Hundreds of Commits In a Week

Well written and very insightful except for one thing...the guy really was trolling.

Ever heard of the principle of non-resistance? If he really was trolling then my post will affect him more than it could affect anyone else.

I don't really think he was. I think he made an emotional outburst reflecting his view of an unpleasant (but improving) situation. That can seem like trolling especially when it turns into a big story (among techies anyway) like this did. But I don't claim to know his heart and I could be wrong, in which case the above applies.

Comment: Re:JAIL JAIL JAIL (Score 1) 227

by Like2Byte (#46816281) Attached to: Intentional Backdoor In Consumer Routers Found

Where did the parent advocate having the government monitor code check-ins or ensure software quality? All he advocated was having criminal penalties for insecure software, which actually sounds like a good idea to me, provided people are able to pass the blame to their bosses and thus avoid all liability (if you fear for your job because your boss ordered you to do something insecure, then your boss should go to jail, not you. If your boss was just passing orders from his boss, his boss should go to jail, not him.).

Both bosses should go to jail. Depending on the situation it's called collusion and/or conspiracy.

Comment: Re:Physically Impossible (Score 1) 227

This is another classic example of the marketing department working against the engineering department, with the %$#@! marketeers winning, again, sadly.

I would attribute it more to economy of scale: It's cheaper to produce one speedometer that will work across your entire product line than to produce one tailored to the maximum speed of each model you sell.

Comment: Government fights the last war.... (Score 1) 227

Why do they bother with all of the ridiculous security protocols for airline passengers when apparently it's pretty easy to sneak a 16-year-old-kid-sized bomb into the wheel well of an aircraft on the tarmac?

The Government fights the last war, because it's reactive rather than proactive. If 9/11 had consisted of four blown up airliners via wheel well bombs this hole would have been closed a long time ago. Likewise, if some jackass hadn't tried to light his sneakers on fire we'd still be able to board without taking our shoes off.

How much net work could a network work, if a network could net work?