Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:That's not proof! (Score 3, Informative) 475

LUKS is very good, but until someone works out a way to do hidden containers, it's not even close to a replacement for the most critical feature of TrueCrypt.

Hidden containers are less useful than you might imagine in practice for a variety of reasons. Some of these points are relevant. I don't have any use for hidden containers, although I do use LUKS on a large number of systems.

Comment Re:Wait a sec (Score 1) 772

Allow me to quote exactly what I said:

Selection of genetic traits over generations based on fitness/utility is a fact, not a theory.

Reality hasn't changed. The statement continues to hold true. You are confusing ideas (and their relative merits) concerning genesis of features with factual data on conveyance (or demise) through populations over time via certain mechanisms. We can even take the greatly stretched approach of assuming that various features only persist because individuals somehow communicate a desire to manifest them subconsciously. That would be a discussion on a specific causative effect, not the observed outcome.

Read the other replies I linked. Seemingly disadvantageous traits can and do propagate through populations along with advantageous traits, a condition which tends to confound people who are resistance to examination of complex systems on the whole.

Comment Re:Wait a sec (Score 1) 772

You've completely misrepresented and/or misunderstood everything I've said, and oddly enough you've wasted a fair number of keystrokes partially agreeing with me at the same time. Rather than waste more time repeating myself, I'll simply direct you to the following related replies to other posters:

Comment Re:Wait a sec (Score 1) 772

I also noted that selection of genetic traits over generations based on fitness/utility is a fact, but again, this is not under dispute. Again, I pointed to the formal definition of "theory" with specific emphasis on its expansive context, with particular regard for the fact that no single circumstance accounts for "proving" or "disproving" of evolutionary processes on the whole. Apparently this is difficult to understand.

Comment Re:Wait a sec (Score 1) 772

No, that does not invalidate the point regarding fitness/utility. You have once again failed to read what was written and consider the larger picture. Conveyance of disadvantageous traits is not in opposition to conveyance of advantageous traits; you seem to be unwilling to accept the complexity of interactions with regard to all traits and environmental conditions. Again, there is no invalidation of fact happening here.

Ongoing discussion of noncoding DNA is useful as a backdrop here, as even the most generalized discussion on the topic sheds insight on the complexity involved with postulates and testing of effects related to genomic sequences, complexity which is greatly extended via consideration of environmental factors and data on observed behavioral patterns at various scales of populations and individuals.

I'll buy you a couple of texts if you'd like. Open offer.

Comment Re:Relativity (Score 1) 129

If we're going to head down that road, we might as go ahead and note that time as humans perceive it is a purely fictitious construct based on limited perception (dimensional constraints). However, that's not a terribly good foundation for justifying failure to simply state things in terms that apply to our particular experience as a species.

Slashdot Top Deals

Steve Jobs said two years ago that X is brain-damaged and it will be gone in two years. He was half right. -- Dennis Ritchie