Are you joking? What about the millions of construction workers that help build the big cities. They often move from construction site to construction site, live in crowded dorms and from the pennies they earn they send most of it back home. If they get paid for their work that is, because if your employer screws you in China you just have to suck it up. There's NO rule of law over there.
Just yesterday I saw a report about a recent bust of migrant workers in China that were literally held as slaves (links to stories on Google News). Now, in the case, the Chinese police actually did the right thing, it happens rarely enough.
Bad analogy, it's more like a you're one of the few landlords in town, there is no other private ownership of houses, and the government asks you for the information of all your tenants on a routine basis.
In that case, yes, you should be barred from talking to them.
If free will exists, then there must be something which is NOT governed by the physical universe (hence, not deterministic), but which itself CAN influence or govern the physical universe (ie. the brain). This seems to fit the definition of supernatural -- or outside nature.
I don't buy this argument. The brain is the agent which influences itself, that is the cognitive part of it, that gives us the ability to observe and analyze our environment and initiate rational actions. That the brain is not always able to do that (most often not, it seems), doesn't invalidate the fact that we often do act upon our own choosing. That is free will.
In short, I don't see how free will somehow implies the existance of a something supernatural.
Easy... I walk five minutes from my apartment to the next supermarket and shop there. And if there's no supermarket within 5 minutes walking distance, there is one within 5 minutes cycling distance. For moving bigger stuff like furniture around I rent a truck. I think the last time I drove a car was back in February when my sister asked me to pick up my niece from the kindergarten.
Hint: US style suburbia sucks. There's no need for a (personal) car in a sensibly designed city.
Mac users like shiny things... and you're a troll
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I've switched permanently from Windows to Debian in 1998 (after toying around with it for a couple of years) and 4 years ago bought an iBook G3 and used Debian on it for everything except watching DVDs. The main reason I bought the iBook was its long battery life. This was before Centrino came out in Europe. One and a half years later, Skype came out and suddenly the fact that microphone wasn't supported under Linux made me try out OS X more regularly. After two weeks or so I nuked the Debian partition and switched to OS X. Haven't looked back so far, and my next laptop will be a Mac as well. OS X beats Linux as a desktop any time, it's simply no comparison.
It's not so much that OS X is shiny as it is polished and doesn't get in my way when I want to get work done. Of course, a properly configured Linux box does this as well, when you compare it to a Windows machine. But you miss out on the great integration that the Mac offers, not only between the apps that Apple makes, but also how third-party apps integrate into the desktop.
Rob Mitchell (and others) doesn't get it! There's no way that the public will ever have the confidence in e-voting that they can have with traditional paper ballots. Nor is there the need.
Ask any idiot on the street to volunteer for a day watching the voting process, including the count at the end and the publishing of the results for his district. Unless he's a total retard or overly paranoid he will realize that he can audit the entire process and can be reaonably sure that his vote was actually counted. Now throw a computer in somewhere in the process... there goes the control and thus the confidence the average voter has over the voting process.
The only need for e-voting machine is to help disabled people realizing their vote. If that means touch screens with an extra large font... go for it. But why does that have to translate into e-voting for everybody?
Oh yeah, there's the other argument from e-voting proponents: The vote gets counted faster. WTF?!! This isn't the 19th century, EVERY 1st world country that does paper ballots has the results in within a couple of hours. Getting the votes faster is code-speak by officials who can't be bothered to invest a fucking day overseeing the polling station and counting the vote at the end. No, these enlightened people just want to call it a day and go home. Let the computer take care of everything.
I'm fucking sick of it! It's their fucking duty (and every citizen's who cares for the accuracy of the voting process for that matter) to make sure that the voting process is not tampered with. And it only takes a couple of hours every few years. Is that really to much to ask?
Here's an idea: Why not use the millions that are spent on e-voting machines and the ensuing maintenance costs every year to pay the people who staff the pollings places 25 Euro an hour. Or maybe 50 Euro for the 2 hours it takes to count the votes in an average district. You'd get a lot more "volunteers" that way.
I'm just glad, that some countries in the EU are moving away from e-voting. Ireland has scrapped all e-voting equipment they had (before it was even once, talk about wasted money) and Amsterdam just went back to paper and pencil, because of the tempest attack that was demonstrated against their voting equipment. In Germany, there are few places that use e-voting equipment and the CCC is strongly advocating against it. But it's still an uphill battle./end rant
and events were 200000 people die within a couple of hours are even rarer (tsunamie 12/26/2004). i venture that more than 6000 people die worldwide each hour and that 6000 people dead related to a specific incidant are not that rare overall history.
The "hosts" were animated drawings, which looked surprisingly like the man and woman drawn on the disk that is aboard Pioneer.
Incidentelly, I was watching TV with a friend yesterday as I don't own one, and while we flipped through the channels we stumbled upon that program. In the 10 minutes or so we watched, they showed an interview with Orson Welles, telling that he was shocked to learn that so many people took his radio play of War of the Worlds for real and then a guy who on 9/11 first thought that he, too, was in some kind of fake television play. Then they showed a report about early alien/monster movies and how they spoke of the desire and fear we have of the unknown.
Inbetween segments they had a split screen with one panel showing a guy laying on the grass talking about something or other and in the other panels they showed beautiful nature photography.
Thank you for letting the voter keep a copy of his vote. This way I can easily verify that my employees have voted for my candidate or I can fire them if they have not.
give it up for the military-industrial complex which is making BILLIONS of $$$ building things that blow up. or building things that blow other things up.
oh, it's only 10 million. well, the design anyways. before the bait-and-switch.
> For years, the U.S. military has wanted a plane that could loiter just outside enemy territory for more than a dozen hours and, on command, hurtle toward a target faster than the speed of sound. And then level it.
I differ on your last point. If the current admin simply resigns and avoids prosecution, then history will repeat itself another 40 years down the road. These guys are criminals and should be hold accountable.
People "need" free markets like they need a third tit. The only people really benefitting from "free" markets are the wealthy and the powerful with enough economic clout to twist the market to do their bidding.
The analogy is your straw man. You change the subject from "listening to music on an ipod" to "surfing the web on windows" and proceed to argue against that (at least implied).
So who are these people who say Windows is good enough? And, in any case, if they really feel so and are too lazy to check out alternatives, what exactly is dangerous about that?
> I would imagine there are people who say My computers sole purpose is so I can surf the web and read email. Windows does that. Why should I need to know any more than that?
Except that Windows is teh shit to just surf the web and read e-mail.
> It's just not in the geek vocabulary to say why should I need to know any more than that
Of course there is. I don't need to know everything, you know.
[I]n 1884 [...] Sigmund Freud published his work Über Coca, in which he wrote that cocaine causes:...exhilaration and lasting euphoria, which in no way differs from the normal euphoria of the healthy person...You perceive an increase of self-control and possess more vitality and capacity for work...This result is enjoyed without any of the unpleasant after-effects that follow exhilaration brought about by alcohol....Absolutely no craving for the further use of cocaine appears after the first, or even after repeated taking of the drug...
Slashdot Mirror
Are you joking? What about the millions of construction workers that help build the big cities. They often move from construction site to construction site, live in crowded dorms and from the pennies they earn they send most of it back home. If they get paid for their work that is, because if your employer screws you in China you just have to suck it up. There's NO rule of law over there.
Just yesterday I saw a report about a recent bust of migrant workers in China that were literally held as slaves (links to stories on Google News). Now, in the case, the Chinese police actually did the right thing, it happens rarely enough.
Others have already mentioned SafariStand and Saft that provide that functionality. I use AcidSearch, which is Free Software.
Bad analogy, it's more like a you're one of the few landlords in town, there is no other private ownership of houses, and the government asks you for the information of all your tenants on a routine basis.
In that case, yes, you should be barred from talking to them.
I don't buy this argument. The brain is the agent which influences itself, that is the cognitive part of it, that gives us the ability to observe and analyze our environment and initiate rational actions. That the brain is not always able to do that (most often not, it seems), doesn't invalidate the fact that we often do act upon our own choosing. That is free will.
In short, I don't see how free will somehow implies the existance of a something supernatural.
What's SFU?
TIA!
A classical answer would be "Touché."
Easy... I walk five minutes from my apartment to the next supermarket and shop there. And if there's no supermarket within 5 minutes walking distance, there is one within 5 minutes cycling distance. For moving bigger stuff like furniture around I rent a truck. I think the last time I drove a car was back in February when my sister asked me to pick up my niece from the kindergarten.
Hint: US style suburbia sucks. There's no need for a (personal) car in a sensibly designed city.
I've switched permanently from Windows to Debian in 1998 (after toying around with it for a couple of years) and 4 years ago bought an iBook G3 and used Debian on it for everything except watching DVDs. The main reason I bought the iBook was its long battery life. This was before Centrino came out in Europe. One and a half years later, Skype came out and suddenly the fact that microphone wasn't supported under Linux made me try out OS X more regularly. After two weeks or so I nuked the Debian partition and switched to OS X. Haven't looked back so far, and my next laptop will be a Mac as well. OS X beats Linux as a desktop any time, it's simply no comparison.
It's not so much that OS X is shiny as it is polished and doesn't get in my way when I want to get work done. Of course, a properly configured Linux box does this as well, when you compare it to a Windows machine. But you miss out on the great integration that the Mac offers, not only between the apps that Apple makes, but also how third-party apps integrate into the desktop.
Rob Mitchell (and others) doesn't get it! There's no way that the public will ever have the confidence in e-voting that they can have with traditional paper ballots. Nor is there the need.
/end rant
Ask any idiot on the street to volunteer for a day watching the voting process, including the count at the end and the publishing of the results for his district. Unless he's a total retard or overly paranoid he will realize that he can audit the entire process and can be reaonably sure that his vote was actually counted. Now throw a computer in somewhere in the process... there goes the control and thus the confidence the average voter has over the voting process.
The only need for e-voting machine is to help disabled people realizing their vote. If that means touch screens with an extra large font... go for it. But why does that have to translate into e-voting for everybody?
Oh yeah, there's the other argument from e-voting proponents: The vote gets counted faster. WTF?!! This isn't the 19th century, EVERY 1st world country that does paper ballots has the results in within a couple of hours. Getting the votes faster is code-speak by officials who can't be bothered to invest a fucking day overseeing the polling station and counting the vote at the end. No, these enlightened people just want to call it a day and go home. Let the computer take care of everything.
I'm fucking sick of it! It's their fucking duty (and every citizen's who cares for the accuracy of the voting process for that matter) to make sure that the voting process is not tampered with. And it only takes a couple of hours every few years. Is that really to much to ask?
Here's an idea: Why not use the millions that are spent on e-voting machines and the ensuing maintenance costs every year to pay the people who staff the pollings places 25 Euro an hour. Or maybe 50 Euro for the 2 hours it takes to count the votes in an average district. You'd get a lot more "volunteers" that way.
I'm just glad, that some countries in the EU are moving away from e-voting. Ireland has scrapped all e-voting equipment they had (before it was even once, talk about wasted money) and Amsterdam just went back to paper and pencil, because of the tempest attack that was demonstrated against their voting equipment. In Germany, there are few places that use e-voting equipment and the CCC is strongly advocating against it. But it's still an uphill battle.
and events were 200000 people die within a couple of hours are even rarer (tsunamie 12/26/2004). i venture that more than 6000 people die worldwide each hour and that 6000 people dead related to a specific incidant are not that rare overall history.
swooosh!
The "hosts" were animated drawings, which looked surprisingly like the man and woman drawn on the disk that is aboard Pioneer.
Incidentelly, I was watching TV with a friend yesterday as I don't own one, and while we flipped through the channels we stumbled upon that program. In the 10 minutes or so we watched, they showed an interview with Orson Welles, telling that he was shocked to learn that so many people took his radio play of War of the Worlds for real and then a guy who on 9/11 first thought that he, too, was in some kind of fake television play. Then they showed a report about early alien/monster movies and how they spoke of the desire and fear we have of the unknown.
Inbetween segments they had a split screen with one panel showing a guy laying on the grass talking about something or other and in the other panels they showed beautiful nature photography.
Quite entertaining, I must say.
Thank you for letting the voter keep a copy of his vote. This way I can easily verify that my employees have voted for my candidate or I can fire them if they have not.
Your's truly,
The Factory Boss
give it up for the military-industrial complex which is making BILLIONS of $$$ building things that blow up. or building things that blow other things up.
oh, it's only 10 million. well, the design anyways. before the bait-and-switch.
> For years, the U.S. military has wanted a plane that could loiter just outside enemy territory for more than a dozen hours and, on command, hurtle toward a target faster than the speed of sound. And then level it.
uh-huh! i want one of them, too!
Your logical argument from suing to whoring is compelling, plus you get bonus points for your totally unrelated insult to Christians worldwide.
Wait, you're serious? Damn!
Redundant?
The witty quote by itself warrants a +1, Funny!
I differ on your last point. If the current admin simply resigns and avoids prosecution, then history will repeat itself another 40 years down the road. These guys are criminals and should be hold accountable.
Nope, in fact, that's why I used as an example. Surely a third tit might have its advantages, but it's hardly a need like, say, food and shelter.
People "need" free markets like they need a third tit. The only people really benefitting from "free" markets are the wealthy and the powerful with enough economic clout to twist the market to do their bidding.
The new MacBook does dual display. The old iBook did too, if you installed Screen Spanning Doctor.
Having said that, I agree that it's unfortunate that the 12" Powerbook got killed. The 13" Macbook is as wide as my old 14" iBook.
The analogy is your straw man. You change the subject from "listening to music on an ipod" to "surfing the web on windows" and proceed to argue against that (at least implied).
So who are these people who say Windows is good enough? And, in any case, if they really feel so and are too lazy to check out alternatives, what exactly is dangerous about that?
Nice straw man!
> I would imagine there are people who say My computers sole purpose is so I can surf the web and read email. Windows does that. Why should I need to know any more than that?
Except that Windows is teh shit to just surf the web and read e-mail.
> It's just not in the geek vocabulary to say why should I need to know any more than that
Of course there is. I don't need to know everything, you know.
Indeed, Wikipedia leaves that part out, which makes the entry there incredibly POV.
However, provided what you say is true, which btw I have no reason to doubt, I am sure that some Wikipedian will edit the article arcordingly.
In any case, my comment wasn't really serious, rather tongue-in-check.
From Wikipedia:
...exhilaration and lasting euphoria, which in no way differs from the normal euphoria of the healthy person...You perceive an increase of self-control and possess more vitality and capacity for work...This result is enjoyed without any of the unpleasant after-effects that follow exhilaration brought about by alcohol....Absolutely no craving for the further use of cocaine appears after the first, or even after repeated taking of the drug...
[I]n 1884 [...] Sigmund Freud published his work Über Coca, in which he wrote that cocaine causes:
Yip, you just go up and up and up and ...