of COURSE it's a lot more attention-getting when I find out somebody wants to kill ME. That's not being superficial or selfish, that's being human. The Rwandans care a lot more about Rwandans dying than Americans, as they should.
Censorship that abridged the right to free speech is a danger. Since the government isn't forbidding anybody from publishing a tasteless coloring book, I think we're fine. Government sites aren't obligated to publish EVERYTHING, just like it's not a violation of constitutional rights if a government press decides not to publish a particular book.
The germ theory of disease is what led to washing hands before birthing children and operating, I believe? Of course hygiene is VASTLY important in reducing the spread of disease, and that is one of the primary reasons epidemics are much worse in poverty-stricken countries. Surely you don't dispute that?
I'm not conspiracy minded, but if I was, I'd be far more suspicious of the government than the drug companies. Looming emergencies tend to get policy changes implemented...
The basic fundamentals of programing will be reused in a number of different contexts and variations. Yes, a "fastsort()" api call can sort arrays, and can help you skate past the evidently difficult chore of learning something new. It won't help you realize that you could use the principles of a Quick-Sort to bear on a complicated problem.
Another example: The computer can do exponentiation for you too, but actually understanding it will occasionally let you vastly improve the quality of your code.
Nah, I disagree. 9/11 was bigger than many other events with large death tolls because 9/11 was a massive MURDER. It wasn't a natural disaster, wasn't an accident, wasn't even a war. It was a big murder. And 300 million Americans realized, many for the first time, that somebody wants to murder them.
None of these limits are part of the law. A university standard is just a policy. There is not percentage or amount of a copyrighted work that automatically qualifies it or bars it as a fair use. Our legislators were, in this case, smart enough to realize that such a limit would be arbitrary and quite unhelpful. There are cases where the entire song would be fair use, and cases where 5% would be violating copyright. If you can find a law (not an organization's policy) that says otherwise, please cite it.
So it's the big pharmaceuticals, not the media, that is blowing this out of proportion, doing their best to create a panic, and failing to put information in any sort of reasonable context? I'm curious how they are managing to do that, since they don't own any tv networks, newspapers, or radio stations.
Maybe they've had an R&D breakthrough on Viral Marketing.
That potential for a terrible pandemic is really no different than we've faced every flu season for the last few centuries. Also, rich people tend to be clean; that may just save them after all.
As someone who likes autorun, my reaction to this is "yeah, because I like doing work myself that a computer is good at".
Computers are HORRIBLE at deciding what is safe to run at what isn't. That's the central security problem, and it probably won't be solved until we have strong AI.
Right. Just like "an auction ON A COMPUTER" is still an auction, and doesn't need a whole new body of law invented to handle it, "warefare ON A COMPUTER" is still warfare. Where civilian casualties are acceptable from bombing, they would be acceptable with cyberwarfare, and when they aren't, the aren't.
If the internet needed a whole new set of moral and legal principles, than your moral and legal principles weren't well generalized to begin with.
They now have the "fiscal conservative" religion, but there is a lot of doubt whether they can follow through with what they can say.
Honestly, I'm a bit confused by what you're saying. Are you saying being a fiscal conservative is tantamount to being religious? Or are you saying that they have the intersection of fiscally conservative supporters and religious supporters?
You aren't implying that being fiscally conservative is a bad thing, are you?
Well, I'm not sure I'd advocate slaughtering everybody, but my pet issue I'm working on memetically spreading is to get a law passed striking all political party information off of state ballots. You would be given the names of candidates, and that's that.
I agree about the harmful effects of political parties; but realize that the only reason Spector switched was to gain power and longevity by aligning himself with the currently reigning party. Even if switching parties isn't repugnant because it's betraying the Republicans, it's still repugnant because it's seeking favor from the Democrats.
Except that I doubt his vies have anything to do with it. If he had stayed a Republican, he would be out of office next term; as a Democrat, he has at least a shot at re-election. It's purely self-interested politicking.
That's no different than, say, a 'hardcore' Street Fighter IV player. Tournament players get fun out of a game in an entirely different way than normal people.
I doubt any stupid person that had shit happen to them DOES want it known. That's one of the reasons you shouldn't do stupid shit. Dying, of course, is another reason.
My respect for human dignity would preclude me from passing these photos around, and certainly would stop me from ever sending taunting emails to the family. That's sick. I confess, though, if I had a teenaged child who had been driving irresponsibly/dabbling in drugs, I might show her these photos.
I don't understand how those numbers can even begin to be relied on. A mortality rate demands that you know the entire number of people infected, and we don't have a clue. It have passed through thousands of people with no greater effect than a 'run-down' feeling for a few days.
I think the reported 6% mortality rate is better rephrased as "of the people who became so sick that the medical establishment became aware of their condition, 6% died."
Hmm. You're correct that the officers should not have distributed the photos. What if I had happened across the accident right after it happened, and took photos? (Not that I would have. Yuck.) Or, to make it more palatable, a photojournalist or documentarian? The accident was on a public area, in full view. No expectation of privacy, and you could argue that there is significant public value to publishing the pictures. It might keep other young people from being as self-destructively foolish as Nikki was.
Sending a taunting email to the father was cruel, and I wouldn't condone that. However, a photograph of an accident site in a public area is a FACT, public information, and I'm not sure intellectual property rights would be relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, this isn't a CRT emulator. This is a RUN-DOWN, GHOSTED, POORLY TUNED CRT emulator.
A new, decent quality CRT is still better looking in a lot of ways than a LCD monitor.
Hm. No, that's not it.
of COURSE it's a lot more attention-getting when I find out somebody wants to kill ME. That's not being superficial or selfish, that's being human. The Rwandans care a lot more about Rwandans dying than Americans, as they should.
Censorship that abridged the right to free speech is a danger. Since the government isn't forbidding anybody from publishing a tasteless coloring book, I think we're fine. Government sites aren't obligated to publish EVERYTHING, just like it's not a violation of constitutional rights if a government press decides not to publish a particular book.
The germ theory of disease is what led to washing hands before birthing children and operating, I believe? Of course hygiene is VASTLY important in reducing the spread of disease, and that is one of the primary reasons epidemics are much worse in poverty-stricken countries. Surely you don't dispute that?
I'm not conspiracy minded, but if I was, I'd be far more suspicious of the government than the drug companies. Looming emergencies tend to get policy changes implemented...
The basic fundamentals of programing will be reused in a number of different contexts and variations. Yes, a "fastsort()" api call can sort arrays, and can help you skate past the evidently difficult chore of learning something new. It won't help you realize that you could use the principles of a Quick-Sort to bear on a complicated problem.
Another example: The computer can do exponentiation for you too, but actually understanding it will occasionally let you vastly improve the quality of your code.
Nah, I disagree. 9/11 was bigger than many other events with large death tolls because 9/11 was a massive MURDER. It wasn't a natural disaster, wasn't an accident, wasn't even a war. It was a big murder. And 300 million Americans realized, many for the first time, that somebody wants to murder them.
None of these limits are part of the law. A university standard is just a policy. There is not percentage or amount of a copyrighted work that automatically qualifies it or bars it as a fair use. Our legislators were, in this case, smart enough to realize that such a limit would be arbitrary and quite unhelpful. There are cases where the entire song would be fair use, and cases where 5% would be violating copyright. If you can find a law (not an organization's policy) that says otherwise, please cite it.
So it's the big pharmaceuticals, not the media, that is blowing this out of proportion, doing their best to create a panic, and failing to put information in any sort of reasonable context? I'm curious how they are managing to do that, since they don't own any tv networks, newspapers, or radio stations.
Maybe they've had an R&D breakthrough on Viral Marketing.
That potential for a terrible pandemic is really no different than we've faced every flu season for the last few centuries. Also, rich people tend to be clean; that may just save them after all.
It'll be horrible, but I really want to see an implementation of this.
As someone who likes autorun, my reaction to this is "yeah, because I like doing work myself that a computer is good at".
Computers are HORRIBLE at deciding what is safe to run at what isn't. That's the central security problem, and it probably won't be solved until we have strong AI.
That's a simplification, not a lie. Kind of like telling 4th graders that you can't take the square root of -1. The subtle details come later.
Right. Just like "an auction ON A COMPUTER" is still an auction, and doesn't need a whole new body of law invented to handle it, "warefare ON A COMPUTER" is still warfare. Where civilian casualties are acceptable from bombing, they would be acceptable with cyberwarfare, and when they aren't, the aren't.
If the internet needed a whole new set of moral and legal principles, than your moral and legal principles weren't well generalized to begin with.
They now have the "fiscal conservative" religion, but there is a lot of doubt whether they can follow through with what they can say.
Honestly, I'm a bit confused by what you're saying. Are you saying being a fiscal conservative is tantamount to being religious? Or are you saying that they have the intersection of fiscally conservative supporters and religious supporters?
You aren't implying that being fiscally conservative is a bad thing, are you?
Well, I'm not sure I'd advocate slaughtering everybody, but my pet issue I'm working on memetically spreading is to get a law passed striking all political party information off of state ballots. You would be given the names of candidates, and that's that.
I agree about the harmful effects of political parties; but realize that the only reason Spector switched was to gain power and longevity by aligning himself with the currently reigning party. Even if switching parties isn't repugnant because it's betraying the Republicans, it's still repugnant because it's seeking favor from the Democrats.
Except that I doubt his vies have anything to do with it. If he had stayed a Republican, he would be out of office next term; as a Democrat, he has at least a shot at re-election. It's purely self-interested politicking.
That's no different than, say, a 'hardcore' Street Fighter IV player. Tournament players get fun out of a game in an entirely different way than normal people.
Hmm. Can I control all your property, like you would like to control Yahoo's?
I doubt any stupid person that had shit happen to them DOES want it known. That's one of the reasons you shouldn't do stupid shit. Dying, of course, is another reason.
My respect for human dignity would preclude me from passing these photos around, and certainly would stop me from ever sending taunting emails to the family. That's sick. I confess, though, if I had a teenaged child who had been driving irresponsibly/dabbling in drugs, I might show her these photos.
I don't understand how those numbers can even begin to be relied on. A mortality rate demands that you know the entire number of people infected, and we don't have a clue. It have passed through thousands of people with no greater effect than a 'run-down' feeling for a few days.
I think the reported 6% mortality rate is better rephrased as "of the people who became so sick that the medical establishment became aware of their condition, 6% died."
Sending a taunting email to the father was cruel, and I wouldn't condone that. However, a photograph of an accident site in a public area is a FACT, public information, and I'm not sure intellectual property rights would be relevant.
You are a strange mix of skepticism and gullibility.