I disagree with the emotive language implying that Palestinians are the only ones killing innocent civilians
Why is the (directly-caused) civilian death toll relevent? Starting with our mutual and (I believe) pretty universal idea that killing innocent civilians is bad and should be discouraged, let's examine the other surrounding circumstances. Palestian terrorists deliberately target civilians, and then hide among the civilian Palestian population. Israel could either ignore the terrorists or accept some unintended civilian to intended terrorist death ratio, with the more extreme ratios leading to fewer terrorists and more saftey. This line-drawing problem of accidentally hurting the innocent vs. punishing/stopping the guilty is found throughout western society when it comes to incarcerating people. It just so happens that it's impossible to build the same level of safeguards into a military action.
So you condemn Israel from being more efficent in the use of force? That makes no sense- you're making a moral argument which concerns itself only with intentions, not consequences.
What if he doesn't use twitter? Do they expect him to make an account, get everyone in the crowd to subscribe (assuming they don't have some massive aversion to it like my self and refuse to go) and then update the twitter telling everyone to beat it?
He does use twitter, and everyone in the crowd (to a significant percentage) was already subscribing.
This also some how assumes every single person in the crowd has some mobile twitter solution configured as well which is entirely ignorant.
Again, they (to a significant percentage) did
If the law officers don't understand anything even a little they shouldn't be allowed to take actions based on their ignorance.
The same should be said about slashdot commentators and reading. The missing information: He drew the crowd by using twitter, and was posting twitter updates as the cops were trying to get the crowd to disperse.
You are creating more heat outside your house than you are sucking out of the air inside your house. You are not magically making the universe colder by using an AC unit.
The universe's entropy increases... it's a closed system so it is unavoidable. The house's entropy decreases (much like the entropy of a heap of bricks decreases when organized in to a wall.) The point is that "entropy always increases" is only true within a closed system, and hence the great-grand parent's point about "reversing entropy" in the human body is actually quite trivial.
But they're definitely an example of the "clueless"- because that's what the clueless do; risk their lives in return for a "little bit of money off the GI Bill".
That assumes your desire was to maximize material possessions. One of the many reasons so many people in the military are admirable are they do know it's a ripoff, profit-wise. It's more altruistic than quid pro quo.
What's paranoid about insisting that a company bring a proposal, make me an offer, and sign a contract if they want to derive monetary value from my personal data?
Because the costs of doing so would outweigh the benefits, leading to no one agreeing to the use of their data, no ad revenue, and ultimately no professional web sites (except those that charge a fee to view). This situtation is termed a "market failure", in this case because of high transaction costs. Therefore, society standardizes the agreement to "they can use the info they get on you when you visit their page", and other people specialize in aggregating that info about you. This is similar to how Target can sell you something for a quarter and turn a profit, while even the most measily negotiated contract costs in the hundreds of dollars.
I personally block their tracking cookies, and have no moral objection to it, but you cannot reasonably assume all human interaction to be governed by explicit contracts.
With the exception of Fritz or Rybka, there hasn't been a single instance of AI that I personally have been unable to overcome in a matter of seconds, if not minutes.
Well, I wrote some Game AI that you cannot overcome. It didn't cheat at all. It simply used my strategy to win. Unbeatable!.
You really don't want to have to explain how to use Linux whenever a problem comes up. And then you're even more on the hook.
You're already reinstalling their OS and all software, right? So don't give them an administator account. Set up whatever needs to run as the admin, as the admin. Set up a firewall. Turn on automatic updates. Make some non-IE browser the default (or update to IE 8). Install a good anti-virus software. Shut down unneeded services (I think the www.grc.com list and the http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCd/SecureXP.html list are pretty complete). And then lock it the fuck down.
It can then be as easy to use as Windows, and much safer. And, then it becomes a monthly or less often thing to install a software package instead of fix the whole computer.
I think around the time CNN saw Fox staking out the conservative-centric news angles, and MSNBC staking out the liberal-centric news angles they knew they were somewhat screwed.
They chould have been the "news without commentary" station. Sure, some bias may be inevitable, but Hannity, Oberman, et al don't even pretend or try to be unbiased.
Why shouldn't I assume? It's a flawed argument that speaks as to your motiviation. That is, it wasn't a baseless assumption, it was inferred from your statements. And reading subtext (especially accurately, see below) is necessary in inter-human communication.
Just because I know many people who do pirate for that very reason (that they're too expensive)
So, you quote your friend's point-of-view anonymously, and I mistakenly respond your friend instead of you. Please just apply my inferences to your friend's motivations instead of yours.
That is, your friend should wait a few months or pay $10-$15 more.
I guarantee that if the average new movie price was $10 instead of $25, they'd sell a LOT more dvd's and there'd be a lot less pirating going on
The average price of the movie I buy is $10. I haven't seen a lot of movies above that except in the first month or so of release.
So, you could wait, like I do, or pay more. But instead you decide to pirate it.
If you said "I don't believe in copyright" I would think you were honest; naive and wrong, but honest. I think you just want something for nothing and are stretching to justify it.
So in other words, this isn't a count of how many vulnerabilities there are, it's a count of how many vulnerabilities are found and fixed.
Something tells me their methodology is a bit flawed. Of course, that's by design, given Cenzic's financial ties to Microsoft.
Actually, in other words, the GP was making shit up. But since it conformed to your worldview, you agreed with it and based an entire post on it even though he said he didn't RTFA. Somehow it then got modded to +5.
In reality, the vulnerabilities were culled from a variety of 1st and 3rd party sources.
My argument is that a public personality has a valid concern that satire and malicious content could be taken as factual by a public that does not give due diligence to its consumption of information and that could do harm to them
I just wonder why you bother to specify a public figure? It seems like it damages everyone, no one less than a public figure, who has the opportunity to fight back and for whom publicity is valuable. On the other hand, it would probably cost me everything to sucessfully fight smears about me, and I don't benefit on wit from publicity.
And, if a public personality has a persona such that people think that they really could have killed and eaten babies, maybe that's a cause for concern?
Beck has good reason to believe that his financial success could be directly impacted by heinous and untrue implied accusations, as does any other public figure
I'm pretty sure being accused of being a rapist and murderer would have profound social and financial implications for anyone, public figure or not. Glenn Beck didn't lose his job, as many people in with similar accusations have.
Just because you want a certain kind of service doesn't mean someone else must provide it to you.
Well, tameles aren't internet service. The government is supposed to manage communication as a vital aspect of interstate commerce. Electricity generation, water rights maintence, telecommunication. History proves that the government makes things more stable.
And, ideologically, I'd rather have risk/variance/high efficeny in places where it matters, and avoid risk/varaince in basic utilities and necessities.
Try installing Windows 7 or Vista on hardware that's 7 years old. Good luck, now try to install Linux on it. More than likely Linux can be installed.
I'm not sure how proud I would be of the software for obsolete equipment. Add to that, Windows XP runs just fine on a 7 year old machine, and what can Linux brag about? "If you want to run old software, but with a slightly newer [since SP3 on XP is recent] OS, cool!"
Since Linux also brags about supporting 4096 cores (IIRC), isn't it also trying to go the other way.
Now I do want to try installing it on an old computer to see what kind of hardware issues I have though.
I can understand that the word "niggardly" is similar to the word "mensa" (although in English); it too has a completely different meaning, origin and predates a similiar offensive term.
However, it doesn't make sense in the sentence you used it in. "Niggardly" is a synonym for "stingy". If you rob it of that meaning, you're only using it because it's so similar to a certain offensive word: then it actually loses the very aspects that you sought to point out.
really, don't we want to do the opposite? Logically, isn't someone with an "aggression gene" probably going to be more likely to be a repeat offender?
Well, yes and no. Yes, it makes more sense to increase the sentence if you are trying to use the "deter/prevent/rehabilitate" model of criminal justice. No, if you are using the "people should get what they deserve" model. I personally believe in the former; however most religious people and libertarians believe in the later.
But the classic Canary Trap requires someone to modify the document manually, which is hard to do on a large scale. Here it is being done automatically by an algorithm.
Actually, the Canary Trap, as defined by Clancy, was automated.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the (directly-caused) civilian death toll relevent? Starting with our mutual and (I believe) pretty universal idea that killing innocent civilians is bad and should be discouraged, let's examine the other surrounding circumstances. Palestian terrorists deliberately target civilians, and then hide among the civilian Palestian population. Israel could either ignore the terrorists or accept some unintended civilian to intended terrorist death ratio, with the more extreme ratios leading to fewer terrorists and more saftey. This line-drawing problem of accidentally hurting the innocent vs. punishing/stopping the guilty is found throughout western society when it comes to incarcerating people. It just so happens that it's impossible to build the same level of safeguards into a military action.
So you condemn Israel from being more efficent in the use of force? That makes no sense- you're making a moral argument which concerns itself only with intentions, not consequences.
It means that it is out of letter sized paper in the primary paper loading compartment.
Sure
He does use twitter, and everyone in the crowd (to a significant percentage) was already subscribing.
Again, they (to a significant percentage) did
The same should be said about slashdot commentators and reading. The missing information: He drew the crowd by using twitter, and was posting twitter updates as the cops were trying to get the crowd to disperse.
The universe's entropy increases... it's a closed system so it is unavoidable. The house's entropy decreases (much like the entropy of a heap of bricks decreases when organized in to a wall.) The point is that "entropy always increases" is only true within a closed system, and hence the great-grand parent's point about "reversing entropy" in the human body is actually quite trivial.
That assumes your desire was to maximize material possessions. One of the many reasons so many people in the military are admirable are they do know it's a ripoff, profit-wise. It's more altruistic than quid pro quo.
Because the costs of doing so would outweigh the benefits, leading to no one agreeing to the use of their data, no ad revenue, and ultimately no professional web sites (except those that charge a fee to view). This situtation is termed a "market failure", in this case because of high transaction costs. Therefore, society standardizes the agreement to "they can use the info they get on you when you visit their page", and other people specialize in aggregating that info about you. This is similar to how Target can sell you something for a quarter and turn a profit, while even the most measily negotiated contract costs in the hundreds of dollars.
I personally block their tracking cookies, and have no moral objection to it, but you cannot reasonably assume all human interaction to be governed by explicit contracts.
Murdock owns the Daily News, not the Times; the Times has been subscription for at least 7+ years; subscribing is free.
You mean illiteracy. But I thought that applied only to reading. I wonder if there's another word that applies to an inability to do math.
The above is intended as sarcasm, but may have come across as stupidity instead.
Well, I wrote some Game AI that you cannot overcome. It didn't cheat at all. It simply used my strategy to win. Unbeatable!.
You really don't want to have to explain how to use Linux whenever a problem comes up. And then you're even more on the hook.
You're already reinstalling their OS and all software, right? So don't give them an administator account. Set up whatever needs to run as the admin, as the admin. Set up a firewall. Turn on automatic updates. Make some non-IE browser the default (or update to IE 8). Install a good anti-virus software. Shut down unneeded services (I think the www.grc.com list and the http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCd/SecureXP.html list are pretty complete). And then lock it the fuck down.
It can then be as easy to use as Windows, and much safer. And, then it becomes a monthly or less often thing to install a software package instead of fix the whole computer.
They chould have been the "news without commentary" station. Sure, some bias may be inevitable, but Hannity, Oberman, et al don't even pretend or try to be unbiased.
Why shouldn't I assume? It's a flawed argument that speaks as to your motiviation. That is, it wasn't a baseless assumption, it was inferred from your statements. And reading subtext (especially accurately, see below) is necessary in inter-human communication.
So, you quote your friend's point-of-view anonymously, and I mistakenly respond your friend instead of you. Please just apply my inferences to your friend's motivations instead of yours.
That is, your friend should wait a few months or pay $10-$15 more.
In fairness, it seemed to be a couple of tree branches in a relatively short timeframe.
The average price of the movie I buy is $10. I haven't seen a lot of movies above that except in the first month or so of release.
So, you could wait, like I do, or pay more. But instead you decide to pirate it.
If you said "I don't believe in copyright" I would think you were honest; naive and wrong, but honest. I think you just want something for nothing and are stretching to justify it.
Actually, in other words, the GP was making shit up. But since it conformed to your worldview, you agreed with it and based an entire post on it even though he said he didn't RTFA. Somehow it then got modded to +5.
In reality, the vulnerabilities were culled from a variety of 1st and 3rd party sources.
I did RTFA, and I bet you're wrong.
I'm pretty sure being accused of being a rapist and murderer would have profound social and financial implications for anyone, public figure or not. Glenn Beck didn't lose his job, as many people in with similar accusations have.
Well, tameles aren't internet service. The government is supposed to manage communication as a vital aspect of interstate commerce. Electricity generation, water rights maintence, telecommunication. History proves that the government makes things more stable.
And, ideologically, I'd rather have risk/variance/high efficeny in places where it matters, and avoid risk/varaince in basic utilities and necessities.
Only if Comcast has any competitors. Sure, there's always dial-up, but really?
I'm not sure how proud I would be of the software for obsolete equipment. Add to that, Windows XP runs just fine on a 7 year old machine, and what can Linux brag about? "If you want to run old software, but with a slightly newer [since SP3 on XP is recent] OS, cool!"
Since Linux also brags about supporting 4096 cores (IIRC), isn't it also trying to go the other way.
Now I do want to try installing it on an old computer to see what kind of hardware issues I have though.
I can understand that the word "niggardly" is similar to the word "mensa" (although in English); it too has a completely different meaning, origin and predates a similiar offensive term.
However, it doesn't make sense in the sentence you used it in. "Niggardly" is a synonym for "stingy". If you rob it of that meaning, you're only using it because it's so similar to a certain offensive word: then it actually loses the very aspects that you sought to point out.
Well, yes and no. Yes, it makes more sense to increase the sentence if you are trying to use the "deter/prevent/rehabilitate" model of criminal justice. No, if you are using the "people should get what they deserve" model. I personally believe in the former; however most religious people and libertarians believe in the later.
Actually, the Canary Trap, as defined by Clancy, was automated.