But, I do have a superior system in place - Administrative controls. My kids are allowed to watch what I tell them they're allowed to watch.
And yet, if an IT guy were to propose a similar solution for keeping unacceptable applications off computers, he'd get canned. If v-chips replace parenting, they are bad. But if they suppliment parenting, then they can be good. I mean, you're logging using your DVR, so the concept of using technology to aid in parenting isn't unknown to you. Whitelists and blacklists must be also wellknown. So I wonder as to the objection? Is it because an outside body is making decisions that you would accept in mass? Because I'm sure you can have fine-tuned control.
My guess is that maintaining a tuned list based on the TV ratings and objections would be too hard, which is why I doubt that you really review the logs on the DVR very often. Although maybe that is easier.
I'm not advocating technology as a panacea. There's no reason to turn down tools though.
Re:What do you mean by unknown?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
But we can't precisely place it on a number line. There is something unknown about its value.
And by that logic, all non-abstract values are unknown. "How fact were you driving? It's unknown!"
You want to talk about precision, fine. But frame it like that.
The British Empire didn't get where it did by obeying rules of warfare.
Against other Europeans it most certanly did. Parlays, breaks for lunch, meeting on the field of honor, not targeting officers, etc. All poor tactics, but adhered to by the British because of the rules of war.
What they did to the Irish, Scots, Indians, Africans, etc, would make your blood curl.
They were dicks once they won the wars to be sure.
Calling Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc terrorists is something I would expect a 4th grade history teacher to do or maybe just a 4th grader.
I never did. However, I fail to understand how one would be offended by the concept. Did they not target the civilian population (Loyalists)? Isn't that the only true definition of a terrorist, one who targets a civilian population to sway their political opinion?
Also, the boatload of tea dumped into Boston harbour was hardly a military target.
It was not a military target, but that was before the war began.
A better argument would go to Washington's (in)famous crossing of the Deleware and attacking Trenton on Christmas (Eve?), violating the rules of war as they existed at the time.
Republican voters are very turned off by the 'borrow-and-spend' policies of this administration
And Reagan and Bush Sr., both of whom increased the debt more than any president since FDR (and more than the current administration if measured as a percentage of GDP?) And the spike in FDR's rule coincides with this "World War" I keep hearing about.
(no offense to any baby killing, tax and spend, socialized medicine advocating, way out on the left wing commie liberal democrats reading this).
Presumably it is the Democrats who do not kill babies or consider themselves both socialists and communists who will be offended. Although I suppose a good portion of Democrats would object to the idea that anything left of Fox News is "way out on the left". Some might take offense to the liberal/democrat equality.
Oh, and lastly, I suppose most Democrats would take offense to the idea that "tax-and-spend" is a worse idea than "borrow-and-spend".
Given the choice between a company blocking P2P and one allowing it, I would choose the latter and influence my friends/family/coworkers to do the same.
Given the choice between Natalie Portman and a sock, I would choose Natalie Portman. But since I don't have that choice, the point is moot.
Why do you believe that the reason you only have one company to choose from in your area is only the fault of the company?
Hell, at worst there is one cable monopoly and one phone monopoly. That is two companies. If you have fewer choices than that, it is for economic and not legal reasons. Two might not be enough, but if the market cannot support 2, how will it support X, X>2?
The reason the number of local newspapers has gone down is because more and more people have been getting their news from radio (80+ years), television (60+ years), and most importantly today, the internet... Local newspapers have adapted to the changing market by creating ad-supported websites offering local news.
But earlier you said that, " If the local newspaper refuses to print news from outside the city, I will drop them and subscribe to another paper offering more news." So the declining number of papers works against that.
You then claim to have a variety of papers. Where do you live, as I know of no place in the US (or the world, but that is likely ignorance) where many good papers compete?
I know of and think the Times and WSJ are pretty good. Sometimes the WSJ editorials drive me crazy. And no, I never read any paper's lifestyle section (unless that is where that paper puts the comics.) I feel like there is a third one I am leaving out. I thought the Village Voice was considered good as well, but have never read it.
Oh, I have not read the WSJ since Murdock's acquisition, so maybe I'm living in the past.
The reason I have [deleted: only] one cable choice in my area is due to government interference.
You really think any private enterprise could arrange for the right of ways without governemnt interference? Or, if you are in a rural area, that it is cost effective to run a wire to you and maintain it?
If the local newspaper refuses to print news from outside the city, I will drop them and subscribe to another paper offering more news
Really? How many papers do you have where you live. Most major cities seem to have only one real option. Washington has two (I hear). New York has a couple of good ones. But I've only really heard of one in LA, and everywhere else I can think of. I suppose you can grab a paper from a different city, but you miss out on a lot of local news.
order to be awarded a patent, a company must demonstrate that they will actually USE the patent for something other than litigation.
Actually, a patent can ONLY be used for litigation. Well, that and the threat of litigation.
If you mean that a company has to demonstrate that it will produce a competing product that the patent will protect, then you are crazy. For software patents it may not matter, but for my $100 billion cold-fusion machine, I certainly cannot produce it alone. I need partners. I cannot get partners unless I show them how it works. But then, without a patent, how would I show them how it works without them stealing it?
Essentially your plan leaves big companies in the same good place, but screws over individuals/small companies.
sure, this remark of mine will invite obfuscating semantic gymanastics in an attempt to talk about faith in terms of science, or espionage in terms of morality. but when you come right down to it, the former are pretty much defined as exceptions to latter
It will indeed. Espionage is hardly immoral, when done by countries vs. one another. But, it is immoral to allow the collateral damage to get too high, to sweep innocent people into the fray, etc.
All science requires the articles of faith that the world makes sense, will continue to behave in the future the same as in the past, we can trust our senses/are not brains within jars, etc. But you are correct that most other articles of faith are orthoginal to science.
You'd need to do "wavefront racing" to fix these, and I for one have no idea how to do this - solve the quantum field equations for each particle in the scene after inventing the Grand Unified Theory
Fuck undercover cops. The idea that my tax dollars go towards tricking people into doing illegal activities annoys me to no end.
That is entrapment. It is illegal, and the evidence cannot be used in court. On the other hand, I would like police to be able to infiltrate criminal organizations and gather evidence.
Hell, I am a clean looking law biding white male, I have been arrested and lied to by police. Just last week I had three rifles pointed at me by overzealous police.
Most people with an attitude like yours bring it on themselves. If you are polite to the cops, then things tend to work out. If you are rude, they do so less so. Is it ideal from a moral standpoint? Probably not. But it does work.
I think the answer to question five was as strange as it was because it was interperted as "what sites would the AF like a group of cyber-milita to take down (such as Chinese military sites" as opposed to "do you have active honeypots that you can publish the IPs of, and thus gain a sizable testing force". If interperted as the former, his answer is certainly understandable. If the later, well, I imagine that most honeypots would not be exposed in such a way, so as to be used against people with bad intentions. Now, IP addresses are cheap, but I don't know the cost of running public honeypots in addition to private ones. Not to mention making them look different enough that they are not both detectable as being such.
I wonder if the alcohol that Christ made out of water counts as drugs or not? If not, I'd like to hear why alcohol is not a drug.
Well, some religions (such as Southern Baptists) hold that alcohol is verboten. Others (such as Rastafarianism) have no problems with drugs. Most religions seem to uphold drinking as a celebratory or social act, and are silent on other drugs. So, I would say that religions tend to lump drugs and alcohol together, but the US is where they sent all the Christian groups that thought alcohol was too far.
From a non-religious point-of-view, the problem most people have with drugs is their addictive nature. Even Mills, the ultimate in 'do your own thing' said the one legitimate time to step in is when a person is removing their own freedom by signing themselves into slavery. Well, many people claim that hardcore drugs do that, because of their addictive nature.
It's possible, in an asteroid-hits-Earth kind of way, that something substantial could happen in the few days between the general election and the assembly of the Electoral College to make them change their votes.
Many states have passed laws that it is illegal for them to change their votes.
"weak" atheism, which is essentially the stance that god(s) should be treated like anything else, and not assumed to exist in the absence of direct evidence or logical necessity, though a weak atheist does not actually say "there is no god" (since to a weak atheist, the statement is unnecessary). These are the Russel's Teapot-type folks.
I fail to understand a distinction between that and agnosticism. Both claims resolve to 'this statement is unverifable (and unfalsifiable).' The 'weak' atheism then makes the claim that unverfiable/unfalsifiable claims default to 'false'. Big whoop. Weak atheism already admits it cannot know, so what is the point of making that additional claim?
And according to you, weak athism doesn't even makes that claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Becuase no one has ever lost a job or got denied their college degree because of social networking sites?
My neighbors asked me to do one of two things:
Putting curtains up was easier.
And yet, if an IT guy were to propose a similar solution for keeping unacceptable applications off computers, he'd get canned. If v-chips replace parenting, they are bad. But if they suppliment parenting, then they can be good. I mean, you're logging using your DVR, so the concept of using technology to aid in parenting isn't unknown to you. Whitelists and blacklists must be also wellknown. So I wonder as to the objection? Is it because an outside body is making decisions that you would accept in mass? Because I'm sure you can have fine-tuned control.
My guess is that maintaining a tuned list based on the TV ratings and objections would be too hard, which is why I doubt that you really review the logs on the DVR very often. Although maybe that is easier.
I'm not advocating technology as a panacea. There's no reason to turn down tools though.
And by that logic, all non-abstract values are unknown. "How fact were you driving? It's unknown!"
You want to talk about precision, fine. But frame it like that.
I thought that was phi, the golden ratio.
Against other Europeans it most certanly did. Parlays, breaks for lunch, meeting on the field of honor, not targeting officers, etc. All poor tactics, but adhered to by the British because of the rules of war.
They were dicks once they won the wars to be sure.
I never did. However, I fail to understand how one would be offended by the concept. Did they not target the civilian population (Loyalists)? Isn't that the only true definition of a terrorist, one who targets a civilian population to sway their political opinion?
The later is implicit in that you are posting on slashdot, but the former... such blatant lies have never before plagued this site.
It was not a military target, but that was before the war began.
A better argument would go to Washington's (in)famous crossing of the Deleware and attacking Trenton on Christmas (Eve?), violating the rules of war as they existed at the time.
And Reagan and Bush Sr., both of whom increased the debt more than any president since FDR (and more than the current administration if measured as a percentage of GDP?) And the spike in FDR's rule coincides with this "World War" I keep hearing about.
Everything I know about papers in Britain, I learned from "Yes, Minister."
Yes. Hence 'a' and not 'the'; the difference between indefinate and definate articles.
But still, were it not for him, the bill would have died.
Presumably it is the Democrats who do not kill babies or consider themselves both socialists and communists who will be offended. Although I suppose a good portion of Democrats would object to the idea that anything left of Fox News is "way out on the left". Some might take offense to the liberal/democrat equality.
Oh, and lastly, I suppose most Democrats would take offense to the idea that "tax-and-spend" is a worse idea than "borrow-and-spend".
Given the choice between Natalie Portman and a sock, I would choose Natalie Portman. But since I don't have that choice, the point is moot.
Hell, at worst there is one cable monopoly and one phone monopoly. That is two companies. If you have fewer choices than that, it is for economic and not legal reasons. Two might not be enough, but if the market cannot support 2, how will it support X, X>2?
But earlier you said that, " If the local newspaper refuses to print news from outside the city, I will drop them and subscribe to another paper offering more news." So the declining number of papers works against that.
You then claim to have a variety of papers. Where do you live, as I know of no place in the US (or the world, but that is likely ignorance) where many good papers compete?
I know of and think the Times and WSJ are pretty good. Sometimes the WSJ editorials drive me crazy. And no, I never read any paper's lifestyle section (unless that is where that paper puts the comics.) I feel like there is a third one I am leaving out. I thought the Village Voice was considered good as well, but have never read it.
Oh, I have not read the WSJ since Murdock's acquisition, so maybe I'm living in the past.
You really think any private enterprise could arrange for the right of ways without governemnt interference? Or, if you are in a rural area, that it is cost effective to run a wire to you and maintain it?
Really? How many papers do you have where you live. Most major cities seem to have only one real option. Washington has two (I hear). New York has a couple of good ones. But I've only really heard of one in LA, and everywhere else I can think of. I suppose you can grab a paper from a different city, but you miss out on a lot of local news.
Actually, a patent can ONLY be used for litigation. Well, that and the threat of litigation.
If you mean that a company has to demonstrate that it will produce a competing product that the patent will protect, then you are crazy. For software patents it may not matter, but for my $100 billion cold-fusion machine, I certainly cannot produce it alone. I need partners. I cannot get partners unless I show them how it works. But then, without a patent, how would I show them how it works without them stealing it?
Essentially your plan leaves big companies in the same good place, but screws over individuals/small companies.
It will indeed. Espionage is hardly immoral, when done by countries vs. one another. But, it is immoral to allow the collateral damage to get too high, to sweep innocent people into the fray, etc.
All science requires the articles of faith that the world makes sense, will continue to behave in the future the same as in the past, we can trust our senses/are not brains within jars, etc. But you are correct that most other articles of faith are orthoginal to science.
Oh, maybe I better get cracking on the GUT.
That is entrapment. It is illegal, and the evidence cannot be used in court. On the other hand, I would like police to be able to infiltrate criminal organizations and gather evidence.
Most people with an attitude like yours bring it on themselves. If you are polite to the cops, then things tend to work out. If you are rude, they do so less so. Is it ideal from a moral standpoint? Probably not. But it does work.
I think the answer to question five was as strange as it was because it was interperted as "what sites would the AF like a group of cyber-milita to take down (such as Chinese military sites" as opposed to "do you have active honeypots that you can publish the IPs of, and thus gain a sizable testing force". If interperted as the former, his answer is certainly understandable. If the later, well, I imagine that most honeypots would not be exposed in such a way, so as to be used against people with bad intentions. Now, IP addresses are cheap, but I don't know the cost of running public honeypots in addition to private ones. Not to mention making them look different enough that they are not both detectable as being such.
Well, some religions (such as Southern Baptists) hold that alcohol is verboten. Others (such as Rastafarianism) have no problems with drugs. Most religions seem to uphold drinking as a celebratory or social act, and are silent on other drugs. So, I would say that religions tend to lump drugs and alcohol together, but the US is where they sent all the Christian groups that thought alcohol was too far.
From a non-religious point-of-view, the problem most people have with drugs is their addictive nature. Even Mills, the ultimate in 'do your own thing' said the one legitimate time to step in is when a person is removing their own freedom by signing themselves into slavery. Well, many people claim that hardcore drugs do that, because of their addictive nature.
Many states have passed laws that it is illegal for them to change their votes.
I fail to understand a distinction between that and agnosticism. Both claims resolve to 'this statement is unverifable (and unfalsifiable).' The 'weak' atheism then makes the claim that unverfiable/unfalsifiable claims default to 'false'. Big whoop. Weak atheism already admits it cannot know, so what is the point of making that additional claim?
And according to you, weak athism doesn't even makes that claim.
Sure it's simple, but it's not cheap.
Hell, even Jack Daniel's is made in dry county.