Get his younger sister used to typing her real name and age into a computer.
Why aren't there capitals, punctuation and spaces in that phrase?
What kind of nonsenical IM-speak is 'im'?
Computers should remember birthdays, not ages, as one changes every year and the other does not.
Definately, teaching her to use stupid IM/text-messaging shorthand is bad. But far worse is the idea that she should ever get used to typing real information about herself into the computer until she understands the difference between public and private. As a seven-year-old, I can assure you she does not yet make this distinction.
You have no right to privacy from your parents while you live under their roof, eat their food, and depend on their money. Privacy, if you have it, is a privilege. Get over it. Especially at age 7.
I agree with the sentiment, but am appalled by the logic. Privacy is an inherit human right, not a privledge. However, we allow parents to exercise those rights on behalf of the child, because the child cannot be trusted to do so yet. It has nothing to do with the costs of food/shelter/clothing, and a 20-year-old unable to secure funds (e.g. all their money was going to tuition) would certainly have an expectation of privacy.
Have her take a favorite book, start at a random page (or first page if she only needs to keep family members off.) Read the first letter of each page for 10 pages.
On a different topic, you said one thing that shocked me:
She knows that my younger brother has to endure strict parental control software that was installed on his machine without his consent.
She's 7. I don't know how old your younger brother is, but at some age, it is a reasonable thing for a parent to do. It cannot suppliment for parenting, but it can be handy to insist on a website whitelist, or 2-hour cutoff.
Seven-year-olds shouldn't have the full rights of adults.
Capitalism allocates goods according to ability and willingness to pay. Socialism allocates goods according to needs (or wants, edepnding on the semantics).
The concept that socialism involves the government spying on you, and allocating goods on your behalf is a strawman (and a diversion). Socialist societies and capitalistic societies tend to allocate goods in the same manner, by offering them for sale at a fixed price. The difference is the ownership of the means of production. And in both systems, surveys, etc. are used to plan product lines.
You may have been misled by universal healthcare being labelled socialized medicine. In reality, while closer to socialism than capitalism, it is in fact neither.
are you suggesting somehow that the very nature of capitalism makes it so that costs will not be accessed by the producers for their "full value"? who makes that valuation?
Sure, human lives have a finite value, in America I believe the high six-digits is the average value. My point is that regardless of who makes that valuation, the system prevents the full costs from being passed on to the producers in a capitalist system. Because of the externalization present in the system, whatever price the producers end up paying is less than the actual cost, because society assumes a non-negligable percentage of the cost. Since, in socialism, there is no difference between the producer and society, the full cost is recognized by the same party. Hence the efficency.
The right mix of socialism and capitalism in a society is up for debate, including 100% one way or the other. But it hardly propels the conversation forward to ignore the inherit virutes of either. One of socialisms virtues is that it solves the externalization issues that are present in capitalism, and thus is more sensitive to the real costs associated with shoddy engineering.
(7) Dog-cat hybrid. Like a cat, it doesn't need your attention constantly, but it pays attention when you want it to, like a dog. It's comes when you call it like a dog, but it's clean like a cat. Plus, it barks AND purrs.
Train a cat correctly and you get all of these (except the bark and purr).
First off, Socialism != Communism. In socialism, goods are allocated based on a person's desire to pay. The main difference in socialism vs. capitalism is government vs. private ownership of the companies. That is to say, whether there are government light bulb factories (for instance.) This fact implies several others, but it is irrelevent.
My contention, which you seem unable to refute as you shift off into capitalism is better than communism base triteness, is that capitalism allows costs to be reflected at less than full value. This is because there is an inherit likelihood that liability will not be proven. Also, even if liability could be proven, they may be able to stretch out when to pay (money in the future is worth less) or use the threat of that to settle for less than the actual cost. In socialist systems, those same externalizing factors do not apply.
No, I wouldn't consider a blog with which they are making no money "published" in the ordinary sense of the word...
Why would making money be a relevent characteristic? You publish something when you release it to the public. Business acumen is not applicable. Nor is profit-motive. The Sierra Club makes no money when it publishes (it is a non-profit), but I can still see firing a producer over what he submitted to their newsletter.
Richard Feynman is one of the greatest safe crackers who ever lived
You're only saying that because he cracked the safe with every bit of information the US had on how to make an A-bomb after the Trinity tests. On second thought, I suppose that is pretty good.
This guy broke a well-known rule and then plead ignorance. Waah.
No. This guy broke a well-known rule and then said, "but I didn't think it applied to the Internet." Even more dickish. After all, isn't the "I invented something that's totally new, see it's a preexisitng thing on the Internet" considered a poor argument on/.?
He also admits that he was posting under his real name, and, while he denies this is the case, anyone reading his blog would assume he had a liberal bias. Well, I'm all in favor of the news outlets avoiding even the appearance of inpropriety (politicians too). The fact that they rarely do doesn't change the fact that news outlets shouldn't let partisan loyalists be producers/commentators, and people setting the standards for voting shouldn't head a candidate's election committee. Even if they are imparital, there are other impartial people who appear to be so. There are enough other people who can do this guys job.
"I said that they can't possibly expect CNN employees, en masse, to not engage in something as popular and timely as blogging if they don't make themselves perfectly clear." Boo-fucking-hoo. He read the line quoted in the parent, and that's clear to me. Now, if he had not seen that line in the handbook, that would be one thing. But he knew what he was doing. He didn't like his job and didn't care if he lost (if you read the article.)
Spend hundreds of dollars and hours of processing time and frustration. Or spend 30 bucks and buy the movie again...
Or spend nothing and leave your HD-DVD drive plugged into your home theater, bitching occasionally about the extra remote. Or, have an HD-DVD drive that also is a regular DVD drive (or is plugged into your 360) and don't even have the extra remote. Seriously, why would I someone arbitarily deciding HD-DVD was bad impact me. Now that HD-DVD is "dead", I'm thinking about getting a player and some movies, if they are cheap enough.
Physics is not engineering. If you get things wrong in physics, usually, nothing happens except maybe an angry letter to the editor. Physicists regularly produce incomplete or even contradictory theories, and nobody dies
Ironic that you would post that in a topic about Feynman. While he was a brilliant theoretical physicist, his first job was designing the analog computing machines that launched artillery shells for the Army, and he had a part of building the atomic bomb. He was the guy who used then-theoretical physics to come up with safety parameters at Oak Ridge (where they were processing the Uranium.) So, I guess you could say when the physics went right, a lot of people died.
But I do agree that tradeoffs occur under any system. Those tradeoffs just let us make better decisions under capitalism whereas we can't allow the information from those tradeoffs to inform us economically in a socialist system.
Wow, random assertion. I have no idea why this would be true, and a good body of work seems to suggest the opposite.
Capitalism clearly makes poor choices about these tradeoffs when their monitization is incorrect, but so does socialism. Other than that, capitalism seems to make worse decisions by weighing the costs by the likelihood of being held responsible, the ability to settle for less than that amount because of the costs of extracting it (a trial), and a variety of other externalizing factors. Socialism, on the other hand, does not externalize these costs.
You really think the government is wiretapping you to find out that you have a fetish for tranny porn and follow the news on Tom Brady a little too closely?
Maybe not the government, but an employee. An ex wiretapping you for personal gratification. A stalker. Someone who knows someone to whom you owe money. A curious acquantence. After all, no one really cares if the government knows those things, but if spouses/family/friends find out it could be embarassing.
In fact, the problems in California were caused (primarily) by strict, government-induced price controls -- not exactly a free-market practice.
Which is why the price of electricity spiked as it crossed the California border from Oregon, even though Oregon had all it could use? Face it, that tired excuse has never been true. The price controls were ridiculously high.
There is no free market in the U.S. -- there is only a greater or lesser degree of regulation.
This is what happens when 'free market' monopolies are allowed to continue unchecked by a corrupt FCC.
I don't understand the quotes around free-market... It is a free market. Free markets are bad in the case of utilities however (see California, early 2000's).
but the possibility of unqualified opinion and wikiculture impacting law may be an unpleasant risk... ). If there were a way to get qualified people to lead content creation as you suggest and produce quality at least as high as LN or Westlaw, that would be positive...
Sorry, accidentally put < in as a the actual character:
You can apply math, but it works strangely. 1 + 1 = x, 2 <= x. 2 - 1 = 1 + Lawyer. N - 1 = y{t) + Lawyer where y(t) is equal to 1, or 1 + SocialWorker or N - 1 or N (if a SocialWorker is present). Any subtraction operation can lead to 0 is the subtraction is of sufficent magnitude.
ANYTHING that pops up with the words "Yes", "OK", "Next", or "Finish" gets clicked with lightning speed as if they were playing a game of whack-a-mole. I even had one instance where I was doing training, and the software program would give a confirmation number that the user was supposed to write down for their records. Even after TELLING them to NOT just click the next dialog box, out of a group of 10 people, a few seconds later when the prompt appears 3 people responded almost immediately with "Oh sorry I clicked it . ..".
I was developing a feature, which had a few issues (it would crash on about half the data it was supposed to operate on.) This feature was supposed to fix a common error, although sometimes it was the intended behavior. So it popped up a "yes/no" style "do you want me to correct this" prompt. While I was debugging it, I changed the prompt text to read "Select No".... I hate the internal users.
I suppose it hasn't occurred to them that the rover might be in a Martian equivalent of the Dead Sea? There are plenty of inhospitable places on Earth, too.
TO say nothing of the archeobacteria that thrive in the Dead Sea. Some sort of Haliophile (sp?).
Slashdot Mirror
Four horrible ideas in one!
Definately, teaching her to use stupid IM/text-messaging shorthand is bad. But far worse is the idea that she should ever get used to typing real information about herself into the computer until she understands the difference between public and private. As a seven-year-old, I can assure you she does not yet make this distinction.
I agree with the sentiment, but am appalled by the logic. Privacy is an inherit human right, not a privledge. However, we allow parents to exercise those rights on behalf of the child, because the child cannot be trusted to do so yet. It has nothing to do with the costs of food/shelter/clothing, and a 20-year-old unable to secure funds (e.g. all their money was going to tuition) would certainly have an expectation of privacy.
Have her take a favorite book, start at a random page (or first page if she only needs to keep family members off.) Read the first letter of each page for 10 pages.
On a different topic, you said one thing that shocked me:
She's 7. I don't know how old your younger brother is, but at some age, it is a reasonable thing for a parent to do. It cannot suppliment for parenting, but it can be handy to insist on a website whitelist, or 2-hour cutoff.
Seven-year-olds shouldn't have the full rights of adults.
The concept that socialism involves the government spying on you, and allocating goods on your behalf is a strawman (and a diversion). Socialist societies and capitalistic societies tend to allocate goods in the same manner, by offering them for sale at a fixed price. The difference is the ownership of the means of production. And in both systems, surveys, etc. are used to plan product lines.
You may have been misled by universal healthcare being labelled socialized medicine. In reality, while closer to socialism than capitalism, it is in fact neither.
Sure, human lives have a finite value, in America I believe the high six-digits is the average value. My point is that regardless of who makes that valuation, the system prevents the full costs from being passed on to the producers in a capitalist system. Because of the externalization present in the system, whatever price the producers end up paying is less than the actual cost, because society assumes a non-negligable percentage of the cost. Since, in socialism, there is no difference between the producer and society, the full cost is recognized by the same party. Hence the efficency.
The right mix of socialism and capitalism in a society is up for debate, including 100% one way or the other. But it hardly propels the conversation forward to ignore the inherit virutes of either. One of socialisms virtues is that it solves the externalization issues that are present in capitalism, and thus is more sensitive to the real costs associated with shoddy engineering.
Train a cat correctly and you get all of these (except the bark and purr).
Opera lets you set the Java/Javascript/Cookies options per site.</starry-eyed-fandom>
First off, Socialism != Communism. In socialism, goods are allocated based on a person's desire to pay. The main difference in socialism vs. capitalism is government vs. private ownership of the companies. That is to say, whether there are government light bulb factories (for instance.) This fact implies several others, but it is irrelevent.
My contention, which you seem unable to refute as you shift off into capitalism is better than communism base triteness, is that capitalism allows costs to be reflected at less than full value. This is because there is an inherit likelihood that liability will not be proven. Also, even if liability could be proven, they may be able to stretch out when to pay (money in the future is worth less) or use the threat of that to settle for less than the actual cost. In socialist systems, those same externalizing factors do not apply.
Why would making money be a relevent characteristic? You publish something when you release it to the public. Business acumen is not applicable. Nor is profit-motive. The Sierra Club makes no money when it publishes (it is a non-profit), but I can still see firing a producer over what he submitted to their newsletter.
You're only saying that because he cracked the safe with every bit of information the US had on how to make an A-bomb after the Trinity tests. On second thought, I suppose that is pretty good.
No. This guy broke a well-known rule and then said, "but I didn't think it applied to the Internet." Even more dickish. After all, isn't the "I invented something that's totally new, see it's a preexisitng thing on the Internet" considered a poor argument on /.?
Hear, hear
He also admits that he was posting under his real name, and, while he denies this is the case, anyone reading his blog would assume he had a liberal bias. Well, I'm all in favor of the news outlets avoiding even the appearance of inpropriety (politicians too). The fact that they rarely do doesn't change the fact that news outlets shouldn't let partisan loyalists be producers/commentators, and people setting the standards for voting shouldn't head a candidate's election committee. Even if they are imparital, there are other impartial people who appear to be so. There are enough other people who can do this guys job.
"I said that they can't possibly expect CNN employees, en masse, to not engage in something as popular and timely as blogging if they don't make themselves perfectly clear." Boo-fucking-hoo. He read the line quoted in the parent, and that's clear to me. Now, if he had not seen that line in the handbook, that would be one thing. But he knew what he was doing. He didn't like his job and didn't care if he lost (if you read the article.)
Or spend nothing and leave your HD-DVD drive plugged into your home theater, bitching occasionally about the extra remote. Or, have an HD-DVD drive that also is a regular DVD drive (or is plugged into your 360) and don't even have the extra remote. Seriously, why would I someone arbitarily deciding HD-DVD was bad impact me. Now that HD-DVD is "dead", I'm thinking about getting a player and some movies, if they are cheap enough.
Yeah, my boss thinks anything he doesn't understand is easy as well.
Ironic that you would post that in a topic about Feynman. While he was a brilliant theoretical physicist, his first job was designing the analog computing machines that launched artillery shells for the Army, and he had a part of building the atomic bomb. He was the guy who used then-theoretical physics to come up with safety parameters at Oak Ridge (where they were processing the Uranium.) So, I guess you could say when the physics went right, a lot of people died.
Wow, random assertion. I have no idea why this would be true, and a good body of work seems to suggest the opposite.
Capitalism clearly makes poor choices about these tradeoffs when their monitization is incorrect, but so does socialism. Other than that, capitalism seems to make worse decisions by weighing the costs by the likelihood of being held responsible, the ability to settle for less than that amount because of the costs of extracting it (a trial), and a variety of other externalizing factors. Socialism, on the other hand, does not externalize these costs.
Maybe not the government, but an employee. An ex wiretapping you for personal gratification. A stalker. Someone who knows someone to whom you owe money. A curious acquantence. After all, no one really cares if the government knows those things, but if spouses/family/friends find out it could be embarassing.
Which is why the price of electricity spiked as it crossed the California border from Oregon, even though Oregon had all it could use? Face it, that tired excuse has never been true. The price controls were ridiculously high.
Yeah. But that's a GoodThing(tm).
I don't understand the quotes around free-market... It is a free market. Free markets are bad in the case of utilities however (see California, early 2000's).
I found a group of highly knowledgable legal experts who don't mind sharing their expertise online for free.
Sorry, accidentally put < in as a the actual character:
You can apply math, but it works strangely. 1 + 1 = x, 2 <= x. 2 - 1 = 1 + Lawyer. N - 1 = y{t) + Lawyer where y(t) is equal to 1, or 1 + SocialWorker or N - 1 or N (if a SocialWorker is present). Any subtraction operation can lead to 0 is the subtraction is of sufficent magnitude.
You can apply math, but it works strangely. 1 + 1 = x, 2
None, except for Venus...
But yes, I agree most of the numbers seem like poor WAGs, and the water point seemed redundant.
I was developing a feature, which had a few issues (it would crash on about half the data it was supposed to operate on.) This feature was supposed to fix a common error, although sometimes it was the intended behavior. So it popped up a "yes/no" style "do you want me to correct this" prompt. While I was debugging it, I changed the prompt text to read "Select No". ... I hate the internal users.
TO say nothing of the archeobacteria that thrive in the Dead Sea. Some sort of Haliophile (sp?).
Shit, you were the one who took that?