Pledge drives support NPR as well because local stations have to pay to get NPR programming, thus they support NPR with funds obtained (in most cases anyway) primarily from pledge drives.
Advertising doesn't affect you in a way that you are really conscious of in most cases, I think. It's all about familiarity, repetition of a logo, or combination of colors or name or whatever. You are probably more affected than you realize.
If you want to abuse your lungs that way I have no problem with it, but enacting laws to limit where the activity can take place (to protect those of us who are affected) is, as you pointed out in your other examples, legitimate. Smoke at your house and I won't come over, but don't tell me I can choose to stand somewhere else in a public place.
While I appreciate the logical simplicity of your stance and I do in many ways agree with it, I would point out that there is hypocrisy inherent in which activities' negative side-effects we deem to be unreasonable.
For example, why can your argument not be reasonably applied to cars as well? Car exhaust is at LEAST as damaging as second hand smoke, if not moreso. I cannot avoid car exhaust if I wish to go pretty much anywhere in a city or suburb, even if I choose not to drive a car myself (in fact I'll be MORE heavily affected if I'm walking or biking).
The response to this question is of course that people "need" their cars, but don't strictly need to smoke cigarettes. While it could be questioned if people really need to drive cars, I won't go there because of the massive change that would represent for soceity (and because I'm perfectly willing to accept some negative side-effects of otherwise useful things such as cars).
I will however note that there is no case to be made for needing to drive a car that does not meet LEV or ULEV status. Or at the very least, for new cars to not meet such standards.
Of course this is why emissions testing exists, but is it really effective at doing more than removing the most egregious offenders?
I'm not taking sides on either argument (though I have my opinions), just pointing out that we are a strange people when it comes to who and what we choose to demonize.
You say that Linux is a "better" OS than PalmOS but one factor (among many) to consider is the huge number of applications out there for the Palm. Yes I know there are a million and a half Linux utilities out there, but are they targetted for PDA use?
I would say that they're just different, PalmOS is gonna be "better" for a lot of people. Linux, of course, has its advantages and will be better in other situations.
On your other points. Wi/Fi and Camera are big features in my mind. As are battery life, size, and wieght. I'd much rather have a slightly smaller screen (480x320 is still better than most PDAs) if it meant smaller size and less weight.
The big question that remains unanswered will be price.
Atheistic regimes can be quite bloodthirsty - witness the USSR under Communism or Germany under Nazism.
Whoa there. Nazi Germany was by no means atheistic. Though Hitler was a follower of Darwin he also clearly had a belief in god.
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Mein Kampf, trans. Ralph Mannheimo
Whether he was a Christian or not may be up for debate (maybe this is well established, some googling indicated to me that there was some confusion, but perhaps there is authoratative evidence). I personally feel he was a Christian or at least purported to be one.
Whatever the details it is certainly not accurate to say that Nazism was atheistic.
Almost no cases of ADHD were diagnosed anywhere else in the world until the big American pharmaceutical companies starting pushing it on doctors.
Hmmm, doctors don't diagnose disorders/prescribe treatments that they are unaware of. Amazing.
Yes, those on drugs such as Ritalin may go through some behavioural changes whilst under the influence of the drug, but where is the research determining the factors that start this hypothetical illness in the first place, and why isn't that the target of treatment?
So if we define an illness by a set of symptoms and find treatments that alleviate said symptoms we should not use those treatments... why again? Granted, more research needs to be done, but why is that a reason to dismiss the idea entirely as you seem to be doing.
Any decent doctor will be upfront with you about the disorder and explain that while they don't understand entirely what is happening they have found a number of treatments to be helpful.
Lastly, on Link #2. I'm sorry, I have difficulty trusting a website that plays music to provide me quality medical advice.
While it is true that drugs are not a solution in and of themselves for many people they are what makes a behavior modification program even possible.
Any decent doctor will tell you that you need to couple the medication with an attempt to develop better habits to deal with the problem. Medication can be a HUGE help with this and if you are responsible with it is not unsafe or an "enemy".
Many times I think it's the medication that gets someone over that initial barrier to entry (for lack of a better term) so they can say "Hey, I can get a handle on this."
I don't think stuff like this happens often to sysadmins or DBAs. How often do you come into work on a monday and decide to migrate to xfs because you read on slashdot over the weekend that SGI ported it to linux, and SGI is cool? Likewise, how often does an Oracle DBA decide on Monday to move some production tablespaces over to rawfs from cooked, because she read a whitepaper from Oracle on Saturday that talked about performance increases from raw filesystems?
Well, first of all those are all pretty big changes. No developer worth a damn would try to do something that massive over a weekend, by himself. Also in general I think there is more possibility of a small change causing big problems in development work than IT work, although this certainly does happen with IT, as I can attest to, having spent many a late night struggling with some sever setup or what have you.
Is it fair to say that sysadmins fix things and developers break them? What is different about a software engineer's brain than a systems engineers? Talk amongst yourselves:)
Again I think it comes back to the job of a developer, not being harder per se, but perhaps being... more experimental. Much of what is done in the IT world has been done by many other people many other times and so one can draw from that experience. This is true in the development world as well, but I believe to a lesser degree.
Actually, they might. Hardly any stores in Canada accept $100 bills because of a large number of fakes in recent years. You'd have to pay with $20s or $50s.
Fair enough, but using smaller bills hardly helps the problem of paying with more than 25 of one denomination, so the original question stands. Would I be unable to pay cash for something of that price? That seems just silly.
I'm probably just being pedantic here, I'm sure the law is about preventing people from trying to pay with all pennies or whatever.
That's interesting, however, how was it legal for the clerk to keep the pennies?
If you're not allowed to pay with more than 25 of any denomination then fine, but how does that make it legal to essentially steal from someone else?
That doesn't make any sense. Maybe I misunderstand. Also, what if I'm paying cash for something that is more than $2500, I can give 25+ 100 dollar bills? Surely no one would mind that.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In fact it means almost exactly the opposite of what you intend. An oxymoron is a statement that is in and of itself incongruous or self-contradictory, so something cannot be oxymoronic and redundant at the same time.
In fact, oxymoronic redundancy is in fact an oxymoron. Isn't that fun?!
Here is an article linked to by a recent Slashdot story: Intel Programmer detained. This is only one example of many. And I'm more concerned about the ones I don't know about.
The Patriot Act makes it much easier for anyone (including American citizens) to be detained without any real evidence against them, and then to be denied due process rights by exploiting legal loop holes.
So we're not a police state yet, but we appear to be well on our way.
Yes. But terrorism is also a legitimate and serious threat. Dismissing it out of hand as "FUD" is foolish. Hard to enjoy those essential liberties when you're dead.
Terrorism is a threat in the same way that crime is a threat. Obviously our government could take actions that would reduce crime (like detaining people for unlimited periods of time without evidence -- oh wait we do that now) but the question is at what cost? I'd rather have some crime and some terrorism than live in a police state.
Also we could consider changing some of our policies that make terrorists want to target us in the first place but I guess that wouldn't help cause we all know they're evil and we're good and they just hate us becuase we're so free and prosperous. Please.
I think this is just about its history. It's only pretty recently that Flash has gotten any respect from the programming community. It started out simply as an animation tool.
But now, with Flash MX it's really asserted itself as a serious development environment for web based apps. I think we'll start to see Flash used more in this respect in the coming years.
It's interesting to note that there are two almost totally separate Flash communities. Designers and developers, and they do things very differently.
What about a nice round of capture the flag Quake(1/2/3), or some Unreal Tournament? I know people who have cut off all social interaction to gain status on those games.
But in all fairness, how much social interaction did these people engage in anyway?
If this device is simply taking input, processing it in a very specific way, then outputting it surely it would be possible to record the input and then play it back.
Reminds me of that movie Strange Days a bit.
Although I don't think it would record your perceptions but rather whatever you were remembering right then.
So many of you people display a typical American way of thinking : The less we trust people, the less the risk of them inflicting harm upon us.
Perhaps that is true. However, blind trust can be a very dangerous thing as the original poster indicated.
Trust must be earned and should not be blindly given by default. This is of course why reputation is so important as some other posted mentioned this guy will likely gain a bad reputation from these kind of activities.
If someone is unproven I don't think it's unfair to be wary of trusting them blindly.
Slashdot Mirror
Pledge drives support NPR as well because local stations have to pay to get NPR programming, thus they support NPR with funds obtained (in most cases anyway) primarily from pledge drives.
It's indirect, but it's still support.
RADAR TECH.: I'm having trouble with the radar, sir.
HELMET: What's wrong with it?
RADAR TECH.: I've lost the bleeps, I've the lost the sweeps, and I've lost the creeps.
HELMET: The what?
SANDURZ: The what?
HELMET: And the what?
RADAR TECH.: You know. The bleeps, the sweeps, and the creeps.
HELMET: That's not all he's lost.
RADAR TECH.: Sir. The radar, sir. It appears to be... jammed.
HELMET: Jammed? Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry. Lone Starr!
Advertising doesn't affect you in a way that you are really conscious of in most cases, I think. It's all about familiarity, repetition of a logo, or combination of colors or name or whatever. You are probably more affected than you realize.
If you'd read the article you would know that they controlled for gender.
If you want to abuse your lungs that way I have no problem with it, but enacting laws to limit where the activity can take place (to protect those of us who are affected) is, as you pointed out in your other examples, legitimate. Smoke at your house and I won't come over, but don't tell me I can choose to stand somewhere else in a public place.
While I appreciate the logical simplicity of your stance and I do in many ways agree with it, I would point out that there is hypocrisy inherent in which activities' negative side-effects we deem to be unreasonable.
For example, why can your argument not be reasonably applied to cars as well? Car exhaust is at LEAST as damaging as second hand smoke, if not moreso. I cannot avoid car exhaust if I wish to go pretty much anywhere in a city or suburb, even if I choose not to drive a car myself (in fact I'll be MORE heavily affected if I'm walking or biking).
The response to this question is of course that people "need" their cars, but don't strictly need to smoke cigarettes. While it could be questioned if people really need to drive cars, I won't go there because of the massive change that would represent for soceity (and because I'm perfectly willing to accept some negative side-effects of otherwise useful things such as cars).
I will however note that there is no case to be made for needing to drive a car that does not meet LEV or ULEV status. Or at the very least, for new cars to not meet such standards.
Of course this is why emissions testing exists, but is it really effective at doing more than removing the most egregious offenders?
I'm not taking sides on either argument (though I have my opinions), just pointing out that we are a strange people when it comes to who and what we choose to demonize.
You say that Linux is a "better" OS than PalmOS but one factor (among many) to consider is the huge number of applications out there for the Palm. Yes I know there are a million and a half Linux utilities out there, but are they targetted for PDA use?
I would say that they're just different, PalmOS is gonna be "better" for a lot of people. Linux, of course, has its advantages and will be better in other situations.
On your other points. Wi/Fi and Camera are big features in my mind. As are battery life, size, and wieght. I'd much rather have a slightly smaller screen (480x320 is still better than most PDAs) if it meant smaller size and less weight.
The big question that remains unanswered will be price.
To the contrary:
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains," Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.
Well then. That pretty much settles that one. Now, I thank you for the correction.
Atheistic regimes can be quite bloodthirsty - witness the USSR under Communism or Germany under Nazism.
Whoa there. Nazi Germany was by no means atheistic. Though Hitler was a follower of Darwin he also clearly had a belief in god.
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Mein Kampf, trans. Ralph Mannheimo
Whether he was a Christian or not may be up for debate (maybe this is well established, some googling indicated to me that there was some confusion, but perhaps there is authoratative evidence). I personally feel he was a Christian or at least purported to be one.
Whatever the details it is certainly not accurate to say that Nazism was atheistic.
Almost no cases of ADHD were diagnosed anywhere else in the world until the big American pharmaceutical companies starting pushing it on doctors.
... why again? Granted, more research needs to be done, but why is that a reason to dismiss the idea entirely as you seem to be doing.
Hmmm, doctors don't diagnose disorders/prescribe treatments that they are unaware of. Amazing.
Yes, those on drugs such as Ritalin may go through some behavioural changes whilst under the influence of the drug, but where is the research determining the factors that start this hypothetical illness in the first place, and why isn't that the target of treatment?
So if we define an illness by a set of symptoms and find treatments that alleviate said symptoms we should not use those treatments
Any decent doctor will be upfront with you about the disorder and explain that while they don't understand entirely what is happening they have found a number of treatments to be helpful.
Lastly, on Link #2. I'm sorry, I have difficulty trusting a website that plays music to provide me quality medical advice.
While it is true that drugs are not a solution in and of themselves for many people they are what makes a behavior modification program even possible.
Any decent doctor will tell you that you need to couple the medication with an attempt to develop better habits to deal with the problem. Medication can be a HUGE help with this and if you are responsible with it is not unsafe or an "enemy".
Many times I think it's the medication that gets someone over that initial barrier to entry (for lack of a better term) so they can say "Hey, I can get a handle on this."
You should try to be a bit more open minded, d
I don't think stuff like this happens often to sysadmins or DBAs. How often do you come into work on a monday and decide to migrate to xfs because you read on slashdot over the weekend that SGI ported it to linux, and SGI is cool? Likewise, how often does an Oracle DBA decide on Monday to move some production tablespaces over to rawfs from cooked, because she read a whitepaper from Oracle on Saturday that talked about performance increases from raw filesystems?
:)
... more experimental. Much of what is done in the IT world has been done by many other people many other times and so one can draw from that experience. This is true in the development world as well, but I believe to a lesser degree.
Well, first of all those are all pretty big changes. No developer worth a damn would try to do something that massive over a weekend, by himself. Also in general I think there is more possibility of a small change causing big problems in development work than IT work, although this certainly does happen with IT, as I can attest to, having spent many a late night struggling with some sever setup or what have you.
Is it fair to say that sysadmins fix things and developers break them? What is different about a software engineer's brain than a systems engineers? Talk amongst yourselves
Again I think it comes back to the job of a developer, not being harder per se, but perhaps being
Actually, they might. Hardly any stores in Canada accept $100 bills because of a large number of fakes in recent years. You'd have to pay with $20s or $50s.
Fair enough, but using smaller bills hardly helps the problem of paying with more than 25 of one denomination, so the original question stands. Would I be unable to pay cash for something of that price? That seems just silly.
I'm probably just being pedantic here, I'm sure the law is about preventing people from trying to pay with all pennies or whatever.
That's interesting, however, how was it legal for the clerk to keep the pennies?
If you're not allowed to pay with more than 25 of any denomination then fine, but how does that make it legal to essentially steal from someone else?
That doesn't make any sense. Maybe I misunderstand. Also, what if I'm paying cash for something that is more than $2500, I can give 25+ 100 dollar bills? Surely no one would mind that.
This is what we should expect from New Hampshire
Live free or die!
Corporate America is now an oxymoron.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In fact it means almost exactly the opposite of what you intend. An oxymoron is a statement that is in and of itself incongruous or self-contradictory, so something cannot be oxymoronic and redundant at the same time.
In fact, oxymoronic redundancy is in fact an oxymoron. Isn't that fun?!
Here is an article linked to by a recent Slashdot story: Intel Programmer detained. This is only one example of many. And I'm more concerned about the ones I don't know about.
The Patriot Act makes it much easier for anyone (including American citizens) to be detained without any real evidence against them, and then to be denied due process rights by exploiting legal loop holes.
So we're not a police state yet, but we appear to be well on our way.
Yes. But terrorism is also a legitimate and serious threat. Dismissing it out of hand as "FUD" is foolish.
Hard to enjoy those essential liberties when you're dead.
Terrorism is a threat in the same way that crime is a threat. Obviously our government could take actions that would reduce crime (like detaining people for unlimited periods of time without evidence -- oh wait we do that now) but the question is at what cost? I'd rather have some crime and some terrorism than live in a police state.
Also we could consider changing some of our policies that make terrorists want to target us in the first place but I guess that wouldn't help cause we all know they're evil and we're good and they just hate us becuase we're so free and prosperous. Please.
You can be intelligent without making every possible effort to be unlikeable.
You seem to be doing a great job at this.
I think this is just about its history. It's only pretty recently that Flash has gotten any respect from the programming community. It started out simply as an animation tool.
But now, with Flash MX it's really asserted itself as a serious development environment for web based apps. I think we'll start to see Flash used more in this respect in the coming years.
It's interesting to note that there are two almost totally separate Flash communities. Designers and developers, and they do things very differently.
What about a nice round of capture the flag Quake(1/2/3), or some Unreal Tournament? I know people who have cut off all social interaction to gain status on those games.
But in all fairness, how much social interaction did these people engage in anyway?
Bad form to reply to myself but I just realized I was being silly.
... well I don't know but it'd be messed up.
This is only about RECORDING memories at this point. So replaying a recording would
That's an interesting question.
If this device is simply taking input, processing it in a very specific way, then outputting it surely it would be possible to record the input and then play it back.
Reminds me of that movie Strange Days a bit.
Although I don't think it would record your perceptions but rather whatever you were remembering right then.
"Forgetting is the most beneficial process we possess," Williams says. It enables us to deal with painful situations without actually reliving them.
Okay, it might be handy, but the MOST beneficial process we possess? I think REMEMBERING might rank up there somewhere.
Could you elaborate a bit on how this is unethical?
So many of you people display a typical American way of thinking : The less we trust people, the less the risk of them inflicting harm upon us.
Perhaps that is true. However, blind trust can be a very dangerous thing as the original poster indicated.
Trust must be earned and should not be blindly given by default. This is of course why reputation is so important as some other posted mentioned this guy will likely gain a bad reputation from these kind of activities.
If someone is unproven I don't think it's unfair to be wary of trusting them blindly.