' Part of the problem, according to Professor Margaret Esiri at the University of Oxford, may be that people are reluctant to donate their brains because they see the organ as the basis of their identity.
I would have thought that they only accepted brain donations from families of people who have already died. Certainly donating your brain while you are still alive would have an effect on your identity. I would hope this practice stops.
It's ironic that the State always wants to encourage terrorism by making people want to revolt. There is no doubt that there will be many more home grown Timothy McVeigh's in the future.
If you want to do that, you can use ShoZu or Ovi (Google) on you camera phone. There's also live video streaming and recording from your cell phone.
But instead of picking a fight, just say "Sure, officer, I'll delete the photos. See, all gone, even the last one I took of you."
I'm sure they could always ask for a complete inventory of the software on your devices along with your login passwords as well. Though I would think that transit police don't have that much sophistication yet.
I'm thinking the moderators don't have a sense of humour. (On second thought I'm thinking about the time when a British pediatrician was harassed by pedophobes [sic] because she was, well, a pediatrician:P).
Oh, so the hoi polloi should just shut up and pay their taxes, because the "experts" have such a good track record in running the show, is that it? Pooh. Experts be damned.
I agree with you to an extent. I don't think "experts" should have exclusive rights. However people should take the time and effort to inform themselves on issues instead of just taking advice from "experts", or journalists, or Slashdoters, or some advocacy group, etc. And at the crux, people should educate themselves on critical thinking skills so that they can separate the wheat from the biased opinions.
It's the thing that got Socrates killed, really: people who really shouldn't have opinions on something, having opinions on that something.
Somewhat. Socrates was just as stubborn as his overlords. He did have choices (including exile), but decided to leave himself to the whim of the people in power. One could say he got what he asked for. It's somewhat fair in a perverse kind of way.
Surely education is the purpose of the Digital Deterrence Act of 1999, the constitutionality of which we are challenging. How can RIAA object? Yet they do, fear of sunlight shone upon them.
It's clear that the IRAA hasn't found a way to get royalties from the broadcasters for their court appearances.
Then every single video store in existence is enabling censorship - damn them for separating kids films from hardcore porn films!
Exactly my point. And not only that; now of course things are getting worse (as they always do) and now they are separating hardcore porn films write out of any type of legality.
Reminds me of that sci-fi story where in that world people thought for themselves, and parents took responsibility for their kids.
The think-of-the-children arguments are just a red herring; if there weren't children around then people would think of other reasons to censor. There will always be excuses to control people.
Proxies are only useful if the government can't control them. Things aren't looking good now that democracies are taking the example of dictatorships and clamping down on the Internet. Having a proxy chain composed of different government regulated servers (and honey pots) isn't security.
Mr. Burnham wants to extend his proposals across the pond and seeks meetings with the Obama administration.
Same with Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other notable world leaders. Let's hope peer pressure doesn't sway anybody to think that censorship is a good idea.
Notice that I put "team work" in quotation marks. I was really mocking the whole concept as an HRM catch-phrase. There appears to be some science and some pseudo-science to HRM and the hiring (and promotion) process. I will go on to say that I am merely offering my observations and not portraying a fully tested and valid critique.
Fact is that everybody is a team player, by hook or by crook. Those who view themselves (or more importantly project themselves) as a "team player" are often just socialites, sycophants, influence peddlers, or hypocrites who like using popular and cliched phrases as a means to an end. Keywords and catch phrases are meaningless (to me).
On the other hand, there are people who "collaborate", but this is often little more than socialization. On this end there is some science (though I didn't read it on the Internet, so I won't give references). The people who are depressive (I'm not talking about clinical depression here), un-confident in themselves, and loners will generally get the most and best quality work done; the rest are consensus seekers and socialites. Yup, it's a big generalization. I emphasize these facts because they are generally the opposite of peoples perceptions and practices. People need to "think outside of the box" instead of merely using popular and fashionable catch phrases.
That's right in line with how the corporate environment is evolving: You can play (or work) anytime you want, and you have to compete and collaborate on a global basis in order to succeed.
Almost every job requires collaboration and "team player" is a resume keyword that HRM's always look for. Unfortunately the people most successful at "team work" are the least effective at work.
Emphasis:
You can play (or work) anytime you want
In the "corporate" environment there doesn't appear to be much difference. It's just like school for most people.
Computer Science infers freedom of experimentation and exploration. I cannot foresee the US school system giving its students freedom in this regard. Chemistry students were certainly hit hard after 9/11, and the free use of computers to actually learn (as opposed to being spoon fed the government mantra) will be a great dogma for political slogans, but nothing more.
Since when does something being impractical make it untrue?
Depends. Irrelevant question however; I'm not questioning your honesty nor the possibility of a theoretical model.
I have the impression that your notion of impractical equates to useless, which I disagree with.
Your impression is incorrect. I would prefer to live on an island (or a houseboat even) in a place where I could be free from people and their laws. I would prefer even more to live on my own private space ship were I can look down upon the Earth and feel sorry for the people who subject themselves to the forces of gravity. Unfortunately I have not figured out any practical methods of accomplishing either. Perhaps I'm not trying hard enough, or perhaps I don't find the cost/benefit analysis to be favorable to my ideals and goals.
I'm pretty sure that just jumbling the letters around isn't covered by fair use, especially when it's fairly obvious you're a cheap knock-off of the real thing.
Let's hope the RIAA sends MediaSentry after these ARIA people and forces them to pay a $5,000 fine for blatant copyright infringement...
Much like the think-of-the-children type advocates and activists, I'm sure there is one organization/person in the guise of many to inflate their numbers and power. The RIAA certainly has sock puppets.
So rather than waste your time complaining here on Slashdot, perhaps you should spend the same amount of time writing letters to your Senators and House Representatives.
Of all the many Slashdot people here who are arguing against Nursie and his pacifism, I wonder how many of those people are hypocrites and don't bother to actually try and change the status quo by smoking marijuana in front of police officers, having unpopular door-to-door campaigns in their neighborhoods, writing diligent and thoughtful anti-censorship essays and letters to pro-censorship politicians, etc. I would propose that many (most?) people are just complaining through their ideologies and would rather be left psuedo-anonymously unaccountable through their Slashdot posts.
/I may have been a toker in my student days//who wasn't?
Bill Clinton. As we all know by now, just because you put something into your mouth doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong, whether it involves "sex" or "drugs".
1) It's been tried. Trends in most countries are towards authoritarianism and more laws, not less. 2) The "system" is broken towards rationality. Simpler (or simple-minded) solutions are almost always more "rational" to people than more correct and thoughtful solutions. It takes time and energy and diligence and intelligence to think things through logically, for this reason sound bites like "think of the children" have more effect on the status quo than an essay from an ivory tower scholar or a slashdot geek. The democratic "system" cannot escape the lowest common denominator. 3) Money talks. If you aren't a part of the "system" then chances are you don't have any.
I think Napoleon had it right: revolutions often do work, but the unfortunate thing is that even revolutionaries who get into power let the power get into their head.
Slashdot Mirror
' Part of the problem, according to Professor Margaret Esiri at the University of Oxford, may be that people are reluctant to donate their brains because they see the organ as the basis of their identity.
I would have thought that they only accepted brain donations from families of people who have already died. Certainly donating your brain while you are still alive would have an effect on your identity. I would hope this practice stops.
It's ironic that the State always wants to encourage terrorism by making people want to revolt. There is no doubt that there will be many more home grown Timothy McVeigh's in the future.
If you want to do that, you can use ShoZu or Ovi (Google) on you camera phone. There's also live video streaming and recording from your cell phone.
But instead of picking a fight, just say "Sure, officer, I'll delete the photos. See, all gone, even the last one I took of you."
I'm sure they could always ask for a complete inventory of the software on your devices along with your login passwords as well. Though I would think that transit police don't have that much sophistication yet.
People need to read the EULA of the services they are paying for.
I'm thinking the moderators don't have a sense of humour. (On second thought I'm thinking about the time when a British pediatrician was harassed by pedophobes [sic] because she was, well, a pediatrician :P).
Oh, so the hoi polloi should just shut up and pay their taxes, because the "experts" have such a good track record in running the show, is that it? Pooh. Experts be damned.
I agree with you to an extent. I don't think "experts" should have exclusive rights. However people should take the time and effort to inform themselves on issues instead of just taking advice from "experts", or journalists, or Slashdoters, or some advocacy group, etc. And at the crux, people should educate themselves on critical thinking skills so that they can separate the wheat from the biased opinions.
Best regards,
UTW
It's the thing that got Socrates killed, really: people who really shouldn't have opinions on something, having opinions on that something.
Somewhat. Socrates was just as stubborn as his overlords. He did have choices (including exile), but decided to leave himself to the whim of the people in power. One could say he got what he asked for. It's somewhat fair in a perverse kind of way.
Surely education is the purpose of the Digital Deterrence Act of 1999, the constitutionality of which we are challenging. How can RIAA object? Yet they do, fear of sunlight shone upon them.
It's clear that the IRAA hasn't found a way to get royalties from the broadcasters for their court appearances.
Your statement is pure bullshit.
Read a history book instead of flaming.
Then every single video store in existence is enabling censorship - damn them for separating kids films from hardcore porn films!
Exactly my point. And not only that; now of course things are getting worse (as they always do) and now they are separating hardcore porn films write out of any type of legality.
The BBFC's job is classification, not censorship.
Nonetheless, labeling something based on its morality or decency is an enabler for censorship.
Reminds me of that sci-fi story where in that world people thought for themselves, and parents took responsibility for their kids.
The think-of-the-children arguments are just a red herring; if there weren't children around then people would think of other reasons to censor. There will always be excuses to control people.
You're on your way to getting yourself put on a do-not-fly list.
Proxies are only useful if the government can't control them. Things aren't looking good now that democracies are taking the example of dictatorships and clamping down on the Internet. Having a proxy chain composed of different government regulated servers (and honey pots) isn't security.
Mr. Burnham wants to extend his proposals across the pond and seeks meetings with the Obama administration.
Same with Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other notable world leaders. Let's hope peer pressure doesn't sway anybody to think that censorship is a good idea.
Notice that I put "team work" in quotation marks. I was really mocking the whole concept as an HRM catch-phrase. There appears to be some science and some pseudo-science to HRM and the hiring (and promotion) process. I will go on to say that I am merely offering my observations and not portraying a fully tested and valid critique.
Fact is that everybody is a team player, by hook or by crook. Those who view themselves (or more importantly project themselves) as a "team player" are often just socialites, sycophants, influence peddlers, or hypocrites who like using popular and cliched phrases as a means to an end. Keywords and catch phrases are meaningless (to me).
On the other hand, there are people who "collaborate", but this is often little more than socialization. On this end there is some science (though I didn't read it on the Internet, so I won't give references). The people who are depressive (I'm not talking about clinical depression here), un-confident in themselves, and loners will generally get the most and best quality work done; the rest are consensus seekers and socialites. Yup, it's a big generalization. I emphasize these facts because they are generally the opposite of peoples perceptions and practices. People need to "think outside of the box" instead of merely using popular and fashionable catch phrases.
Best regards,
UTW
That's right in line with how the corporate environment is evolving: You can play (or work) anytime you want, and you have to compete and collaborate on a global basis in order to succeed.
Almost every job requires collaboration and "team player" is a resume keyword that HRM's always look for. Unfortunately the people most successful at "team work" are the least effective at work.
Emphasis:
You can play (or work) anytime you want
In the "corporate" environment there doesn't appear to be much difference. It's just like school for most people.
Computer Science infers freedom of experimentation and exploration. I cannot foresee the US school system giving its students freedom in this regard. Chemistry students were certainly hit hard after 9/11, and the free use of computers to actually learn (as opposed to being spoon fed the government mantra) will be a great dogma for political slogans, but nothing more.
Since when does something being impractical make it untrue?
Depends. Irrelevant question however; I'm not questioning your honesty nor the possibility of a theoretical model.
I have the impression that your notion of impractical equates to useless, which I disagree with.
Your impression is incorrect. I would prefer to live on an island (or a houseboat even) in a place where I could be free from people and their laws. I would prefer even more to live on my own private space ship were I can look down upon the Earth and feel sorry for the people who subject themselves to the forces of gravity. Unfortunately I have not figured out any practical methods of accomplishing either. Perhaps I'm not trying hard enough, or perhaps I don't find the cost/benefit analysis to be favorable to my ideals and goals.
Best regards,
UTW
I'm pretty sure that just jumbling the letters around isn't covered by fair use, especially when it's fairly obvious you're a cheap knock-off of the real thing.
Let's hope the RIAA sends MediaSentry after these ARIA people and forces them to pay a $5,000 fine for blatant copyright infringement...
Much like the think-of-the-children type advocates and activists, I'm sure there is one organization/person in the guise of many to inflate their numbers and power. The RIAA certainly has sock puppets.
So rather than waste your time complaining here on Slashdot, perhaps you should spend the same amount of time writing letters to your Senators and House Representatives.
Of all the many Slashdot people here who are arguing against Nursie and his pacifism, I wonder how many of those people are hypocrites and don't bother to actually try and change the status quo by smoking marijuana in front of police officers, having unpopular door-to-door campaigns in their neighborhoods, writing diligent and thoughtful anti-censorship essays and letters to pro-censorship politicians, etc. I would propose that many (most?) people are just complaining through their ideologies and would rather be left psuedo-anonymously unaccountable through their Slashdot posts.
/I may have been a toker in my student days //who wasn't?
Bill Clinton. As we all know by now, just because you put something into your mouth doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong, whether it involves "sex" or "drugs".
Actually it's quite possible to build a small island in international water.
I have the impression that your notion of reality lies somewhere between the impractical and the impossible.
Work with the system and get it legalized.
1) It's been tried. Trends in most countries are towards authoritarianism and more laws, not less.
2) The "system" is broken towards rationality. Simpler (or simple-minded) solutions are almost always more "rational" to people than more correct and thoughtful solutions. It takes time and energy and diligence and intelligence to think things through logically, for this reason sound bites like "think of the children" have more effect on the status quo than an essay from an ivory tower scholar or a slashdot geek. The democratic "system" cannot escape the lowest common denominator.
3) Money talks. If you aren't a part of the "system" then chances are you don't have any.
I think Napoleon had it right: revolutions often do work, but the unfortunate thing is that even revolutionaries who get into power let the power get into their head.
Your analogy fails hard. It's gonna be quite harder to rebuild a bank than it is to submit a software patch.
People don't generally completely rebuild anything when there are faults found (software or banks).