I hope you posted here after making sure he doesn't read slashdot.
The average slashdotter is smart enough to know that (a) a stolen machine is a very poor value, no matter how low the price you paid, and (b) the first thing you should do with ANY used machine, even legitimately acquired, is to reformat it, since you don't know what crap is already on it.
That's the beauty of language. And, as to the point you indirectly point out, for a long time doctors DID do more harm than good. Look at the practice of "bleeding" people to "remove the evil humours". This required the trust of people, affirmed with the "We're going to help you."
Sort of like "Give us your information. After all, you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide..." Saying "you have nothing to worry about" when you're already in a very worrisome situation?
A friend of mine said he always knew when someone was out to f*ck him - they'd say "Trust me." When you think about it, it makes sense. If I already trust you, you won't have to tell me "Trust me." And if I don't saying those words isn't some magic sauce that will suddenly make me trust you.
"Trust me!" == "I probably think you're stupid and I'm going to fuck you over."
It may not matter to your evaluation of him in the end, but do keep in mind that Powell was a general. When you serve in the military, loyalty is paramount and obeying orders is the law
Unquestioning loyalty is the ultimate disloyalty. His first loyalty should not have been to the president, but to the Constitution, and the people for which it stands.
When the C-in-C, or anyone else, gives an illegal order, a generals' duty is to disobey it, rather than bring dishonour and shame to the military. "I vaz only followink orders, herr prosecutor" didn't work then, and it shouldn't work now.
I notice you still don't address any of the points:
1. How does Robert Silverberg lack redibility when he quotes the same professor of a university that others have quoted?
2. What is this "hypocritical behaviour" you speak of?
3. How is this a "the sky is falling" story, when we know that resources are finite, that there's no such thing as an "indium mine" - indium doesn't occur in lodes or veins, unlike iron or coal or copper, and that current usage is already outstripping production, and will use up the last 5 years' accumulated reserves of indium, and that the vast majority of demand for indium is for flat-panel displays?
Not every problem has a technological solution that is safe, clean, cheap, and doesn't come with its' own can of worms.
The story in the '70s was that copper would run out in 100 years, not 20, and only if we didn't start switching to alternatives. We *did* in fact start switching. Look at how much plastic piping is used nowadays. It's allowed us to stretch our supplies... but there are still physical limits beyond which certain ores will never be economically exploitable, even if energy were free, because of the other costs (environmental, etc).
Indium, unlike silver, does not appear in veins or lodes. That's why there are no indium mines. It's not available in concentrations that make it easy to mine and process.
The author of the editorial that tomhudson talks about is Robert Silverberg, a well known science fiction author
Silverberg is quoting figures from Armin Reller, a materials chemist at the University of Augsburg in Germany. The same guy that the Wall Street Journal, Nova, Science, etc., quote. Stop shooting the messenger because you don't like the message.
Or perhaps just do some *real research".
/. poster 'tomhudson' is Foe and a Foe of a Friend for me, and I recognized the hypocrisy of this non-story right away
Where's the hypocrisy you talk about? Resources are finite - more so than we had currently assumed. Don't like it? Tough - your preferences can't change the cold equations (though you probably don't get the "cold equations" reference).
As VP Colin would be in a much better position to be heard than in his previous positions where he was basically told to make things look good, which he did well enough, IMHO.
Not to the rest of the world, he didn't. Everyone outside the US knew his presentation in the UN was a sham for the US public, and not for the world, since the rest of the world got to see the TV reports (funny how the US stations didn't carry them, hmmm...) debunking his "findings" before he even presented them.
More like "Semi-Colin Powell" or "Up Your Colin Powell", since he's at best, a half-measure, and at worse, helped give everyone the shaft by presenting known lies as truth.
No, it's a question of understanding that people DO in fact make irrational decisions based of feelings rather than hard data, and avoiding that practice when the decision isn't trivial. For example, the decisiond to drop religion and revert to atheism was mad despite my feelings that I would prefer, and was used to, being able to trust in $diety, but since there is zero evidence of that $diety, or any $diety, itellectual honesty demanded that, no matter how I *felt* about it, I had to do what was logical; most people refuse to because they are so psychologically invested in a particular world-view, and fear making the necessary changes.
what would you do if your wife called and told you you hit the power ball jackpot of 127 million while you were driving 75 MPH in heavy post work traffic that is almost fender to fender
It wouldn't matter, because I would either be dreaming or in an alternate universe, since I'm (a) not married, and (b) "heavy post-work traffic" doesn't do 75mph - more like zero-20mph, and (c) I don't drive 75mph except in emergencies and (d) we don't have powerball loteries here:-)
Since we already call "bugs" defects... umm,,, on second thought...
Seriously, security faults, "bugs", "features" that aren't, etc., are defects. They're mistakes. Errors. They didn't just crawl in there accidently, no matter how much we strive to give them independent life by calling them "bugs" or "random behaviour". Not on deterministic systems like computers.
Sounds like an urban legend - like those "X number of people die in their sleep from nightmares" stats... -how did they know they were having a nightmare? Leave a note?
Besides, one data point is irrelevant. You could use that same anecdote to show that porn is dangerous, or that video cameras should be banned, or that semis should not be allowed to share the road with regular traffic, or that the internet is a killer.
Your foot is on the brake well before you're aware that the person is there. Otherwise, they'd be road pizza.
It's possible to completely bypass any "consciousness".
One of the earliest reports was about a guy whose skull was cleaved open with an ice axe. They shoved his brains back in, and he "recovered." He would get up, wash, get dressed, go to work, etc. --- but there was "nobody home". All identity had disappeared. He was just an automaton.
Conscious decision-making, or even awareness, isn't necessary for most activities once they're learned.
Even if they're from different providers, they're running over the same phone network (esp. since smaller providers are just resellers). A backhoe, lightning storm, or major power blackout doesn't give a sh*t that you went through two different providers.
Different people have different levels of ability.
Also, from your link:
The same survey also found that 19% of motorists say that they text message while driving. That equates to roughly one in five drivers who not only use their cell phone while driving, but actually send and receive text messages on their cell phones instead of focussing on the task at-hand.
WE have something like that, and it was too vague, so we added specifics, like passing traffic by weaving between lanes. As you say, the're value of a specific law for both parties: the burden of proof is lower, and the citizen can now know what the limits are, rather than something vague.
Actually, if you think about it for a couple of minutes, we can pretty much automate the process at this point. Roadside detectors that can tell if your cell phone is doing more than just exchanging "I'm here" info wth the local cell tower, plus license-plate readers.
Of course, if there's more than 1 occupant in the car, the system won't work... so I can see an increase in sales of blow-up dolls. Wait a sec, this is slashdot... the average slashdotter probably already has a pneumatically-challenged friend.
Slashdot Mirror
The average slashdotter is smart enough to know that (a) a stolen machine is a very poor value, no matter how low the price you paid, and (b) the first thing you should do with ANY used machine, even legitimately acquired, is to reformat it, since you don't know what crap is already on it.
... which is why you take George Carlin's advice and pray to Joe Pesci ... Joe and a baseball bat will fix those motherf*kers good.
Sort of like "Give us your information. After all, you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide ..." Saying "you have nothing to worry about" when you're already in a very worrisome situation?
A friend of mine said he always knew when someone was out to f*ck him - they'd say "Trust me." When you think about it, it makes sense. If I already trust you, you won't have to tell me "Trust me." And if I don't saying those words isn't some magic sauce that will suddenly make me trust you.
"Trust me!" == "I probably think you're stupid and I'm going to fuck you over."
So it was a really dumb idea for a certain company to make their motto "do no evil" ...
It also begs the question* about doctors and "first, do no harm."
*(no, I'm not interested in little grammar hitlers starting a war over "begs the question". Put it in an ask slashdot - or better yet, get a life.)
So, if google has taken down a video from some non-viacom entity, for any reason, viacom gets a copy, in violation of the original owners' copyrights?
Also, I wonder if google had to take down any kiddie porn vids ... seems we could get viacom for possessing child porn.
They won't be "stand-alone indium mines". The link you post makes it quite clear:
Unquestioning loyalty is the ultimate disloyalty. His first loyalty should not have been to the president, but to the Constitution, and the people for which it stands.
When the C-in-C, or anyone else, gives an illegal order, a generals' duty is to disobey it, rather than bring dishonour and shame to the military. "I vaz only followink orders, herr prosecutor" didn't work then, and it shouldn't work now.
I notice you still don't address any of the points:
1. How does Robert Silverberg lack redibility when he quotes the same professor of a university that others have quoted?
2. What is this "hypocritical behaviour" you speak of?
3. How is this a "the sky is falling" story, when we know that resources are finite, that there's no such thing as an "indium mine" - indium doesn't occur in lodes or veins, unlike iron or coal or copper, and that current usage is already outstripping production, and will use up the last 5 years' accumulated reserves of indium, and that the vast majority of demand for indium is for flat-panel displays?
Not every problem has a technological solution that is safe, clean, cheap, and doesn't come with its' own can of worms.
The story in the '70s was that copper would run out in 100 years, not 20, and only if we didn't start switching to alternatives. We *did* in fact start switching. Look at how much plastic piping is used nowadays. It's allowed us to stretch our supplies ... but there are still physical limits beyond which certain ores will never be economically exploitable, even if energy were free, because of the other costs (environmental, etc).
An economist and a chemist were discussing the final exams they produce for their students.
The chemist bemoaned about how he had to change the questions every year to prevent cheating.
The economist said he gave the same questions every year.
The chemist said "So how do you catch cheaters?"
"The correct ANSWERS change every year."
Indium, unlike silver, does not appear in veins or lodes. That's why there are no indium mines. It's not available in concentrations that make it easy to mine and process.
Silverberg is quoting figures from Armin Reller, a materials chemist at the University of Augsburg in Germany. The same guy that the Wall Street Journal, Nova, Science, etc., quote. Stop shooting the messenger because you don't like the message.
Or perhaps just do some *real research".
Where's the hypocrisy you talk about? Resources are finite - more so than we had currently assumed. Don't like it? Tough - your preferences can't change the cold equations (though you probably don't get the "cold equations" reference).
Not to the rest of the world, he didn't. Everyone outside the US knew his presentation in the UN was a sham for the US public, and not for the world, since the rest of the world got to see the TV reports (funny how the US stations didn't carry them, hmmm ...) debunking his "findings" before he even presented them.
More like "Semi-Colin Powell" or "Up Your Colin Powell", since he's at best, a half-measure, and at worse, helped give everyone the shaft by presenting known lies as truth.
No, it's a question of understanding that people DO in fact make irrational decisions based of feelings rather than hard data, and avoiding that practice when the decision isn't trivial. For example, the decisiond to drop religion and revert to atheism was mad despite my feelings that I would prefer, and was used to, being able to trust in $diety, but since there is zero evidence of that $diety, or any $diety, itellectual honesty demanded that, no matter how I *felt* about it, I had to do what was logical; most people refuse to because they are so psychologically invested in a particular world-view, and fear making the necessary changes.
It wouldn't matter, because I would either be dreaming or in an alternate universe, since I'm (a) not married, and (b) "heavy post-work traffic" doesn't do 75mph - more like zero-20mph, and (c) I don't drive 75mph except in emergencies and (d) we don't have powerball loteries here :-)
Since we already call "bugs" defects ... umm ,,, on second thought ...
Seriously, security faults, "bugs", "features" that aren't, etc., are defects. They're mistakes. Errors. They didn't just crawl in there accidently, no matter how much we strive to give them independent life by calling them "bugs" or "random behaviour". Not on deterministic systems like computers.
Sounds like an urban legend - like those "X number of people die in their sleep from nightmares" stats ... -how did they know they were having a nightmare? Leave a note?
Besides, one data point is irrelevant. You could use that same anecdote to show that porn is dangerous, or that video cameras should be banned, or that semis should not be allowed to share the road with regular traffic, or that the internet is a killer.
Your foot is on the brake well before you're aware that the person is there. Otherwise, they'd be road pizza.
It's possible to completely bypass any "consciousness".
One of the earliest reports was about a guy whose skull was cleaved open with an ice axe. They shoved his brains back in, and he "recovered." He would get up, wash, get dressed, go to work, etc. --- but there was "nobody home". All identity had disappeared. He was just an automaton.
Conscious decision-making, or even awareness, isn't necessary for most activities once they're learned.
Even if they're from different providers, they're running over the same phone network (esp. since smaller providers are just resellers). A backhoe, lightning storm, or major power blackout doesn't give a sh*t that you went through two different providers.
Different people have different levels of ability.
Also, from your link:
This is insane.
But it succeeds most of the time ... most of the time, most cars only have one occupant.
However, since we're expected to see gasoline prices pas $5/gallon this winter, that too will change ...
WE have something like that, and it was too vague, so we added specifics, like passing traffic by weaving between lanes. As you say, the're value of a specific law for both parties: the burden of proof is lower, and the citizen can now know what the limits are, rather than something vague.
Some alternate scenarios:
Look at the over 4,000 channels of content (much of it in hi-def) legitimately distributed via miro.
Actually, if you think about it for a couple of minutes, we can pretty much automate the process at this point. Roadside detectors that can tell if your cell phone is doing more than just exchanging "I'm here" info wth the local cell tower, plus license-plate readers.
Of course, if there's more than 1 occupant in the car, the system won't work ... so I can see an increase in sales of blow-up dolls. Wait a sec, this is slashdot ... the average slashdotter probably already has a pneumatically-challenged friend.