And of course "I couldn't get work" is often used as a proxy for "they are not handing me the exact job I think I deserve." There ARE jobs out there people. There IS work to be done. Oh, not good enough for you? Yes, I can see your only recourse is to become a thief. Uh huh. The people I've known who were thieves always came up with very good reasons why they just HAD to steal. Bullshit.
Unfortunately if you're considered "overqualified" you're usually passed over for the job as well. If you had a high-technical-skill job but then had to apply to low-tech-skill jobs because you're desperate to work and eat and feed your family, you'll often not be considered anyway because 1) the employer can usually hire someone who is not 'overqualified,' and also the employer assumes you'll quit the job as soon as you're offered a better one that matches your experience.
If you really want to reduce fraud, make the banks financially responsible for it.
And make the rape victims responsible. And the carjacking victims. Yeah man!
Oh come now, those are terrible comparisons. The banks are directly responsible for the amount of security and they are financially benefiting from a system with lax security.
The banks are not the ones who get victimized here, the merchants are. Sure there are fraudulent merchants who sell numbers, but I think that number pails in comparison to the merchants who unknowingly approve transactions on stolen cards/numbers. The system is not set up to be secure, and there's little that the merchants can do about that.
What actually happens is that increased security can cause people to use their cards less, resulting in lower revenue to them in the form of transaction fees. That's why if you go to a fast food place or the movies, you don't even need to sign your receipt anymore, if the total purchase is below a certain value. Increased convenience = increased use, and they figure that they can make more money out of this increased use than they are losing to fraud.
Mods: Please don't let this languish at the AC default of 0. This is possibly the most important point raised in this story -- the banks have a vested interest in keeping security lax, because less security means more credit card use; and yet they aren't liable for the security breaches. It's sortof like the recent housing market bust when financial institutions could offer high-risk mortgages and then sell them off as low-risk mortgages. Any system where an institution is rewarded when risky behavior pays off but does not have to suffer the consequences of the risk is prone to failure.
It's stronger than that. It means 'has the means to do anything -full stop'. Or is there anything he can not imagine, uh?
I've probably read way too many 1980s-era Marvel comics, where a number of super-powered beings were described as being omnipotent, yet limited by human intelligence and human imagination. I don't know what that would really have to do with religious gods though, other than the comics were partially inspired by theories of the divine.
If it was the case that Landis was gifted with Merckx/Antequil like engine, he would have returned to crushing fields in American races. This didn't happen. Not even close. This is strong evidence he was using PED's.
Umm, no, it is strong speculation. It is no evidence of any kind.
That sounds pretty sweet, and I would probably still be using MythTV to record my shows if it supported HD Cable. It's not really an option with Cablecards though, so I'm pretty much stuck with Tivo.
Dear moderators (and potential meta moderators). Whatever you thought of Animaether's logic, there is no way that the parent post constituted Flamebait. There were no attacks whatsoever, he showed a logical problem with the suggested course of action that would have to be considered.
Just because you are omnipotent doesn't mean you can't also be lazy and take the easy way out.
Depends on how you want to define the term 'omnipotent.' For some, it means 'has the means to do anything he can imagine.' To others, it might mean 'all actions, regardless of complexity, take the same amount of work.' I've spoken with many religious folks who explicitly believe in the second definition.
A 'god' or an 'intelligent designer' does not have time, money, or resource constraints to worry about as developers do. They are always portrayed as omnipotent beings which could have easily designed a man w/o nipples.
I think God outsourced some of the work to lesser, overworked deities who took shortcuts. That gave God the time to design really awesome things like supernovas and pulsars and rainbows and wolverines.
Obscenity laws like this shouldn't even exist in this day and age.
Seriously, obscenity? How about we go down to the soda shop and get some malts? Then we can go rough up the dorky kid and pitch woo to the cheerleaders. Check out those sexy ankles!
You're mocking it, but there are a LOT of people in the US who believe the 1950s USA was a much better time and had better values before the 60s and liberals fucked everything up. Depressing, and I still hold out hope that time passing will cause even more generational change and generational shifts.
Offtopic: Ya know it really annoys me when I hear people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh talking against "net neutrality". While I have a choice, many people are stuck with a monopoly like Comcast or Cox or Time-Warner for their internet. The purpose of net neutrality is to stop these monopolies from blocking websites they don't like, such as foxnews.com. Why would either Beck or Limbaugh be against that?
I think it's because they would argue that private organizations should have the right to censor. I would sortof be on the fence on that, but the monopoly/duopoly issue puts me squarely in the net neutrality camp.
You see, the exact opposite of man exploits man, is man exploits man.
Actually no it isn't. The exact opposite of "man exploits man" is "man helps man." The saying ends up conveying the opposite meaning of what it intended.
It should more accurately read: "In Capitalism, man exploits man. In Communism, it's the other way around." That conveys the intended meaning, whereas the first saying is easily misinterpreted.
If Congress doesn't change a bill, they're "not listening to the people!" If the do change a bill, it "keeps mutating every week", and how is Joe the Plumber supposed to keep up with that?
Maybe then gigantic all-in-one bills are just bad ideas in principle. Maybe health care reform should be tackled piece by piece instead.
Don't rant about a state. Rant about the individuals who are doing this. (And maybe the ~30% of the population that actually voted for them)
When enough whack-job individuals settle in one state to make up enough of a population to determine the state's laws, then I think it's fair to criticize that state as a whole.
Here's why loser-pays is a horrible idea: "Mr. Jones, you claim that Atoyot Motors was negligent in failing to adequately test the accelerators in its cars, leading to an accident that killed your family. The jury has -- just barely -- decided that your evidence wasn't strong enough, and found in Atoyot's favor. You owe them $500,000 in legal fees." After that, nobody else dares to sue, and Atoyot keeps making defective product that kills people.
How is that worse than today? "Mr. Jones, you might have a case, just maybe, but it's not a sure thing so I'll need the fees up front. We'll start with a $10,000 retainer but that will get used up fast, so have more ready. You may or may not win it back."
It's a matter of degree. I find the current system to have FAR less of a chilling effect for seeking redress for grievances from the powerful.
Can you be extradited for something that isnt even a crime in the state you're in?
Only if it affects the state that criminalized the action. I live in Oregon and I can't be extradited for violating Texas's sodomy laws unless I actually go to Texas have violate those laws there.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course "I couldn't get work" is often used as a proxy for "they are not handing me the exact job I think I deserve." There ARE jobs out there people. There IS work to be done. Oh, not good enough for you? Yes, I can see your only recourse is to become a thief. Uh huh. The people I've known who were thieves always came up with very good reasons why they just HAD to steal. Bullshit.
Unfortunately if you're considered "overqualified" you're usually passed over for the job as well. If you had a high-technical-skill job but then had to apply to low-tech-skill jobs because you're desperate to work and eat and feed your family, you'll often not be considered anyway because 1) the employer can usually hire someone who is not 'overqualified,' and also the employer assumes you'll quit the job as soon as you're offered a better one that matches your experience.
And make the rape victims responsible. And the carjacking victims. Yeah man!
Oh come now, those are terrible comparisons. The banks are directly responsible for the amount of security and they are financially benefiting from a system with lax security.
The banks are not the ones who get victimized here, the merchants are. Sure there are fraudulent merchants who sell numbers, but I think that number pails in comparison to the merchants who unknowingly approve transactions on stolen cards/numbers. The system is not set up to be secure, and there's little that the merchants can do about that.
What actually happens is that increased security can cause people to use their cards less, resulting in lower revenue to them in the form of transaction fees. That's why if you go to a fast food place or the movies, you don't even need to sign your receipt anymore, if the total purchase is below a certain value. Increased convenience = increased use, and they figure that they can make more money out of this increased use than they are losing to fraud.
Mods: Please don't let this languish at the AC default of 0. This is possibly the most important point raised in this story -- the banks have a vested interest in keeping security lax, because less security means more credit card use; and yet they aren't liable for the security breaches. It's sortof like the recent housing market bust when financial institutions could offer high-risk mortgages and then sell them off as low-risk mortgages. Any system where an institution is rewarded when risky behavior pays off but does not have to suffer the consequences of the risk is prone to failure.
It's stronger than that. It means 'has the means to do anything -full stop'. Or is there anything he can not imagine, uh?
I've probably read way too many 1980s-era Marvel comics, where a number of super-powered beings were described as being omnipotent, yet limited by human intelligence and human imagination. I don't know what that would really have to do with religious gods though, other than the comics were partially inspired by theories of the divine.
(why our minds stay fairly clear till we are at least sixties while our body noticibly wears out past thirty five?).
Because there aren't gears turnin physically in our minds? :-) Why do system ram DIMMs tend to last so much longer than system hard drives?
Please mod this "+1, sad but true."
If it was the case that Landis was gifted with Merckx/Antequil like engine, he would have returned to crushing fields in American races. This didn't happen. Not even close. This is strong evidence he was using PED's.
Umm, no, it is strong speculation. It is no evidence of any kind.
Nope, happens to me all the time. Even just with Youtube, the premiere Flash site on the 'net.
That sounds pretty sweet, and I would probably still be using MythTV to record my shows if it supported HD Cable. It's not really an option with Cablecards though, so I'm pretty much stuck with Tivo.
So you kicked out all your 32-bit binaries?
Yeah, pretty much. The only 32-bit stuff on my box now is wine.
Dear moderators (and potential meta moderators). Whatever you thought of Animaether's logic, there is no way that the parent post constituted Flamebait. There were no attacks whatsoever, he showed a logical problem with the suggested course of action that would have to be considered.
Why the Flamebait tag?
Just because you are omnipotent doesn't mean you can't also be lazy and take the easy way out.
Depends on how you want to define the term 'omnipotent.' For some, it means 'has the means to do anything he can imagine.' To others, it might mean 'all actions, regardless of complexity, take the same amount of work.' I've spoken with many religious folks who explicitly believe in the second definition.
A 'god' or an 'intelligent designer' does not have time, money, or resource constraints to worry about as developers do. They are always portrayed as omnipotent beings which could have easily designed a man w/o nipples.
I think God outsourced some of the work to lesser, overworked deities who took shortcuts. That gave God the time to design really awesome things like supernovas and pulsars and rainbows and wolverines.
Try using yours and just see. They suck, I will be needing new parts by the time I am 40.
They don't suck, they're extremely good. However, like with just about every mechanical device, they wear out after decades of constant use.
After all, the initial singularity from which the universe sprung had to come from somewhere
So does a god, right?
A good question is who created the creator? I think that's even a bigger problem for religion than it is for science.
It's not really necessary to sincerely make corrections to obvious jokes.
I wasn't the one who turned the conversation serious again. ;-) Usually I'm the one blamed for inserting humor into serious situations.
Obscenity laws like this shouldn't even exist in this day and age.
Seriously, obscenity? How about we go down to the soda shop and get some malts? Then we can go rough up the dorky kid and pitch woo to the cheerleaders. Check out those sexy ankles!
You're mocking it, but there are a LOT of people in the US who believe the 1950s USA was a much better time and had better values before the 60s and liberals fucked everything up. Depressing, and I still hold out hope that time passing will cause even more generational change and generational shifts.
That's what I fear! That the Supreme Court will change this from a regional clusterfuck into a national clusterfuck!
It's already a national clusterfuck. :-) It's a federal court, so its decision affects all states.
Offtopic: Ya know it really annoys me when I hear people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh talking against "net neutrality". While I have a choice, many people are stuck with a monopoly like Comcast or Cox or Time-Warner for their internet. The purpose of net neutrality is to stop these monopolies from blocking websites they don't like, such as foxnews.com. Why would either Beck or Limbaugh be against that?
I think it's because they would argue that private organizations should have the right to censor. I would sortof be on the fence on that, but the monopoly/duopoly issue puts me squarely in the net neutrality camp.
You see, the exact opposite of man exploits man, is man exploits man.
Actually no it isn't. The exact opposite of "man exploits man" is "man helps man." The saying ends up conveying the opposite meaning of what it intended.
It should more accurately read: "In Capitalism, man exploits man. In Communism, it's the other way around."
That conveys the intended meaning, whereas the first saying is easily misinterpreted.
If Congress doesn't change a bill, they're "not listening to the people!" If the do change a bill, it "keeps mutating every week", and how is Joe the Plumber supposed to keep up with that?
Maybe then gigantic all-in-one bills are just bad ideas in principle. Maybe health care reform should be tackled piece by piece instead.
Don't rant about a state. Rant about the individuals who are doing this. (And maybe the ~30% of the population that actually voted for them)
When enough whack-job individuals settle in one state to make up enough of a population to determine the state's laws, then I think it's fair to criticize that state as a whole.
How is that worse than today? "Mr. Jones, you might have a case, just maybe, but it's not a sure thing so I'll need the fees up front. We'll start with a $10,000 retainer but that will get used up fast, so have more ready. You may or may not win it back."
It's a matter of degree. I find the current system to have FAR less of a chilling effect for seeking redress for grievances from the powerful.
That whole "Freedom of expression" thing doesn't mean shit unless it also covers people you don't like.
Can you be extradited for something that isnt even a crime in the state you're in?
Only if it affects the state that criminalized the action. I live in Oregon and I can't be extradited for violating Texas's sodomy laws unless I actually go to Texas have violate those laws there.