Lulzsec at least isn't tampering with these things
So it's okay, or at least tolerable, if they go in somewhere they're not allowed, so long as they just look and don't destroy or modify? Okay...
leaving my front door unlocked doesn't give anyone the right to enter my house
Ah, it's not okay then. Even if they just look around and don't touch anything?
Wellll you know it's interesting - I think it was stupid for LS to get into this business, but I'd rather have them doing it, in general, than not. Maybe it's the honesty of the thing? They cop to it immediately, often before it is discovered by other means. Certainly they're assholes, but I'd rather have groups like this charging into the shadows of potential wrongdoing than wait for justice from a system riddled with corruption. What happens next is someone starts poisoning the data, and then things become indefensible.
I'm still puzzling out my position, really. Until I make up my mind though, I'd rather they have at it on the off-chance we actually get some real information from these untouchable organizations like News Corp.
Actually, I'd like to see a LOT more information coming out of (e.g.) AIG, BoA, Citigroup, and so on. Sadly, we can't vote those policy makers out of office, but a little sunlight would be good for the world right now.
The original meaning of the phrase "eye for an eye" -- shortened from various forms in the Hebrew Bible: e.g. "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth", "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe", etc. -- means the punishment should fit the crime and is used in the context of lawful punishment for harm inflicted on someone.
Contrary to what Ghandi may have thought, the phrase does not refer to vigilante justice or revenge.
Or... Jesus...
I do believe it was that dude who discouraged 'eye for an eye' somewhat in advance of Mr Ghandi. You could argue that the frustration of true believers as a result of this imposed ethic leads to greater injustices today, but I'll leave that to people better schooled in such matters.
Chain World, Rohrer explained, was a mod, a customized version of Minecraft and a set of scripts that govern how it’s played. And here was the cool part: It all lived on a single USB memory stick. [...] A week after the challenge, Ji posted an eBay auction for the memory stick. “This charity auction is for the third player slot for Chain World,” [...] The winner was an anonymous entity calling itself Positional Super Ko, a reference to a rule in the board game Go. For the right to play a used videogame exactly once, Positional Super Ko agreed to pay $3,300.
So basically he automated what the minecraft community has been doing already and people went full-on moron.
Yes, he simulated a religious movement. Quite brilliantly, I think. Just goes to show, only an atheist can start a proper religion.
It doesn't matter. This would basically represent a schism in the religion. As long as the original USB disk continues to be passed around, it would march onward as the "original" religion with its own narrative, and the copied form would exist as a separate "religion" with its alternate narrative. Much as various sects of Christianity all derived from a singular genesis.
And then the devotees of the original disk would shout, "SPLITTERS!!" at the copy faction.
I'll take paying more for having choice and expediant services.
Bully for you that you can afford to "pay more". Many of the rest of us just have to grin and bear it. I'd rather wait for medical care than go without.
I haven't gone to the movies in years, they're ridiculously overpriced. I generally just wait for the DVDs, my home theater experience is better than what I can get at any theater within 50 miles anyway. But I assume that you're talking about the previews, right? They haven't started showing commercials in the middle? Because before I gave up, I used to just call the theater to find out how long the previews ran. Most places even broke it down (previews vs ads).
Oh man, are you in for a treat the next time you go out to a movie. You would not believe the breadth and duration of the advertising before movies. Previews? Pshh. Those go by pretty fast. No, they sell cars and shampoo, show off some new TV show you don't care about, they charge more than ever before, and... look, I'm about 5'11". I'm not short, but I'm not getting into the NBA anytime soon either. Those seats... Those seats. Some kid in front of me shifts, and the seat hits my legs. So I can't move at all, because I feel bad for the lady behind me getting her shins cracked. Which means when my legs cramp from sitting sideways (so my legs can go off to the side) I can't just shift and put them the other way without bothering viewers in front and behind me.
It's like some kind of machiavellian torture. I swear to god, I will never set foot in a movie theater again. And they wonder why the business model is failing... Must be infringement!
Look at the article title, dumbass. Don't jump down my throat for continuing the conversation. Prick.
Despite the summary title and the GP's brusque tone (borne of intense frustration over the "ban" lie), I hope you now know that there was not, is not, and shall not be a ban on incandescent light bulbs. Simple efficiency standards, that's it. Compliant incandescents are already on the market.
There never was! There are new efficiency standards, which both GE and Osram Sylvania say they can meet with new incandescents. The whole thing started as a talking point for a Republican primary, and took off when the punditry caught a whiff of it and smelled red meat.
It may not be a ban de jure but it is a ban de facto.
Playing with semantics is what politicians do to fool the ignorant into being ruled. See The Prince, 1984, etc.
Or you could see actual facts. No ban, de facto or otherwise. Here ya go.
Check your manufacturer, most of the reputable ones offer multi-year replacement guarantees on the bulbs. Although if you buy good ones originally you generally won't need to use those guarantees.
Unlike old style bulbs, CFLs are complex enough that quality matters. The ultra-cheap ones are really crap.
Check my manufacturer? Reputable ones? Replacement guarantees? Complex ones?
We are talking about light bulbs. I understand that CFLs are more energy-efficient than incandescents of comparable lumens. But they are a poor replacement in every other way. We are asking the world to waste more personal energy using CFLs than they waste on electrical energy using incandescents.
Or you could go out and buy incandescent bulbs which actually meet the energy standard set forth in the law. Either way.
I loved my Easy Bake Oven when I was a child. My mom had a cook book, I think it was a Betty Crocker one, that had conversions for a bunch of the baked goods so you could make them in the Easy Bake. I actually wore the stupid thing out, eventually it got all warped and you couldn't slide the pans in or out. Yes I am a guy and when I was little I wanted to be a chef so this was a near perfect toy.
I used to like red M&Ms the best when I was a kid. Turns out they caused cancer!
"Idiotic" would be thinking that playing with semantics actually shows us that incandescents aren't actually, yes, effectively banned. An "efficiency standard" is a great euphemism though for a ban.
And "incandescent bulb ban" is a flat lie used to convince people the law says something it does not. It isn't a ban.
IT ISN'T A BAN.
I expected Slashdot to get that very simple FACT right in TFS.
the Constitution - it does not need interpretation
I wish you'd have written this at the top of your first post so I could just skip over them all. If you sincerely believe in a purely literalist reading of the Constitution... man... no wonder you're so angry. That's just not how civilization functions, mate.
The distinction I am making is that someone who does not feel pain suffers from an illness or disorder. There is something wrong with him. This bears no relation to the benefits or drawbacks of the condition.
"5% cheaper earbuds for you is not worth trashing millions of cubic meters of ocean."
The more powerful magnets and better batteries needed to switch over to nonhydroelectric renewable evergy sources use those very same rare earths. In large quantities compared to ear buds. Ditto more energy efficient motors.
So, by never mining any of them, you help keep everyone chained to other sources.
Your choice, bub.
It won't seem like such a deal when we have to burn all that extra power on portable artificial habitats. But fuck it, that's tomorrow's problem - today I want a laptop that will play two DVDs back to back!
It's hard for me personally to feel bad about something I believe to be morally right.
Morally right actions often require hard choices and daunting consequences. An easy choice isn't a moral stand, it's the path of least resistance - even if the action itself is a moral one.
I can't imagine taking a human life and not feeling terrible about it after, no matter the circumstances. I know soldiers who understand this. Someone that kills without remorse is missing something important.
I've skipped replying to, like, 8 of your ignorant inflammatory posts. I know this won't help, but just about every statement you make is either logically invalid or false. I only have so much time to waste on you though, so I'll just point out this one:
sufficient probable cause for a warrant
Yes. For a warrant. That isn't what is prescribed by the documents in question. Nor is it just preserving evidence or checking recent calls or contacts, but actively documenting APPS on the phone. Full stop. Goodbye.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In practice, what part of that sentence is true today?
Slashdot Mirror
Err...I'm confused. Help me out here.
Lulzsec at least isn't tampering with these things
So it's okay, or at least tolerable, if they go in somewhere they're not allowed, so long as they just look and don't destroy or modify? Okay...
leaving my front door unlocked doesn't give anyone the right to enter my house
Ah, it's not okay then. Even if they just look around and don't touch anything?
Wellll you know it's interesting - I think it was stupid for LS to get into this business, but I'd rather have them doing it, in general, than not. Maybe it's the honesty of the thing? They cop to it immediately, often before it is discovered by other means. Certainly they're assholes, but I'd rather have groups like this charging into the shadows of potential wrongdoing than wait for justice from a system riddled with corruption. What happens next is someone starts poisoning the data, and then things become indefensible.
I'm still puzzling out my position, really. Until I make up my mind though, I'd rather they have at it on the off-chance we actually get some real information from these untouchable organizations like News Corp.
Actually, I'd like to see a LOT more information coming out of (e.g.) AIG, BoA, Citigroup, and so on. Sadly, we can't vote those policy makers out of office, but a little sunlight would be good for the world right now.
The original meaning of the phrase "eye for an eye" -- shortened from various forms in the Hebrew Bible: e.g. "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth", "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe", etc. -- means the punishment should fit the crime and is used in the context of lawful punishment for harm inflicted on someone.
Contrary to what Ghandi may have thought, the phrase does not refer to vigilante justice or revenge.
Or... Jesus...
I do believe it was that dude who discouraged 'eye for an eye' somewhat in advance of Mr Ghandi. You could argue that the frustration of true believers as a result of this imposed ethic leads to greater injustices today, but I'll leave that to people better schooled in such matters.
So basically he automated what the minecraft community has been doing already and people went full-on moron.
Yes, he simulated a religious movement. Quite brilliantly, I think. Just goes to show, only an atheist can start a proper religion.
It doesn't matter. This would basically represent a schism in the religion. As long as the original USB disk continues to be passed around, it would march onward as the "original" religion with its own narrative, and the copied form would exist as a separate "religion" with its alternate narrative. Much as various sects of Christianity all derived from a singular genesis.
And then the devotees of the original disk would shout, "SPLITTERS!!" at the copy faction.
Bloody People's Front of Judea...
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance.
Sufficient levels of ignorance are indistinguishable from malice.
I'll take paying more for having choice and expediant services.
Bully for you that you can afford to "pay more". Many of the rest of us just have to grin and bear it. I'd rather wait for medical care than go without.
Yeah, what the AC said. I guess my post could have been clearer, sorry for the confusion.
Tax the Traveler or Tax society, when the state/country is in debt, how would you prefer to pay off the debt?
How about tax the program out of existence? Looking for deep budget cuts? I'd love to see some numbers for TSA expenses to me and mine.
I haven't gone to the movies in years, they're ridiculously overpriced. I generally just wait for the DVDs, my home theater experience is better than what I can get at any theater within 50 miles anyway. But I assume that you're talking about the previews, right? They haven't started showing commercials in the middle? Because before I gave up, I used to just call the theater to find out how long the previews ran. Most places even broke it down (previews vs ads).
Oh man, are you in for a treat the next time you go out to a movie. You would not believe the breadth and duration of the advertising before movies. Previews? Pshh. Those go by pretty fast. No, they sell cars and shampoo, show off some new TV show you don't care about, they charge more than ever before, and ... look, I'm about 5'11". I'm not short, but I'm not getting into the NBA anytime soon either. Those seats... Those seats. Some kid in front of me shifts, and the seat hits my legs. So I can't move at all, because I feel bad for the lady behind me getting her shins cracked. Which means when my legs cramp from sitting sideways (so my legs can go off to the side) I can't just shift and put them the other way without bothering viewers in front and behind me.
It's like some kind of machiavellian torture. I swear to god, I will never set foot in a movie theater again. And they wonder why the business model is failing... Must be infringement!
I'd say what would be "spin" is pretending there isn't a "ban" by playing with semantics.
What semantics? There are compliant incansescents on the market now. There was... wait for it
no
ban.
For reals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html
Look at the article title, dumbass. Don't jump down my throat for continuing the conversation. Prick.
Despite the summary title and the GP's brusque tone (borne of intense frustration over the "ban" lie), I hope you now know that there was not, is not, and shall not be a ban on incandescent light bulbs. Simple efficiency standards, that's it. Compliant incandescents are already on the market.
Have a nice day!
There never was! There are new efficiency standards, which both GE and Osram Sylvania say they can meet with new incandescents. The whole thing started as a talking point for a Republican primary, and took off when the punditry caught a whiff of it and smelled red meat.
It may not be a ban de jure but it is a ban de facto.
Playing with semantics is what politicians do to fool the ignorant into being ruled. See The Prince, 1984, etc.
Or you could see actual facts. No ban, de facto or otherwise. Here ya go.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html
Check my manufacturer? Reputable ones? Replacement guarantees? Complex ones?
Disposal guidelines? Mercury? Ballast? Warm-up? Flicker?
We are talking about light bulbs. I understand that CFLs are more energy-efficient than incandescents of comparable lumens. But they are a poor replacement in every other way. We are asking the world to waste more personal energy using CFLs than they waste on electrical energy using incandescents.
Or you could go out and buy incandescent bulbs which actually meet the energy standard set forth in the law. Either way.
I loved my Easy Bake Oven when I was a child. My mom had a cook book, I think it was a Betty Crocker one, that had conversions for a bunch of the baked goods so you could make them in the Easy Bake. I actually wore the stupid thing out, eventually it got all warped and you couldn't slide the pans in or out. Yes I am a guy and when I was little I wanted to be a chef so this was a near perfect toy.
I used to like red M&Ms the best when I was a kid. Turns out they caused cancer!
That's progress for ya.
"Idiotic" would be thinking that playing with semantics actually shows us that incandescents aren't actually, yes, effectively banned. An "efficiency standard" is a great euphemism though for a ban.
And "incandescent bulb ban" is a flat lie used to convince people the law says something it does not. It isn't a ban.
IT ISN'T A BAN.
I expected Slashdot to get that very simple FACT right in TFS.
the Constitution - it does not need interpretation
I wish you'd have written this at the top of your first post so I could just skip over them all. If you sincerely believe in a purely literalist reading of the Constitution... man... no wonder you're so angry. That's just not how civilization functions, mate.
The distinction I am making is that someone who does not feel pain suffers from an illness or disorder. There is something wrong with him. This bears no relation to the benefits or drawbacks of the condition.
The deposits are from vents over the duration. Not sure what's disputable about that.
On slashdot, everyone is wrong. Except me.
"5% cheaper earbuds for you is not worth trashing millions of cubic meters of ocean."
The more powerful magnets and better batteries needed to switch over to nonhydroelectric renewable evergy sources use those very same rare earths. In large quantities compared to ear buds. Ditto more energy efficient motors.
So, by never mining any of them, you help keep everyone chained to other sources.
Your choice, bub.
It won't seem like such a deal when we have to burn all that extra power on portable artificial habitats. But fuck it, that's tomorrow's problem - today I want a laptop that will play two DVDs back to back!
Thanks! That was getting my goat. Here's the full speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnaM8TqAzzo
It's hard for me personally to feel bad about something I believe to be morally right.
Morally right actions often require hard choices and daunting consequences. An easy choice isn't a moral stand, it's the path of least resistance - even if the action itself is a moral one.
I can't imagine taking a human life and not feeling terrible about it after, no matter the circumstances. I know soldiers who understand this. Someone that kills without remorse is missing something important.
What's in my underwear is my business! :)
Not at an airport it isn't...
I will take the time at this moment to say that Bitcoins are imaginary property. Should we just void all Bitcoins because they "don't really exist?"
Uhm... yes? Was that meant to be a rhetorical question?
I've skipped replying to, like, 8 of your ignorant inflammatory posts. I know this won't help, but just about every statement you make is either logically invalid or false. I only have so much time to waste on you though, so I'll just point out this one:
sufficient probable cause for a warrant
Yes. For a warrant. That isn't what is prescribed by the documents in question. Nor is it just preserving evidence or checking recent calls or contacts, but actively documenting APPS on the phone. Full stop. Goodbye.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In practice, what part of that sentence is true today?