95% of the time these rules of thumb are great. Problem is, the 5% of the time they're dangerously naive. Sometimes people really are malicious, and sometimes malicious people work together.
You don't get it, do you? On/., you have one of two types of people: (1) Those who suspect out loud that every once in a while more than one person can work together to do something immoral. (2) Little "tin foil hat" bots who say you are a conspiracy theorist every time you suggest such a thing
WE on the right wing hated the way the left continually harassed Bush, and although we know the left would never reciprocate on any showing of principal or good faith, we still must uphold our own conservative principal that two wrongs do not make a right.
I'm probably the antithesis to everything you believe in, but I still can't fathom why your post is modded flamebait. Are/.ers that far gone? Let me throw my 2c in here for the leftwingers here and add to your thoughtfully constructed post (that I don't particularly agree with 100%).
First, people, note that I voted Obama in the primaries and for the general election and have contributed to the democratic party and to Obama's election campaign--so I think I have some ground to stand on here.
But, as much as I may have disagreed with the policies and implementation of the Bush administration, and as friggin' glad as I am to see him out of the office, I expect Obama to move absolutely, positively, 100% in the forward direction. This means that it is my HOPE that Obama works to solve immediate problems and to try to steer the country in a prosperous direction. I absolutely don't want him to digging around the affairs of the last presidency (even the Bush II presidency) to see what kind of dirt he can dig up. Its not relevant to the direction of the country and is a waste of resources. In fact, when Obama's DOJ tries to prevent such dirt-digging, it makes me more confident in his judgment as a president. It's not the business of the president to enact any sort of grudge against former presidents.
In short, let's try to move past whatever problems we had with previous administrations and focus our attention more on the efficacy of the policies of the current administration. Democracy is a matter of continuing vigilance, not stewing in the past.
According to some reports, Utah has/had the 49th lowest average IQ [chrisevans3d.com] of the 50 states.
Queue the "correlation is not causation" bots.
To be fair, though, voting for Bush in 2004 didn't necessarily make you an idiot. As a matter of fact, it could actually have been the other way around. So it might be a good idea to also present the table with the IQ and candidate columns transposed, so people don't get the wrong idea about what the table is actually trying to say.
Oh but kevin was supposed to be our savior, much the same as your Obama.
The "Obama" as savior myth was propagated by the republican party and conservative news stations to make conservatives feel good about their votes for the dumb lady and McCain. Obama never sold himself as a savior and all but the most uneducated voted for him because they felt his administration would do a better job picking up the pieces from 30 years of reckless policy.
But that's not why I wrote today. I wrote to rub it in. Obama got elected. Nah nah nah nah nah nah. Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
Why not just stand tall in your belief in Jesus, but dissociate yourself from the term "Christian"?
I think the idea is that believing in sprites and fairies and invisible men who rule from the sky requires some sense of company--or you end up awaken to the fact that your beliefs are a little nuts. I've always assumed that this is why they invented religion, to make it a group activity.
If they think they can do it profitably and clean up after themselves then why not allow it?
And who will enforce the cleanup? Think real hard now. Yep, that's right, guys with baseball bats with nails sticking out on the end. We couldn't trust the government to enforce the cleanup or even mandate it. Right?
I'd suggest that by using the term "Darwinism" they are exactly the people you are pandering to.
By using the term "Darwinism" you link the scientific idea to its originator. We do this for many other phenomena that require words for description. We say "Mendelian" genetics/inheritance, "Newtonian" mechanics, "Darwinian" evolution, "Cartesian" space. The presence of an "ism" at the end is little more than a verbal twist. If you look up "Darwinism" in the dictionary, it mentions "theory". A theory, like a hypothesis, is a conceptual framework to test systematically by experiment. One such experiment might be to C14 date a fossil. This type of experimentation is not applicable to creationism, so creationism is not a science. It is religion.
To be perfectly symmetrical with "creationism", we would have to say "evolutionism", which connotes a system of belief. To actually acknowledge creationism as an opposing "theory" is pandering. Even worse than acknowledging creationism through argumentation is modifying our perfectly good vocabulary for describing scientific theories.
After you destroy the nation, how do you expect the government to withstand the 50 million armed citizens? Give them U.S. monopoly money? Rally them with inspiring words of "Hope!", "Change!" and "Yes, we can!" ???
No, here's what you do. You elect a blithering idiot who cornholes a country for 8 years with two wars and no practical regulation of the banking or security industries. Find some one to talk about points of light and bullpit-hockey-mom maverickerismness. Make aborting babies and stem cell research illegal. Make God your copilot. Did I mention start two wars and spend your money on bombs in the middle east? Triple the prison population with a drug war, if you can. Torture political prisoners from other countries, and make sure the VP is the guy who really is in charge.
Oh wait. That's not how you get out of a mess. That's how you get into a mess. My bad. That's also how someone running on "Hope and Change!" gets elected--when everything is fucked. If you don't create a disaster, then you get someone elected on "Let's keep it how it is." See?
I had 3 working RS6000s in my home office. To keep from getting confused about which one I was ssh'ing into, I called them ibm_left, ibm_middle and ibm_right. I gave two of them away, so now I only have the one named ibm_left.
Judging from the one left, it looks like you gave away the right ones.
I'd argue with you because it seems like you are arguing, but I can't really pinpoint your thesis. However, if I could figure out your argument, rest assured, I'd prove you categorically mistaken.
People name computers because it makes good sense. Although computers don't have self-awareness and thus intrinsic personalities, they are subject to the natural tendency for people to project personalities on them based on behavior and appearance. People who don't project personality onto other objects and people probably have a personality disorders themselves, like Asperger's syndrome. But the projection of personality by humans is a mnemonic that aides in remembering a particular blend of traits of a person (or other object) and is thus a practical habit. People name a machine to make a slot in their memory for its personality and then fill in that slot as they learn about their machine. In this sense, systematic names like server01, server02, server03, etc., are not unique enough to be helpful because they can not easily be differentiated by the normal person.
Last week, there was a TEACHER on/. posting something about how hard-working American teachers are, and he/she misspelled "you're" as "your". A teacher..
This is your condemnation of a teacher, that he made a TYPO? Just because you have tuned your obviously perspicacious mind to the "you're" versus "your" typo phenomenon, doesn't mean that people who type phonetically are not as smart as you when they don't catch their errors. You probably go on about "its" versus "it's" and the entire pronoun subject every time you spot one of those typos as well. Give it up grammar Nazi--never ascribe to stupidity that which can also be explained by a typing error. Show us how your (gotcha!) smart some other way.
Remember how Wine took a decade to reach 1.0? That's what we expect from Open Source. You can scream and bitch all you want, but if you named it.0, it's your fault if it sucks.
Not from my experience. Everyone knows not to expect *.0 releases to be bug free. Anyone with a clue waits at least until *.01 to expect the most egregious bugs to be fixed (the ones that the first non-beta user always finds). I'm thinking about OS X 8.0, 9.0, and 10.0. If KDE 4.0 had more bugs than those releases, I'll be pretty surprised.
Another interesting tidbit I was told in microbiology class: every time you made out with someone, you probably picked up new SPECIES of bacteria in your mouth. Of course, he was talking to a classroom of college students, maybe that's not true for dating in a senior center.
You have obviously never dipped your pen in senior center ink, my friend.
There are millions of $ being put into sequencing the human core gut microbes, but apparently there are no core gut microbes, and this human microbiome sequencing strategy needs rethinking.
What this paper means is that you can spend billions of dollars sequencing the gut bacteria of thousands of different people and never get the same Nature paper twice. It also means that the number of boring "we sequenced everything we could find" papers in Nature and Science is going to skyrocket from what is already too many.
If you made up a name, how do you remember it 3 years later?
The idea is to have a set of false, made up answers that you *always* use to the same old security, so you don't forget them. No one is going to find that stuff on line because it's not affiliated with you except in your imagination. If you are afraid of forgetting your passwords and to remember passwords like "d8u*mF@3KowcCR", use an encrypted password keeper.
I'm not sure how I feel about this law honestly. I can see where they are coming from, but I wonder if maybe a harsher penalty (longer jail sentence or counseling) for upskirt photographers or child voyeurs would be the way to go rather than limiting phones like this.
And your data that any changes whatsoever will make a difference is where? I bet if we throw you in jail it will make the world a better place. Why? Because I'm just guessing it will, that's why. I don't need any data or facts, just supposition. I guess if it weren't for people like you, no one would be dumb enough to get stuck on a jury.
Slashdot Mirror
95% of the time these rules of thumb are great. Problem is, the 5% of the time they're dangerously naive. Sometimes people really are malicious, and sometimes malicious people work together.
You don't get it, do you? On /., you have one of two types of people: (1) Those who suspect out loud that every once in a while more than one person can work together to do something immoral. (2) Little "tin foil hat" bots who say you are a conspiracy theorist every time you suggest such a thing
You acted like a douche, and then had to deal with the results.
Where is the -1 "Righteous Fuckface" moderation button?
WE on the right wing hated the way the left continually harassed Bush, and although we know the left would never reciprocate on any showing of principal or good faith, we still must uphold our own conservative principal that two wrongs do not make a right.
I'm probably the antithesis to everything you believe in, but I still can't fathom why your post is modded flamebait. Are /.ers that far gone? Let me throw my 2c in here for the leftwingers here and add to your thoughtfully constructed post (that I don't particularly agree with 100%).
First, people, note that I voted Obama in the primaries and for the general election and have contributed to the democratic party and to Obama's election campaign--so I think I have some ground to stand on here.
But, as much as I may have disagreed with the policies and implementation of the Bush administration, and as friggin' glad as I am to see him out of the office, I expect Obama to move absolutely, positively, 100% in the forward direction. This means that it is my HOPE that Obama works to solve immediate problems and to try to steer the country in a prosperous direction. I absolutely don't want him to digging around the affairs of the last presidency (even the Bush II presidency) to see what kind of dirt he can dig up. Its not relevant to the direction of the country and is a waste of resources. In fact, when Obama's DOJ tries to prevent such dirt-digging, it makes me more confident in his judgment as a president. It's not the business of the president to enact any sort of grudge against former presidents.
In short, let's try to move past whatever problems we had with previous administrations and focus our attention more on the efficacy of the policies of the current administration. Democracy is a matter of continuing vigilance, not stewing in the past.
Remember that post about geeks thinking they are lawyers?
What's the relevance? It's not even a law yet. Please wait until then to prove how smart you think you are.
According to some reports, Utah has/had the 49th lowest average IQ [chrisevans3d.com] of the 50 states.
Queue the "correlation is not causation" bots.
To be fair, though, voting for Bush in 2004 didn't necessarily make you an idiot. As a matter of fact, it could actually have been the other way around. So it might be a good idea to also present the table with the IQ and candidate columns transposed, so people don't get the wrong idea about what the table is actually trying to say.
Oh but kevin was supposed to be our savior, much the same as your Obama.
The "Obama" as savior myth was propagated by the republican party and conservative news stations to make conservatives feel good about their votes for the dumb lady and McCain. Obama never sold himself as a savior and all but the most uneducated voted for him because they felt his administration would do a better job picking up the pieces from 30 years of reckless policy.
But that's not why I wrote today. I wrote to rub it in. Obama got elected. Nah nah nah nah nah nah. Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
Why not just stand tall in your belief in Jesus, but dissociate yourself from the term "Christian"?
I think the idea is that believing in sprites and fairies and invisible men who rule from the sky requires some sense of company--or you end up awaken to the fact that your beliefs are a little nuts. I've always assumed that this is why they invented religion, to make it a group activity.
If they think they can do it profitably and clean up after themselves then why not allow it?
And who will enforce the cleanup? Think real hard now. Yep, that's right, guys with baseball bats with nails sticking out on the end. We couldn't trust the government to enforce the cleanup or even mandate it. Right?
I'd suggest that by using the term "Darwinism" they are exactly the people you are pandering to.
By using the term "Darwinism" you link the scientific idea to its originator. We do this for many other phenomena that require words for description. We say "Mendelian" genetics/inheritance, "Newtonian" mechanics, "Darwinian" evolution, "Cartesian" space. The presence of an "ism" at the end is little more than a verbal twist. If you look up "Darwinism" in the dictionary, it mentions "theory". A theory, like a hypothesis, is a conceptual framework to test systematically by experiment. One such experiment might be to C14 date a fossil. This type of experimentation is not applicable to creationism, so creationism is not a science. It is religion.
To be perfectly symmetrical with "creationism", we would have to say "evolutionism", which connotes a system of belief. To actually acknowledge creationism as an opposing "theory" is pandering. Even worse than acknowledging creationism through argumentation is modifying our perfectly good vocabulary for describing scientific theories.
After you destroy the nation, how do you expect the government to withstand the 50 million armed citizens? Give them U.S. monopoly money? Rally them with inspiring words of "Hope!", "Change!" and "Yes, we can!" ???
No, here's what you do. You elect a blithering idiot who cornholes a country for 8 years with two wars and no practical regulation of the banking or security industries. Find some one to talk about points of light and bullpit-hockey-mom maverickerismness. Make aborting babies and stem cell research illegal. Make God your copilot. Did I mention start two wars and spend your money on bombs in the middle east? Triple the prison population with a drug war, if you can. Torture political prisoners from other countries, and make sure the VP is the guy who really is in charge.
Oh wait. That's not how you get out of a mess. That's how you get into a mess. My bad. That's also how someone running on "Hope and Change!" gets elected--when everything is fucked. If you don't create a disaster, then you get someone elected on "Let's keep it how it is." See?
I had 3 working RS6000s in my home office. To keep from getting confused about which one I was ssh'ing into, I called them ibm_left, ibm_middle and ibm_right. I gave two of them away, so now I only have the one named ibm_left.
Judging from the one left, it looks like you gave away the right ones.
What's the worst that could happen, they screw it up and you die?
Or they could not treat you and you'd die.
I'd argue with you because it seems like you are arguing, but I can't really pinpoint your thesis. However, if I could figure out your argument, rest assured, I'd prove you categorically mistaken.
People name computers because it makes good sense. Although computers don't have self-awareness and thus intrinsic personalities, they are subject to the natural tendency for people to project personalities on them based on behavior and appearance. People who don't project personality onto other objects and people probably have a personality disorders themselves, like Asperger's syndrome. But the projection of personality by humans is a mnemonic that aides in remembering a particular blend of traits of a person (or other object) and is thus a practical habit. People name a machine to make a slot in their memory for its personality and then fill in that slot as they learn about their machine. In this sense, systematic names like server01, server02, server03, etc., are not unique enough to be helpful because they can not easily be differentiated by the normal person.
Last week, there was a TEACHER on /. posting something about how hard-working American teachers are, and he/she misspelled "you're" as "your". A teacher..
This is your condemnation of a teacher, that he made a TYPO? Just because you have tuned your obviously perspicacious mind to the "you're" versus "your" typo phenomenon, doesn't mean that people who type phonetically are not as smart as you when they don't catch their errors. You probably go on about "its" versus "it's" and the entire pronoun subject every time you spot one of those typos as well. Give it up grammar Nazi--never ascribe to stupidity that which can also be explained by a typing error. Show us how your (gotcha!) smart some other way.
There's no such thing as "banker's hours". People I know that work in these large banks more often then not spend more than 8 hours at the office.
...per week. I'd say that was a subliminal slip.
Remember how Wine took a decade to reach 1.0? That's what we expect from Open Source. You can scream and bitch all you want, but if you named it .0, it's your fault if it sucks.
Not from my experience. Everyone knows not to expect *.0 releases to be bug free. Anyone with a clue waits at least until *.01 to expect the most egregious bugs to be fixed (the ones that the first non-beta user always finds). I'm thinking about OS X 8.0, 9.0, and 10.0. If KDE 4.0 had more bugs than those releases, I'll be pretty surprised.
Does this mean I can claim my ass as a dependent?
I think you already can, judging from the size of it.
Another interesting tidbit I was told in microbiology class: every time you made out with someone, you probably picked up new SPECIES of bacteria in your mouth. Of course, he was talking to a classroom of college students, maybe that's not true for dating in a senior center.
You have obviously never dipped your pen in senior center ink, my friend.
There are millions of $ being put into sequencing the human core gut microbes, but apparently there are no core gut microbes, and this human microbiome sequencing strategy needs rethinking.
What this paper means is that you can spend billions of dollars sequencing the gut bacteria of thousands of different people and never get the same Nature paper twice. It also means that the number of boring "we sequenced everything we could find" papers in Nature and Science is going to skyrocket from what is already too many.
If you made up a name, how do you remember it 3 years later?
The idea is to have a set of false, made up answers that you *always* use to the same old security, so you don't forget them. No one is going to find that stuff on line because it's not affiliated with you except in your imagination. If you are afraid of forgetting your passwords and to remember passwords like "d8u*mF@3KowcCR", use an encrypted password keeper.
Your histrionic chew-out is a little uncalled for don't you think?
Oh, gee. I hope his feelings didn't get hurt.
Yep, its ok if we have always done it that way, right?
I'm not sure how I feel about this law honestly. I can see where they are coming from, but I wonder if maybe a harsher penalty (longer jail sentence or counseling) for upskirt photographers or child voyeurs would be the way to go rather than limiting phones like this.
And your data that any changes whatsoever will make a difference is where? I bet if we throw you in jail it will make the world a better place. Why? Because I'm just guessing it will, that's why. I don't need any data or facts, just supposition. I guess if it weren't for people like you, no one would be dumb enough to get stuck on a jury.
We're not a federation of states, however we should still decentralize government as much as possible.
I'm trying to resist descending into an argument of semantics, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation