Don't be so sure of yourself, AC. This is a great question. I wish I had an uncle to dig around for some career options when I was 18. I bounced around majors, wasting 45 hours of credit until I decided on a major that sounded cool and had a lot of syllables. I've been working my damnedest ever since to break out of the field. I'm 40. No matter which way I turn, I get sucked back in because I'm good at science stuff. Problem is that science is a bullshit career. I'm speaking as someone who has been doing it for about one career's worth. If I had a little help back in the day, I think someone would have helped me figure out that I would be best as a computer scientist rather than a biochemist. Once you have a truckload of degrees and a life, its hard to go back and start a new career. Better is to explore options early on and decide what compels you. I think its great this guy is helping his niece. Not everyone has educated parents that understand the unique needs of gifted children.
My guess is they are happier than people who spend the same amount of time watching TV. Slashdot built its popularity on its comments section and hence its utility as a social outlet.
But, speaking from experience, if one were to rub the worst half hour sitcom from one's daily tv viewing and substitute that for an equivalent amount of time getting aerobic exercise such as riding a bike, rowing, stair stepping, treadmilling, jogging, or using an elliptical trainer, one's happiness would take a quantum leap in the positive direction. If one coupled that with a complete elimination of food coloring and corn syrup and other sweeteners, then one would enjoy yet another boost in happiness. Switching to a diet where one gets 80% of one's calories from fruit, vegetables, and legumes would yield yet another jump. Of course the increase in sex that accompanied a newfound healthy appearance might possibly put one over the top in the happiness category.
Why can't we have environmentalism without the alarm?
Impossible. Just like you can't have a "say no to drugs" campaign without the alarm. For instance: "Hey kids, pot is your brain getting fried like an egg." Sounds ridiculous when you really think about it, doesn't it?
See, no matter what you talk about, if you want to change behavior, you have to mention the direct consequences of the behavior you want to change. What are some examples of direct consequences?
Drugs -> Brain Frying Like Egg
Unchecked Carbon Emission -> Earth Warms
Then, if you really want to make your point, you talk about the broader impact of the direct consequences:
Fried Brains -> Social Collapse, Homosexuality, Atheism, Abortions
So.. where were your smarts then that kept you from being stuck in a sucky job?
No wonder you are never going to be rich. You don't have any reading comprehension. I didn't mention anything about the quality of my job except the time I go in.
Please. Spare us the "rich people are rich because they deserve it" bullshit. Rich people work hard, true. But so does everyone else. I happen to have a job where I go in at about 11:30 am. Sometimes, I feel a little frisky and am up by 8:30 am. You know what I see sometimes from my apartment window at 8:30 am? I see can collectors with their carts loaded with cans. I know execs get up early and that's great. But do they dig through enough trash to have a mountain of cans by 8:30 am in the morning? No friggin' way. That's work. I know because I used to collect cans when I was a kid.
I also know some rich people. Can you guess the two things that unify them? I'll tell you: (1) Good luck and/or (2) inequitable access to resources. Without one or both of those, you can't attain wealth.
I respect your insight, but why are you not still there if it's not so bad? Had to ask.
It's better in the USA. That's why so many people of all nationalities come here. Don't let them fool you with their bullshit. I joke about emigrating sometimes when something like FISA passes, but I wouldn't leave the USA. The proof is in the fact that I haven't left. Life is better here and anyone who lives here and doesn't have plans to leave either agrees, is in jail, or is lying, especially if they originate from another country.
I have to wonder about your attitude and your sig. How do you define "liberal"? How are these "liberals" hurting you to the point where you want to see them "slugged in the teeth"? You need to take a good hard look in the mirror and see if all of the frustration you feel is not self-inflicted. Maybe you have some self-loathing that you should look into. I don't know about your personal issues, but I don't wish to see anyone slugged in the teeth, liberals or conservatives alike. I'm conservative on a lot of issues. Here are some: pro gun rights, tighter immigration policies, extreme fiscal conservatism, more Federalism (i.e. states rights), etc. Do you want to see me get slugged in the teeth just because I call out ignorance when I see it, like I do in this thread in a few places? Sometimes I even call out anger and hatred at the expense of my karma. I'm doing that right now.
Let me predict your answer: "the half we don't need."
OK. How does one determine the half we don't need? A good answer does not end with some allusion to violence against "hippies" or "liberals" just because you are feeling frustrated. A good answer has some thought behind it. I'll take a non-response as an admission that you have no idea what you are talking about.
You are dead on, but the human race can't really see past its nose as a whole, especially when things are going well--and if you have time to type drivel on/., things are going well.
I'd be amazed if any of the self professed "conservatives" who spew ignorance and misinformation in this thread realize the extent and long-reaching consequences of something even as concrete as the current credit crisis--and this hits them (and me) right in the pocket book.
But take comfort in the fact that humans will eventually suffer the same fate as the rest of Earth's creatures, opening the door for a biological rebound in 50 million years that brings with it a whole plethora of cool new critters.
Heres an idea.. give me a reason why a specific species is worth protecting, and then if you convince me, I'll even fucking help you to save it.
You should qualify that one. Here is a species for you: Homo sapiens. Gotcha. (Wink)
How about this one: wheat. Gotcha again.
Diversity? Thats crap. There are so many species on this planet that we can't even count them.
Here is a question for you: What is the bare minimum number of species you might be comfortable with?
Here is another question for you: If you whittle down the biodiversity of this planet to only a few "essential" species--what will be the consequences? Please cite your sources when you answer. The biased speculation of a non-scientist doesn't count.
Why should all minors suffer just because some are idiots? If some are doing something illegal, you can give them a selective curfew, if not, then they should be allowed to go out whenever they wish.
You know you are getting old when your instinct is to argue with that. And then I remember how much fun I had as a highschooler after midnight and then I side with the kids--and then I *really* think about how much fun I had as a kid after midnight and then I realize that there is no way they need to be out that late.
OK, I know Slashdot is collectively in holier-than-thou rage over this poor, "innocent" kid, but why was the kid trying to access the site in the first place?
Um, I dunno. Maybe he's just a 15 year old kid and they get into stuff they shouldn't sometimes. It's called "growing up". But I guess that you were probably the most upright ROTC guy in the church choir. Sorry about your missed childhood.
Just so you know--I did all sorts of hijinks when I was a kid--much worse than that too. I had so much fun it was ridiculous. Never got caught. Ok. I got caught--but I got out of it every time. Razor fine paperwork here, bro. So guess what: I had the fun and I get to enjoy the advantages of being a pillar of the community as an ADULT. My life has been good.
Now they're fighting for the "right" for people to scream "allahu akbar" in their garage while constructing an electrical timing device in a location where C4 is found - you know, your perfectly normal sunday activity.
That is ridiculous anti-ACLU bullshit.
His post may have been, but your hysterical defense of them was almost as bad.
If the post is ridiculous, I don't see how his defense can be hysterical. You completely avoided justifying the retarded comment about C4. Until anyone does, its really hard to call his defense hysterical. I anticipate some idiot responding to my post and never defending the original retarded claims about C4.
My wife takes her macbook and hooks it up to my imac via target firewire mode and gets the benefit of my two 20" screens and 2.2GHz core2duo. We both run the same OS, etc. Between my wife and I, we have 5 (count'em 5) macs and we regularly use firewire on three of them (my mini, my imac, her macbook). I only use my ibook g3 on vacation in foreign countries, so I don't need the firewire with it. Losing the firewire port would be reason enough for me to consider switching to ubuntu permanently--and we have 5 macs. Apple should think about this. I can't be alone on this one.
Err... It's all well and good to rant about copyright but what the hell does copyright have to do with the story at hand?
If you actually read the post you are referring to, you would understand. You are probably struggling with reading comprehension so I'll futilely try to help you. See, in the post you are referring to, the poster brought up an example and used the word "copyright". This does not mean his rant was about copyright. He also used the word "perjury", and again, before you mistakenly ask "what does this have to do with perjury", bear in mind that he only used the word once as part of an example. I wish I had enough time and motivation to help you more with this concept, but just trust me when I advise you to try to ask less questions in the future so you don't appear so intellectually challenged.
DUDE: Why was your boy Paulson *on his knees*, fucking literally, in Nanci Pellosi's office begging her to support the handout? You live in a dreamworld.
In fact, let's have a heart to heart. Seriously. I need to know. Are you just a republican fanboi or do you really have Republican values and have just been duped by the crooks in office?
Note where the capitals are--lowercase is for the posers known as the "republican party", capitals is for real Republicans like Senator Ron Paul. If you don't know what Republican means, look up "Republicanism" in wikipedia and memorize the first few sentences. The "republican party" these days are not, by and large, real Republicans.
If you are a real Republican, you would literally get sick to your stomach when a President who calls himself a "republican" asks for $700B to hand out to banks. SICK TO YOUR STOMACH. I have news for you and for every one else who has been duped: These are not Republicans.
They call themselves "republicans", but they aren't "Republicans". They do not follow the Rule of Law as evidenced by illegal wire tapping. They do not care for liberty, as illustrated by the Patriot Act. And they do not care for democracy or else they would put proposals like a $700B bailout to a popular vote. And they also do not believe in personal responsibility or the free market as evidenced by the proposal to bail out irresponsible banks.
Now, you will probably say something silly like "democrats are guilty of stuff like that too." And I will say, yes, but it doesn't matter because I'm not talking about democrats here, so don't try to change the topic. I'm not calling myself a democrat, so don't think I'm apologizing for them. I'm calling myself a Republican with a capital "R".
You probably have some naive notions, like "Rule of Law" means lots of cops with tazers. That is not "Rule of Law". That is fascism. Get this stuff straight.
You probably think that "Rule of Law" means more laws, like laws against smoking pot or having gay sex. Again, wrong. "Rule of Law" applies to the operations of the rulers. "Rule of Law" means that the rulers are ruled by law. It means that the no man is above the law. (Make sure you go study that wikipeda article before you argue that point.) "Rule of Law" does not mean that the subjects must be ruled by cops and draconian laws.
You are probably asking now, "how about the subjects? How about the people? What's going to keep them doing what I think is right?" Well, assuming your idea of "right" makes any sense whatsoever, in our Republic, which is also a federation of states, the idea is that most criminal law should be deferred to the states themselves. The exceptions would be laws against actions that adversely and DIRECTLY affect the operations of the Federal Government. (Some washed-up sixties flower child smoking a joint at a Jethro Tull concert does not constitute DIRECTLY affecting the operations Federal Government.) So, can a person have gay without getting arrested? Well, in the ideal "Republic" of states, this question is left to the states, NOT to the Federal Government. That's why they call it a "Federal Government", because of the concept of deferring most law to the states.
But is this *really* how true Republicans think? Surely they want federal agents breathing down every pot smoker's slimy back, don't they? NO THEY DON'T. I refer you to a concept called New Federalism, which was a reaction to the New Deal and was spearheaded by one of my favorite presidents, Richard Nixon. (I'm fucking serious about Richard Nixon, so unless you are prepared to read up on his history as president and his ideals, don't even think about questioning my sincerity here.) He was the closest thing we've had to a Republican in office in the last 50 years. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Now I ask you, since I recognize your name and the mindless "conservative" tone of yo
Yeah, shame on the Republicans for forcing the Democrats to put through this stupid bailout.
DUDE: The republican administration came up with an outright handout in the first place (Paulson was appointed by Bush), and the dems have been trying to reel it in. This is not a democrat idea, so quit kidding yourself. Your boy Bush is the guy who has been pushing hardest. Spare us the bullshit.
No, republicans, like our republican president Comrade Bush, likes to give away money to banks. That's what republicans, like Comrade Bush, mean when they say "earn it". You "earn it" by being rich, and then the government steals--using the threat of jail--taxes from the working class (like small business entrepreneurs), and then giving you (the rich) more money.
Now, if you are a working class programmer making less than $100K per year, it is also republican, like the republican Governer of California, to deny you the remittance you have earned--using law as the tool--so those richer than you can keep the money you have earned.
So you see, republicans are much like communists in that they use law to take from the poor and give to the rich. So now we understand what it means to be republican these days.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure she'll figure it out.
Don't be so sure of yourself, AC. This is a great question. I wish I had an uncle to dig around for some career options when I was 18. I bounced around majors, wasting 45 hours of credit until I decided on a major that sounded cool and had a lot of syllables. I've been working my damnedest ever since to break out of the field. I'm 40. No matter which way I turn, I get sucked back in because I'm good at science stuff. Problem is that science is a bullshit career. I'm speaking as someone who has been doing it for about one career's worth. If I had a little help back in the day, I think someone would have helped me figure out that I would be best as a computer scientist rather than a biochemist. Once you have a truckload of degrees and a life, its hard to go back and start a new career. Better is to explore options early on and decide what compels you. I think its great this guy is helping his niece. Not everyone has educated parents that understand the unique needs of gifted children.
And what - happy people hang out on Slashdot??
My guess is they are happier than people who spend the same amount of time watching TV. Slashdot built its popularity on its comments section and hence its utility as a social outlet.
But, speaking from experience, if one were to rub the worst half hour sitcom from one's daily tv viewing and substitute that for an equivalent amount of time getting aerobic exercise such as riding a bike, rowing, stair stepping, treadmilling, jogging, or using an elliptical trainer, one's happiness would take a quantum leap in the positive direction. If one coupled that with a complete elimination of food coloring and corn syrup and other sweeteners, then one would enjoy yet another boost in happiness. Switching to a diet where one gets 80% of one's calories from fruit, vegetables, and legumes would yield yet another jump. Of course the increase in sex that accompanied a newfound healthy appearance might possibly put one over the top in the happiness category.
I suspect they meant Intel Atom rather than Via Nano.
Why can't we have environmentalism without the alarm?
Impossible. Just like you can't have a "say no to drugs" campaign without the alarm. For instance: "Hey kids, pot is your brain getting fried like an egg." Sounds ridiculous when you really think about it, doesn't it?
See, no matter what you talk about, if you want to change behavior, you have to mention the direct consequences of the behavior you want to change. What are some examples of direct consequences?
Then, if you really want to make your point, you talk about the broader impact of the direct consequences:
So .. where were your smarts then that kept you from being stuck in a sucky job?
No wonder you are never going to be rich. You don't have any reading comprehension. I didn't mention anything about the quality of my job except the time I go in.
Please. Spare us the "rich people are rich because they deserve it" bullshit. Rich people work hard, true. But so does everyone else. I happen to have a job where I go in at about 11:30 am. Sometimes, I feel a little frisky and am up by 8:30 am. You know what I see sometimes from my apartment window at 8:30 am? I see can collectors with their carts loaded with cans. I know execs get up early and that's great. But do they dig through enough trash to have a mountain of cans by 8:30 am in the morning? No friggin' way. That's work. I know because I used to collect cans when I was a kid.
I also know some rich people. Can you guess the two things that unify them? I'll tell you: (1) Good luck and/or (2) inequitable access to resources. Without one or both of those, you can't attain wealth.
I respect your insight, but why are you not still there if it's not so bad? Had to ask.
It's better in the USA. That's why so many people of all nationalities come here. Don't let them fool you with their bullshit. I joke about emigrating sometimes when something like FISA passes, but I wouldn't leave the USA. The proof is in the fact that I haven't left. Life is better here and anyone who lives here and doesn't have plans to leave either agrees, is in jail, or is lying, especially if they originate from another country.
I have to wonder about your attitude and your sig. How do you define "liberal"? How are these "liberals" hurting you to the point where you want to see them "slugged in the teeth"? You need to take a good hard look in the mirror and see if all of the frustration you feel is not self-inflicted. Maybe you have some self-loathing that you should look into. I don't know about your personal issues, but I don't wish to see anyone slugged in the teeth, liberals or conservatives alike. I'm conservative on a lot of issues. Here are some: pro gun rights, tighter immigration policies, extreme fiscal conservatism, more Federalism (i.e. states rights), etc. Do you want to see me get slugged in the teeth just because I call out ignorance when I see it, like I do in this thread in a few places? Sometimes I even call out anger and hatred at the expense of my karma. I'm doing that right now.
Half of the existing ones.
Which half?
Let me predict your answer: "the half we don't need."
OK. How does one determine the half we don't need? A good answer does not end with some allusion to violence against "hippies" or "liberals" just because you are feeling frustrated. A good answer has some thought behind it. I'll take a non-response as an admission that you have no idea what you are talking about.
You are dead on, but the human race can't really see past its nose as a whole, especially when things are going well--and if you have time to type drivel on /., things are going well.
I'd be amazed if any of the self professed "conservatives" who spew ignorance and misinformation in this thread realize the extent and long-reaching consequences of something even as concrete as the current credit crisis--and this hits them (and me) right in the pocket book.
But take comfort in the fact that humans will eventually suffer the same fate as the rest of Earth's creatures, opening the door for a biological rebound in 50 million years that brings with it a whole plethora of cool new critters.
Heres an idea.. give me a reason why a specific species is worth protecting, and then if you convince me, I'll even fucking help you to save it.
You should qualify that one. Here is a species for you: Homo sapiens. Gotcha. (Wink)
How about this one: wheat. Gotcha again.
Diversity? Thats crap. There are so many species on this planet that we can't even count them.
Here is a question for you: What is the bare minimum number of species you might be comfortable with?
Here is another question for you: If you whittle down the biodiversity of this planet to only a few "essential" species--what will be the consequences? Please cite your sources when you answer. The biased speculation of a non-scientist doesn't count.
The real question is, do they taste good fried?
Yes, but that's not the reason they are crunchy. They are crunchy because we don't take out the bones.
Why should all minors suffer just because some are idiots? If some are doing something illegal, you can give them a selective curfew, if not, then they should be allowed to go out whenever they wish.
You know you are getting old when your instinct is to argue with that. And then I remember how much fun I had as a highschooler after midnight and then I side with the kids--and then I *really* think about how much fun I had as a kid after midnight and then I realize that there is no way they need to be out that late.
The police thought
LOL!
OK, I know Slashdot is collectively in holier-than-thou rage over this poor, "innocent" kid, but why was the kid trying to access the site in the first place?
Um, I dunno. Maybe he's just a 15 year old kid and they get into stuff they shouldn't sometimes. It's called "growing up". But I guess that you were probably the most upright ROTC guy in the church choir. Sorry about your missed childhood.
Just so you know--I did all sorts of hijinks when I was a kid--much worse than that too. I had so much fun it was ridiculous. Never got caught. Ok. I got caught--but I got out of it every time. Razor fine paperwork here, bro. So guess what: I had the fun and I get to enjoy the advantages of being a pillar of the community as an ADULT. My life has been good.
And even faculty access to internal enterprise information
High school teachers are allowed access to "internal enterprise information"?!?! We are all doomed.
Now they're fighting for the "right" for people to scream "allahu akbar" in their garage while constructing an electrical timing device in a location where C4 is found - you know, your perfectly normal sunday activity.
That is ridiculous anti-ACLU bullshit.
His post may have been, but your hysterical defense of them was almost as bad.
If the post is ridiculous, I don't see how his defense can be hysterical. You completely avoided justifying the retarded comment about C4. Until anyone does, its really hard to call his defense hysterical. I anticipate some idiot responding to my post and never defending the original retarded claims about C4.
My wife takes her macbook and hooks it up to my imac via target firewire mode and gets the benefit of my two 20" screens and 2.2GHz core2duo. We both run the same OS, etc. Between my wife and I, we have 5 (count'em 5) macs and we regularly use firewire on three of them (my mini, my imac, her macbook). I only use my ibook g3 on vacation in foreign countries, so I don't need the firewire with it. Losing the firewire port would be reason enough for me to consider switching to ubuntu permanently--and we have 5 macs. Apple should think about this. I can't be alone on this one.
One sentence does not a rant make. The nexus of his post was
Either way, file formats effectively cannot be protected from reverse engineering.
But once again I will pay for my razor tongue with karma.
Err... It's all well and good to rant about copyright but what the hell does copyright have to do with the story at hand?
If you actually read the post you are referring to, you would understand. You are probably struggling with reading comprehension so I'll futilely try to help you. See, in the post you are referring to, the poster brought up an example and used the word "copyright". This does not mean his rant was about copyright. He also used the word "perjury", and again, before you mistakenly ask "what does this have to do with perjury", bear in mind that he only used the word once as part of an example. I wish I had enough time and motivation to help you more with this concept, but just trust me when I advise you to try to ask less questions in the future so you don't appear so intellectually challenged.
these "devices you attach to the fuel line" have been around being sold by con-artists for at least TEN YEARS
TFA says he's getting a patent. The US patent office wouldn't be so clueless as to issue a patent if there were prior art, now would it? ;o)
DUDE: Why was your boy Paulson *on his knees*, fucking literally, in Nanci Pellosi's office begging her to support the handout? You live in a dreamworld.
In fact, let's have a heart to heart. Seriously. I need to know. Are you just a republican fanboi or do you really have Republican values and have just been duped by the crooks in office?
Note where the capitals are--lowercase is for the posers known as the "republican party", capitals is for real Republicans like Senator Ron Paul. If you don't know what Republican means, look up "Republicanism" in wikipedia and memorize the first few sentences. The "republican party" these days are not, by and large, real Republicans.
If you are a real Republican, you would literally get sick to your stomach when a President who calls himself a "republican" asks for $700B to hand out to banks. SICK TO YOUR STOMACH. I have news for you and for every one else who has been duped: These are not Republicans.
They call themselves "republicans", but they aren't "Republicans". They do not follow the Rule of Law as evidenced by illegal wire tapping. They do not care for liberty, as illustrated by the Patriot Act. And they do not care for democracy or else they would put proposals like a $700B bailout to a popular vote. And they also do not believe in personal responsibility or the free market as evidenced by the proposal to bail out irresponsible banks.
Now, you will probably say something silly like "democrats are guilty of stuff like that too." And I will say, yes, but it doesn't matter because I'm not talking about democrats here, so don't try to change the topic. I'm not calling myself a democrat, so don't think I'm apologizing for them. I'm calling myself a Republican with a capital "R".
You probably have some naive notions, like "Rule of Law" means lots of cops with tazers. That is not "Rule of Law". That is fascism. Get this stuff straight.
You probably think that "Rule of Law" means more laws, like laws against smoking pot or having gay sex. Again, wrong. "Rule of Law" applies to the operations of the rulers. "Rule of Law" means that the rulers are ruled by law. It means that the no man is above the law. (Make sure you go study that wikipeda article before you argue that point.) "Rule of Law" does not mean that the subjects must be ruled by cops and draconian laws.
You are probably asking now, "how about the subjects? How about the people? What's going to keep them doing what I think is right?" Well, assuming your idea of "right" makes any sense whatsoever, in our Republic, which is also a federation of states, the idea is that most criminal law should be deferred to the states themselves. The exceptions would be laws against actions that adversely and DIRECTLY affect the operations of the Federal Government. (Some washed-up sixties flower child smoking a joint at a Jethro Tull concert does not constitute DIRECTLY affecting the operations Federal Government.) So, can a person have gay without getting arrested? Well, in the ideal "Republic" of states, this question is left to the states, NOT to the Federal Government. That's why they call it a "Federal Government", because of the concept of deferring most law to the states.
But is this *really* how true Republicans think? Surely they want federal agents breathing down every pot smoker's slimy back, don't they? NO THEY DON'T. I refer you to a concept called New Federalism, which was a reaction to the New Deal and was spearheaded by one of my favorite presidents, Richard Nixon. (I'm fucking serious about Richard Nixon, so unless you are prepared to read up on his history as president and his ideals, don't even think about questioning my sincerity here.) He was the closest thing we've had to a Republican in office in the last 50 years. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Now I ask you, since I recognize your name and the mindless "conservative" tone of yo
Yeah, shame on the Republicans for forcing the Democrats to put through this stupid bailout.
DUDE: The republican administration came up with an outright handout in the first place (Paulson was appointed by Bush), and the dems have been trying to reel it in. This is not a democrat idea, so quit kidding yourself. Your boy Bush is the guy who has been pushing hardest. Spare us the bullshit.
No, republicans, like our republican president Comrade Bush, likes to give away money to banks. That's what republicans, like Comrade Bush, mean when they say "earn it". You "earn it" by being rich, and then the government steals--using the threat of jail--taxes from the working class (like small business entrepreneurs), and then giving you (the rich) more money.
Now, if you are a working class programmer making less than $100K per year, it is also republican, like the republican Governer of California, to deny you the remittance you have earned--using law as the tool--so those richer than you can keep the money you have earned.
So you see, republicans are much like communists in that they use law to take from the poor and give to the rich. So now we understand what it means to be republican these days.
Shenzhou 11: Base this is Shenzhou 11. Guess what base? All your base are belong to us.