It's the only way unfortunately. The company I do most of my business with only pays through Paypal.
I'm not that happy about that either. I've mentioned it to the people who run it, but am not too optimistic, as apparently they have some sort of preferred customer status there.
You have the right not to be murdered, stolen from, maimed or silenced, but asking to never be inconvenienced is the height of entitlement.
I am a freelancer who gets paid through Paypal and spends money with a Visa debit card. I am inconvenienced by DDoS attacks.
I am also a citizen who understands that sometimes a price must be paid for freedom. I have protested, signed petitions, voted... and nothing has happened. If anything, things have gotten worse. My petitions have been overwritten by paid astroturfers and phony corporate funded PACs. My vote has been overwritten by companies willing to spend billions of dollars of advertising, and to a lesser extent by the two-party democracy system. My protests have been ignored.
I am not alone in this frustration. I am willing to have people take it a step further (I'd take part in the attacks if I had my own computer, but unfortunately I have to share, which would put others at risk). Not to violence or destruction, but ends that do make it more difficult to do business.
If a little personal inconvenience is enough for you to hate a protester, maybe you should examine your own system of morality rather than theirs.
Many protests involve preventing others from doing business with a company.
Organizational boycotts are one.
Or protests can crowd the streets, make it difficult to enter a place of business, or just make doing business an unpleasant experience with hundreds of people waving placards outside.
I am a freelancer who gets paid entirely through Paypal. These attacks may occasionally make it difficult for me to access my money, the same way a loud crowd outside my bank would inconvenience me.
But that's not crossing any bullshit "line." The site will probably be up again in an hour or two.
Now, if they stole all my money from my account, or somehow got it permanently frozen, THAT would be crossing a line.
Certain Chinese politburo goons already covertly accuse Wikileaks of being in the pocket of the US Government (wrap your head around THAT doublethink for a moment). This is a tactical accusation--it means that if Wikileaks next comes out of something critical about China, they can say "See, see, we told you! Just more Western propaganda." And then things get more "fun."
The US Gov may reacting like crazed chickens in response to this, but at least they aren't actively accusing Wikileaks of working for another foreign power.
If he had made the distinction between Western and Eastern, it might be less offensive. (then again, it might be more, as MS *claims* to be international and unbiased)
Instead the distinction was "common knowledge" vs "niche Internet knowledge". Like somehow a religion practiced by millions of people is a "niche." That the alternative use of the symbol is "obscure" rather than simply a cultural difference.
That is a crock of shit. Just because one ignorant white guy doesn't know about it doesn't mean it's obscure.
Saying that the public is the "boss" of the police is like saying that shareholders are the "boss" of a random corporate peon. While it may be true in a roundabout way, that does not mean that the public is the best judge of whether the police are doing their job.
The way things are now, the police are responsible to the civilian government, which *itself* is responsible to the people. The civilian government is chosen (in theory) by how well they understand the job of their future subordinates. However, said government does have a great deal of autonomy and a specific job description, so when they are elected, they have some authority with which they can do their jobs without being in constant danger of being "fired." As do police officers. They do have SOME accountability as they are now. (I know, I know, not a popular sentiment with the/. crowd)
That being said, the measure of which they do their jobs is in part how safe the public feels (especially as crime has been trending downward), so banning cameras is STILL a bad idea even without considering the First Amendment. It's just that the average member of the public does not have the qualifications to judge a police officer's performance.
Some schools do have moments of silence (mine did). Usually concerning special events, like a serious community incident or after 9/11 (again, in my HS). Why there's still a hullabaloo about prayer in schools I have no clue.
You can't learn a "true" version of history without knowing a fake version of history first.
Education 101: People start with nothing. Then they are taught something oversimplified, but interesting and relevant to their current situation. Then they are taught a little more, still filtering it through their experience. In other words, in order to gain any knowledge of history at all, you have to start with something that is, if not inaccurate, difficult to support and usually devoid of nuance, so it might as well be false--just because you can regurgitate "Thomas Jefferson" on a test does not mean you know what separation of church and state really means.
And if someone isn't taught history at all? They'll just form a model themselves from dumb things other people say and heavily entertaining yet completely vacuous fluff pieces, and we end up with people thinking it's okay to wear a George Washington costume to campaign for the Tea Party. Also they make the rest of us look bad on national surveys.
Not everyone sees the end goal in an argument as getting to a "true" resolution through reasoned debate. They just want their opinions to "win". And without enough people in the discussion who DO value interesting debate and communication over funny anecdotes and opinions that coincide with their point of view, any value in the discussion is lost. And don't kid yourself; those kinds of people exist on/. too.
Switching topics back to the world outside of/., I don't believe banning books is the answer to all extremist problems. But nor should rational, critically thinking people be so quick to engage wingnuts on their own turf. That gives them legitimacy, or perceived legitimacy. And if they have no interest in making a compromise, it's a loss all around.
Actually, comparing numbers of low-qual rip downloading to high-qual buying just means that to many customers, high-qual isn't worth the money. New episodes aren't better, just cheaper (if you download), so people buy more of them.
The fact that people still buy DVD collectors sets and remastered editions shows that yes, things that people have seen before still have value--if they sufficiently enjoyed them the first time. Naturally, not everyone who sees the low-qual rip will value the show enough to buy the DVD; that is just peoples' choices being made transparent. However, if you're worth your salt then there will be some who will buy your high-qual stuff, and that is where the money is.
If you look in the house of your average twenty-something TV fan, you will probably find loads of low-quality rips on their HD and a shelf of DVDs.
An emphasis on athletics does detract from an emphasis on academics, but when it comes down to it we aren't losing math majors to sports careers--we're losing them to business students.
Desirable, yes. Many things are desirable. But I would rather have a stupid President who wanted people to be free than a genius who decided he deserved to be my king.
Problem is, that doesn't characterize the last two elections at all. Rather people willingly chose an under-qualified president (even worse, one who often exaggerates his stupidity by "folksying" up his speech) over a "boring" or "indecisive" one. (I'm not sure how anyone can think that either Kerry or Gore had a sense of entitlement)
Even now, Barack Obama is "scary" to these people because they think his intelligence means he's hiding something, or that the fact that he speaks eloquently and presents intelligent-sounding solutions means that he's a know-it-all.
The best teachers aren't the ones that give the best lectures, then hand all the personalization to the TA's. I'm kind of confused as to where you got that idea.
What can be a flawless lecture to one student is utterly incomprehensible to another. At which point, when you introduce a TA the student is essentially getting a brand new lecture from a poorly-qualified teacher who even under the best circumstances is rebuilding a kid's understanding from scratch.
Believe it or not, there *are* advantages to providing small classes rather than giant classes and clinics.
Not to mention how/. manages to come up with a sufficient quantity of people who are both ignorant enough of history and in bed with Libertarian ideals to mod the statement "In a free market, there would be no monopolies" +5 Insightful.
Misinformation is often the result of bias in the system. Just because the article's author isn't *lying* (iow, malice) doesn't mean it's not likely that a conservative (I'd say "libertarian" actually given the introduction of the site and the list of famous dudes at the top of it) outlook wasn't the cause of this little piece of FUD.
Reading one of the comments made early in the process suggests that she was the person paying for the internet connection used in the infringement (a connection used off and on by her relatives). At the time of the infringement, however, there wasn't even a computer in the house, and supposedly, the infringement was done by someone accessing the (unsecured) wireless router.
Who cares? The idea is, if you have all the data (and I do mean all of it), and you've got a computer powerful enough to analyze all the statistical trends, you can identify the right data.
That's the theory, in any case. But the problem is, we can't collect all the data with the equipment we have now. In order to receive data at all, we need models that previous generations have established.
The conclusion is that some day, we will only be building conclusions based on statistical analysis, which are based on other conclusions based on analysis, and these will explain the universe, and science as we know it will be obsolete.
I can't say I like that idea. But I like truth too much to reject a reality in favor of my personal likes and dislikes.
Finally: At the end of the day, of course the scientists will say that science is still useful and the statisticians will still point to the usefulness of these new "blind predictions." Science will claim statistics as merely a "stepping stone" on the way to truth, and statisticians will claim scientists in the same way.
What's the real truth? Find it yourself, you lazy git, and find it whatever way you can.
Due to the nature of Wikipedia, the government theoretically doesn't have any more power than a bunch of wankers living in their parents' basements. And now thanks to this, they have less influence since Wikipedia will pay more attention to them repeatedly editing controversial stuff than aforementioned wanker. Not to mention, the government isn't changing information since anything unduly biased can just be rolled back.
Combine these factors, and the government has much, much less influence on Wikipedia than on any traditional media outlet...
Slashdot Mirror
Given that that's pretty much what went down with Glorious Leader Mk II, you're very likely to be correct.
NK is a rational actor. Were it not, this all would have been over with decades ago.
All the people in NK, though, are not necessarily so, and they've been fed NK Koolaid for decades. Therein lies the problem...
It's the only way unfortunately. The company I do most of my business with only pays through Paypal.
I'm not that happy about that either. I've mentioned it to the people who run it, but am not too optimistic, as apparently they have some sort of preferred customer status there.
You have the right not to be murdered, stolen from, maimed or silenced, but asking to never be inconvenienced is the height of entitlement.
I am a freelancer who gets paid through Paypal and spends money with a Visa debit card. I am inconvenienced by DDoS attacks.
I am also a citizen who understands that sometimes a price must be paid for freedom. I have protested, signed petitions, voted... and nothing has happened. If anything, things have gotten worse. My petitions have been overwritten by paid astroturfers and phony corporate funded PACs. My vote has been overwritten by companies willing to spend billions of dollars of advertising, and to a lesser extent by the two-party democracy system. My protests have been ignored.
I am not alone in this frustration. I am willing to have people take it a step further (I'd take part in the attacks if I had my own computer, but unfortunately I have to share, which would put others at risk). Not to violence or destruction, but ends that do make it more difficult to do business.
If a little personal inconvenience is enough for you to hate a protester, maybe you should examine your own system of morality rather than theirs.
Many protests involve preventing others from doing business with a company.
Organizational boycotts are one.
Or protests can crowd the streets, make it difficult to enter a place of business, or just make doing business an unpleasant experience with hundreds of people waving placards outside.
I am a freelancer who gets paid entirely through Paypal. These attacks may occasionally make it difficult for me to access my money, the same way a loud crowd outside my bank would inconvenience me.
But that's not crossing any bullshit "line." The site will probably be up again in an hour or two.
Now, if they stole all my money from my account, or somehow got it permanently frozen, THAT would be crossing a line.
Threats, property destruction etc, are clearly illegal. Angry letters and noisy protests are not, even if they happen to "disrupt business."
They wouldn't use the same rhetoric.
Certain Chinese politburo goons already covertly accuse Wikileaks of being in the pocket of the US Government (wrap your head around THAT doublethink for a moment). This is a tactical accusation--it means that if Wikileaks next comes out of something critical about China, they can say "See, see, we told you! Just more Western propaganda." And then things get more "fun."
The US Gov may reacting like crazed chickens in response to this, but at least they aren't actively accusing Wikileaks of working for another foreign power.
If he had made the distinction between Western and Eastern, it might be less offensive. (then again, it might be more, as MS *claims* to be international and unbiased)
Instead the distinction was "common knowledge" vs "niche Internet knowledge". Like somehow a religion practiced by millions of people is a "niche." That the alternative use of the symbol is "obscure" rather than simply a cultural difference.
That is a crock of shit. Just because one ignorant white guy doesn't know about it doesn't mean it's obscure.
Saying that the public is the "boss" of the police is like saying that shareholders are the "boss" of a random corporate peon. While it may be true in a roundabout way, that does not mean that the public is the best judge of whether the police are doing their job.
/. crowd)
The way things are now, the police are responsible to the civilian government, which *itself* is responsible to the people. The civilian government is chosen (in theory) by how well they understand the job of their future subordinates. However, said government does have a great deal of autonomy and a specific job description, so when they are elected, they have some authority with which they can do their jobs without being in constant danger of being "fired." As do police officers. They do have SOME accountability as they are now. (I know, I know, not a popular sentiment with the
That being said, the measure of which they do their jobs is in part how safe the public feels (especially as crime has been trending downward), so banning cameras is STILL a bad idea even without considering the First Amendment. It's just that the average member of the public does not have the qualifications to judge a police officer's performance.
Some schools do have moments of silence (mine did). Usually concerning special events, like a serious community incident or after 9/11 (again, in my HS). Why there's still a hullabaloo about prayer in schools I have no clue.
You can't learn a "true" version of history without knowing a fake version of history first.
Education 101: People start with nothing. Then they are taught something oversimplified, but interesting and relevant to their current situation. Then they are taught a little more, still filtering it through their experience. In other words, in order to gain any knowledge of history at all, you have to start with something that is, if not inaccurate, difficult to support and usually devoid of nuance, so it might as well be false--just because you can regurgitate "Thomas Jefferson" on a test does not mean you know what separation of church and state really means.
And if someone isn't taught history at all? They'll just form a model themselves from dumb things other people say and heavily entertaining yet completely vacuous fluff pieces, and we end up with people thinking it's okay to wear a George Washington costume to campaign for the Tea Party. Also they make the rest of us look bad on national surveys.
Not everyone sees the end goal in an argument as getting to a "true" resolution through reasoned debate. They just want their opinions to "win". And without enough people in the discussion who DO value interesting debate and communication over funny anecdotes and opinions that coincide with their point of view, any value in the discussion is lost. And don't kid yourself; those kinds of people exist on /. too.
/., I don't believe banning books is the answer to all extremist problems. But nor should rational, critically thinking people be so quick to engage wingnuts on their own turf. That gives them legitimacy, or perceived legitimacy. And if they have no interest in making a compromise, it's a loss all around.
Switching topics back to the world outside of
The new scam is "I make $159/day on Google! Find out how with Fast Google Cash!" You want scams that thrive in recessions, there they are.
The US Postal service postal service does not encourage people to send bombs to other people. Try another analogy.
Actually, comparing numbers of low-qual rip downloading to high-qual buying just means that to many customers, high-qual isn't worth the money. New episodes aren't better, just cheaper (if you download), so people buy more of them.
The fact that people still buy DVD collectors sets and remastered editions shows that yes, things that people have seen before still have value--if they sufficiently enjoyed them the first time. Naturally, not everyone who sees the low-qual rip will value the show enough to buy the DVD; that is just peoples' choices being made transparent. However, if you're worth your salt then there will be some who will buy your high-qual stuff, and that is where the money is.
If you look in the house of your average twenty-something TV fan, you will probably find loads of low-quality rips on their HD and a shelf of DVDs.
Qualifications and experience are not synonymous. A person can be underqualified with 50 years of experience.
An emphasis on athletics does detract from an emphasis on academics, but when it comes down to it we aren't losing math majors to sports careers--we're losing them to business students.
Desirable, yes. Many things are desirable. But I would rather have a stupid President who wanted people to be free than a genius who decided he deserved to be my king.
Problem is, that doesn't characterize the last two elections at all. Rather people willingly chose an under-qualified president (even worse, one who often exaggerates his stupidity by "folksying" up his speech) over a "boring" or "indecisive" one. (I'm not sure how anyone can think that either Kerry or Gore had a sense of entitlement)
Even now, Barack Obama is "scary" to these people because they think his intelligence means he's hiding something, or that the fact that he speaks eloquently and presents intelligent-sounding solutions means that he's a know-it-all.
You just can't win with some people.
The best teachers aren't the ones that give the best lectures, then hand all the personalization to the TA's. I'm kind of confused as to where you got that idea.
What can be a flawless lecture to one student is utterly incomprehensible to another. At which point, when you introduce a TA the student is essentially getting a brand new lecture from a poorly-qualified teacher who even under the best circumstances is rebuilding a kid's understanding from scratch.
Believe it or not, there *are* advantages to providing small classes rather than giant classes and clinics.
+1, Objection!
Not to mention how /. manages to come up with a sufficient quantity of people who are both ignorant enough of history and in bed with Libertarian ideals to mod the statement "In a free market, there would be no monopolies" +5 Insightful.
Misinformation is often the result of bias in the system. Just because the article's author isn't *lying* (iow, malice) doesn't mean it's not likely that a conservative (I'd say "libertarian" actually given the introduction of the site and the list of famous dudes at the top of it) outlook wasn't the cause of this little piece of FUD.
She's the Democratic leader Republicans would choose.
Why do you think she got her position?
Reading one of the comments made early in the process suggests that she was the person paying for the internet connection used in the infringement (a connection used off and on by her relatives). At the time of the infringement, however, there wasn't even a computer in the house, and supposedly, the infringement was done by someone accessing the (unsecured) wireless router.
Who cares? The idea is, if you have all the data (and I do mean all of it), and you've got a computer powerful enough to analyze all the statistical trends, you can identify the right data.
That's the theory, in any case. But the problem is, we can't collect all the data with the equipment we have now. In order to receive data at all, we need models that previous generations have established.
The conclusion is that some day, we will only be building conclusions based on statistical analysis, which are based on other conclusions based on analysis, and these will explain the universe, and science as we know it will be obsolete.
I can't say I like that idea. But I like truth too much to reject a reality in favor of my personal likes and dislikes.
Finally: At the end of the day, of course the scientists will say that science is still useful and the statisticians will still point to the usefulness of these new "blind predictions." Science will claim statistics as merely a "stepping stone" on the way to truth, and statisticians will claim scientists in the same way.
What's the real truth? Find it yourself, you lazy git, and find it whatever way you can.
Due to the nature of Wikipedia, the government theoretically doesn't have any more power than a bunch of wankers living in their parents' basements. And now thanks to this, they have less influence since Wikipedia will pay more attention to them repeatedly editing controversial stuff than aforementioned wanker. Not to mention, the government isn't changing information since anything unduly biased can just be rolled back.
Combine these factors, and the government has much, much less influence on Wikipedia than on any traditional media outlet...