Ugh, yeah. I get so tired of people treating Idiocracy like some kind of brilliant insight. Real history demonstrates that knowledge and intellect have both increased over the thousands of years of human development, regardless of the fact that average + below average is always > above average. That's the way a curve works.
That makes no sense. You literally can't back that up so it's meaningful.
Done. For chrissake, every dictionary definition of dogma even says it's a synonym for religious doctrine. How can that not make sense?
it's easy to rattle off many, many rational religious people throughout history
Who said anything about rational? Any sane person is rational to some degree. The phrase is 'reasoned with'. You can't reason with people who exclude evidence because some book tells them to exclude it.
They don't want rational argument
We know only about this present escapade, not about any previous efforts they may or may not have made. You may be willing to judge them out of ignorant assumptions in absentia, but that only makes you unreasonable and subjective, the worst foundation from which to make judgement. Unless you can point me to evidence that this group has done nothing else, made no other efforts, then I reject the validity of your judgement.
This study was obviously intended to include as many people as possible to get a difference between 'average' liberals/conservatives and atheists/religious. That the bell curves are only slightly divergent in the middle is still significant. If you want to talk about the highest range, it's already well known (isn't it?) that most PhDs are 'non-religious' if not outright atheists. Look it up.
Well, you're right, they probably do have "trouble making a point in any other way" since religious people are dogmatic by design. It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."
So when rational argument is ignored or avoided, I wholly support doing high profile things that provoke a response.
This is where you say you know better than statistics. These statistics. Wherein you would see that each generation of women is having fewer children, almost everywhere with few exceptions, even in Africa, even in places where the birth rate is still high (because once again that is NOT THE SAME as fertility rate, you DOLT). It is not just the West as you want to fantasize in your ignorance. Your anecdotal evidence is not statistically valuable. Shut up and go away.
Although it's not what you want to hear, the only option when the router lacks features is to set up a gateway server between the wireless and the internal network as well as the cloud. Don't ask me how to configure it, but I know you can do all kinds of QOS after that.
So do you think that ignorance of the law should be a valid defense in court cases? The very reason that it is not should apply here: people need to be responsible for themselves. An adult who is competent enough to drive a car should also know that DUI is illegal. An adult who goes out and buys a wireless access point should know how to use it or suffer for his ignorance. That's life, grow up and be responsible.
Your use of the word 'unwillingly' belies that you don't really understand the 'responsibility' concept. He chose to set up a signal broadcasting device in an open configuration. That is willful, no two ways about it. Secondly, you use the loaded phrase 'take advantage' like there is some kind of fraud going on. It's not like somebody is tricking the guy who sets up the access point. There is no misrepresentation. In fact, all the neighbor does is use the signal that gets pushed on him. In the physical cable example, all the owner has to do is disconnect/retract the cable. The wireless scenario is the same, just close it.
It's up to a network operator to be responsible. You shouldn't blame the users for the privileges that you issue them, just because those privileges are default doesn't make it their fault .
Let's drop the veneer of abstract analogies and go for something almost directly similar. Somebody throws a line of CAT-6a over the fence. With no other information about it, do you really think it is unethical to use this line? This is being physically delivered, literally thrown into your sphere of control, and you think it's analogous to trespassing if you dare to, gasp, send data through it? I just cannot accept that mindset. If whoever owns the cable didn't want it bidirectionally accessed, he shouldn't have thrown it over the fence. Wireless is no different.
ESRB ratings are not restrictions, they are simply ratings intended to 'inform' consumers and help them choose products. They do not have force of law (at least intrinsically) except where a few state/local governments have decided to pass laws using the private ESRB rating as a guideline for age-discriminatory distribution.
NO! The TSA should NOT be given the key to keep. The TSA's own guidelines specify this: "You should remain present during screening to take the key back after the container is cleared."
Do not give advice about subjects you don't know anything about.
Even if the breakers trip, the transformers are still huge long coils of wire, and those will be inductively harmed. You fail to realize this is not a wholly in-line threat like a surge. This is an enveloping EM radiation pulse that induces charges in long wires. It doesn't matter if those wires are stretched out on poles or wound up in a transformer, they're still long, they still will be inductively charged. Breaking the links between transmission lines and transformers may mitigate damage, but it will not stop damage.
If the results of research can't be repeated, the research is junk. That's how science works. So I wouldn't get too paranoid about the 'small, but statistically significant relationship' if it cannot be reproduced. That suggests it was just an error, or a bad sampling group, or insufficient controls, or whatever.
That's because those arguments are utter crap. Just like there was an article on/. not long ago (too lazy to search for it) about a transmission tower in Africa where a group of crackpots were saying they were allergic to its signals; however, they found out later that it had been turned off for weeks during a period they supposedly had 'symptoms'.
It's non-ionizing radiation. It doesn't impart enough energy to have harmful effects.
So yeah, thank you, Congress. At least you get things right occasionally.
Because of course nothing could ever be more powerful than that event. Never mind that this is a phenomenon we've only been able to observe for little over a century and a half, which is a nanosecond compared to the age of the sun. We don't really know where the uppermost end of the scale is with regard to this phenomenon. For all we know, the sun could punch us with an event two or three times stronger than previously recorded scenarios and we'd never see it coming, much less have designed equipment to survive those parameters.
If it were necessary to be a native contemporary before understanding were possible, history would be unintelligible and diplomacy would be impossible. Non-nativity is not an intrinsic barrier to understanding.
You, sir, are a douche. Especially since he's right, there is a fair chance the SCotUS will overturn this. And not only am I a native-born US citizen, but I have been a contractor for several parts of the federal government.
That may be true in parts of Australia, as even an AC already said it is not so in Queensland, but it is not so in the US. Whether it is in the UK I don't know, and that's what started all of this.
Easier does not equate to more meaningful. Did you even read the post to which you're replying? It doesn't matter how fast, the 'growth rate' you mention, if each generation of women has fewer children than the last, which is a fact even where birth rates (speed of 0 to x children) are high, then that is the meaningful predictor of the shallowing of growth, the leveling off. Remember too that population is a function of declining mortality rates as well. If you look at the data, over the last few decades large parts of the developing world have in fact decreased mortality, increased personal wealth, and decreased fertility. The world is still not a paradise, but people for some reason desperately want to believe that the Malthusian catastrophe is around the corner that they put on blinders to all the evidence to the contrary.
I think the increased usage of porn has played a role. The more guys get off, the lower their sperm count becomes, but it does improve motility and decrease genetic fragmentation, according to this study.
So if you want better but fewer sperm, start whacking.
If you'll pardon my ranting, what sickens me is that this douche gets moderated to the moon with 'Informative' for pushing these demonstrable myths. If people could get Malthus' necrotic dick out of their mouths for just a minute and look at the raw data, maybe we could move society forward in an informed way.
If he cared about his quotas, he would make an effort to secure his signals before beaming them into my house. If a signal reaches my property, it is my prerogative to do what I like with it. Imagine an apple tree growing next to a fence. It grows on his property from the nutrients in his soil, but some of the apples fall on mine. Does that give him the authority to trespass on my property to get them? Nope. If he wants all the apples, he should move the tree. Similarly, if he doesn't want his signal open, he should close it. Pure and simple. Otherwise I am in my right to use what is freely available on my property, no matter where it comes from.
Slashdot Mirror
Ugh, yeah. I get so tired of people treating Idiocracy like some kind of brilliant insight. Real history demonstrates that knowledge and intellect have both increased over the thousands of years of human development, regardless of the fact that average + below average is always > above average. That's the way a curve works.
IQ is not education (and I suspect you rate highly in neither). Read links before you start 'correcting' people.
That makes no sense. You literally can't back that up so it's meaningful.
Done. For chrissake, every dictionary definition of dogma even says it's a synonym for religious doctrine. How can that not make sense?
it's easy to rattle off many, many rational religious people throughout history
Who said anything about rational? Any sane person is rational to some degree. The phrase is 'reasoned with'. You can't reason with people who exclude evidence because some book tells them to exclude it.
They don't want rational argument
We know only about this present escapade, not about any previous efforts they may or may not have made. You may be willing to judge them out of ignorant assumptions in absentia, but that only makes you unreasonable and subjective, the worst foundation from which to make judgement. Unless you can point me to evidence that this group has done nothing else, made no other efforts, then I reject the validity of your judgement.
This study was obviously intended to include as many people as possible to get a difference between 'average' liberals/conservatives and atheists/religious. That the bell curves are only slightly divergent in the middle is still significant. If you want to talk about the highest range, it's already well known (isn't it?) that most PhDs are 'non-religious' if not outright atheists. Look it up.
Well, you're right, they probably do have "trouble making a point in any other way" since religious people are dogmatic by design. It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."
So when rational argument is ignored or avoided, I wholly support doing high profile things that provoke a response.
Makes me wish I hadn't discarded all my extra Bibles...
I wonder if they would do this mail-order style?
In any case, I wholly support this awesome idea.
This is where you say you know better than statistics. These statistics. Wherein you would see that each generation of women is having fewer children, almost everywhere with few exceptions, even in Africa, even in places where the birth rate is still high (because once again that is NOT THE SAME as fertility rate, you DOLT). It is not just the West as you want to fantasize in your ignorance. Your anecdotal evidence is not statistically valuable. Shut up and go away.
Although it's not what you want to hear, the only option when the router lacks features is to set up a gateway server between the wireless and the internal network as well as the cloud. Don't ask me how to configure it, but I know you can do all kinds of QOS after that.
So do you think that ignorance of the law should be a valid defense in court cases? The very reason that it is not should apply here: people need to be responsible for themselves. An adult who is competent enough to drive a car should also know that DUI is illegal. An adult who goes out and buys a wireless access point should know how to use it or suffer for his ignorance. That's life, grow up and be responsible.
Your use of the word 'unwillingly' belies that you don't really understand the 'responsibility' concept. He chose to set up a signal broadcasting device in an open configuration. That is willful , no two ways about it. Secondly, you use the loaded phrase 'take advantage' like there is some kind of fraud going on. It's not like somebody is tricking the guy who sets up the access point. There is no misrepresentation. In fact, all the neighbor does is use the signal that gets pushed on him. In the physical cable example, all the owner has to do is disconnect/retract the cable. The wireless scenario is the same, just close it.
It's up to a network operator to be responsible. You shouldn't blame the users for the privileges that you issue them, just because those privileges are default doesn't make it their fault .
Let's drop the veneer of abstract analogies and go for something almost directly similar. Somebody throws a line of CAT-6a over the fence. With no other information about it, do you really think it is unethical to use this line? This is being physically delivered, literally thrown into your sphere of control, and you think it's analogous to trespassing if you dare to, gasp, send data through it? I just cannot accept that mindset. If whoever owns the cable didn't want it bidirectionally accessed, he shouldn't have thrown it over the fence. Wireless is no different.
ESRB ratings are not restrictions, they are simply ratings intended to 'inform' consumers and help them choose products. They do not have force of law (at least intrinsically) except where a few state/local governments have decided to pass laws using the private ESRB rating as a guideline for age-discriminatory distribution.
NO! The TSA should NOT be given the key to keep. The TSA's own guidelines specify this: "You should remain present during screening to take the key back after the container is cleared."
Do not give advice about subjects you don't know anything about.
Those are considered issues only as carry-ons. They are not special when being packed in checked luggage.
I'm glad I don't work where-ever it is that you do...
Even if the breakers trip, the transformers are still huge long coils of wire, and those will be inductively harmed. You fail to realize this is not a wholly in-line threat like a surge. This is an enveloping EM radiation pulse that induces charges in long wires. It doesn't matter if those wires are stretched out on poles or wound up in a transformer, they're still long, they still will be inductively charged. Breaking the links between transmission lines and transformers may mitigate damage, but it will not stop damage.
If the results of research can't be repeated, the research is junk. That's how science works. So I wouldn't get too paranoid about the 'small, but statistically significant relationship' if it cannot be reproduced. That suggests it was just an error, or a bad sampling group, or insufficient controls, or whatever.
That's because those arguments are utter crap. Just like there was an article on /. not long ago (too lazy to search for it) about a transmission tower in Africa where a group of crackpots were saying they were allergic to its signals; however, they found out later that it had been turned off for weeks during a period they supposedly had 'symptoms'.
It's non-ionizing radiation. It doesn't impart enough energy to have harmful effects.
So yeah, thank you, Congress. At least you get things right occasionally.
Because of course nothing could ever be more powerful than that event. Never mind that this is a phenomenon we've only been able to observe for little over a century and a half, which is a nanosecond compared to the age of the sun. We don't really know where the uppermost end of the scale is with regard to this phenomenon. For all we know, the sun could punch us with an event two or three times stronger than previously recorded scenarios and we'd never see it coming, much less have designed equipment to survive those parameters.
Which is why I never talked about picking it, but rather if it fell naturally. In any case, it's an analogy.
If it were necessary to be a native contemporary before understanding were possible, history would be unintelligible and diplomacy would be impossible. Non-nativity is not an intrinsic barrier to understanding.
You, sir, are a douche. Especially since he's right, there is a fair chance the SCotUS will overturn this. And not only am I a native-born US citizen, but I have been a contractor for several parts of the federal government.
That may be true in parts of Australia, as even an AC already said it is not so in Queensland, but it is not so in the US. Whether it is in the UK I don't know, and that's what started all of this.
Easier does not equate to more meaningful. Did you even read the post to which you're replying? It doesn't matter how fast, the 'growth rate' you mention, if each generation of women has fewer children than the last, which is a fact even where birth rates (speed of 0 to x children) are high, then that is the meaningful predictor of the shallowing of growth, the leveling off. Remember too that population is a function of declining mortality rates as well. If you look at the data, over the last few decades large parts of the developing world have in fact decreased mortality, increased personal wealth, and decreased fertility. The world is still not a paradise, but people for some reason desperately want to believe that the Malthusian catastrophe is around the corner that they put on blinders to all the evidence to the contrary.
I think the increased usage of porn has played a role. The more guys get off, the lower their sperm count becomes, but it does improve motility and decrease genetic fragmentation, according to this study.
So if you want better but fewer sperm, start whacking.
If you'll pardon my ranting, what sickens me is that this douche gets moderated to the moon with 'Informative' for pushing these demonstrable myths. If people could get Malthus' necrotic dick out of their mouths for just a minute and look at the raw data, maybe we could move society forward in an informed way.
If he cared about his quotas, he would make an effort to secure his signals before beaming them into my house. If a signal reaches my property, it is my prerogative to do what I like with it. Imagine an apple tree growing next to a fence. It grows on his property from the nutrients in his soil, but some of the apples fall on mine. Does that give him the authority to trespass on my property to get them? Nope. If he wants all the apples, he should move the tree. Similarly, if he doesn't want his signal open, he should close it. Pure and simple. Otherwise I am in my right to use what is freely available on my property, no matter where it comes from.