Canada411 is the site in question. I can't vouch for how complete it is or is not, but I do know that my cell phone isn't there. White Pages is another, which has my number, but incorrectly lists it as a landline in Quebec, and has no other information.
This has been said many times before, but in the US treason is very specifically defined, as follows,
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
because the English at the time had a habit of using 'treason' as a catch-all term for 'things the [Government|Crown] doesn't like'. I note, not without irony, that many commentators on this issue, even on Slashdot, now do the same thing. Especially ironic is that treason is defined in the Constitution; yet on this very site, during the Bush era, comments often claimed that Bush's disregard for the Constitution amounted to treason, and that he should therefore be impleached, imprison, or executed.
Saying his interest has peaked can be inferred to [mean] that his interest is at "it's peak".
Yes, "His interest has peaked" certainly could mean that his interest is at its peak, but "His interest is peaked" certainly could not. In the first case, peaked is a verb; in the second it is an adjective.
Peaked, as a verb, has a meaning ('reached its peak') which peaked, the adjective, does not, as evinced by that definition not being present on the page I linked to.
The one is an adjective while the other is a verb because has (past-tense of to be) with a past participle forms the perfect tense (an event, in the past, which has completed); whereas is (present-tense of to be) with a part participle forms nothing (expect in certain rare cases, such as "He is gone"). Therefore, peaked must be serving as an adjective in that case.
Could you have possibly put a little more thought into it before going on a rant about it?
I'm pretty sure I've put more thought into either of my posts than you put into both of yours combined. Furthermore, my post was hardly a rant. If you found it particularly emotional or unreasonable, then I can only wonder what you think of the many actual rants posted to Slashdot daily.
'My interest is peaked' (...) makes literal sense in English
Except that it doesn't, assuming these possible definitions (Ending in a peak, Having a sickly appearance, and Having a peak). It's syntactically valid, but semantically meaningless, because interest, as an abstract entity, has neither form nor appearance.
I have never heard of anyone using it in [that] sense (...)
For good reason.
[He] could have actually meant "I'm Peaked" and he has a rather pointy top and wishes everyone to know.
Indeed, "My interest is peaked" could mean "I'm peaked"--in the same way that "I drove a school bus to school today" could mean "He didn't want to go to school today"--when you have no compunction against replacing three quarters of the sentence.
However, in his original wording, "I'm peaked" - yes he probably meant "I'm piqued"
Congratulations! You pass the Turing test, if only just:P
When you say womanising, do you mean that he had affairs, or just that he was, as a previous post put it, a ladies man? Furthermore, alcohol-drinking and cigarette smoking? Really? If those are two of his three worst flaws, he must be a paragon of good behaviour.
So let's take one extreme scenario - someone is giving you a "purple nurple." You have a gun in your hand, but threats to shoot the guy aren't working. He has you in a headlock with one arm, and as you are a weakling there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop the assault short of actually shooting him. Are you justified if shooting to wound? What if you know he's a bleeder?
Bludgeoning the asshole with your pistol won't work?:P It's a tough question. I'd like to say "If he's dumb enough to give a guy with a gun a purple nurple, and then ignore the gun-wielder's threats, he deserves whatever you decide to give him." But that's no longer talking about defense, that's talking about punishment. And the point of the rule of law is that it's not the place of a private citizen to arbitrarily decide who deserves what punishments for what transgressions.
In fact, upon close reading of my link above, I'm not sure you're legally allowed to threaten him with your gun, unless you have reason to believe your assailant is planning on proceeding from a purple nurple to something far more serious.
And bizarre as it sounds, I think that's actually right. Imagine the purple-nurpler is just your buddy being a dick. You know he's not going to do any worse than give you a purple nurple, and you know he'll grow bored eventually. Is it justifiable to whip out your pistol and threaten him with it? I think no.
I know that's not a very satisfying answer. It offends my sense of justice that I might have to suffer indignities heaped upon me by some asshole when I have the means to defend myself. But when the only means of defending myself involve inflicting grievous bodily harm far beyond what is being inflicted on me, I don't think it's justifiable. Take him to court afterwards, or call him an ass and stop hanging out with him. I think it's also worth pointing out that a bizarre, contrived scenario is very likely going to lead to a bizarre, counter-intuitive answer. Garbage-In, Garbage-Out, and all that:P
I can only hope this thread has grown stale enough that I don't get modded into oblivion for being a sheeple-nanny-state-collectivist-pawn of the corporate governmental over-oligarchy:P
As I mentioned, I would assume it requires as much force as is necessary to end the assault. You have a good point, that it's easy to judge how much force is sufficient to defend oneself, but hard to judge how much force is necessary to defend oneself (I assume that was your point), but I think that difficult question is unavoidable. Unless you propose that any amount of force is justifiable (which I think is untenable), you have to set a limit somewhere.
How do you know they're going to attack you when all they do is point a gun at your head?
Why else would someone point a gun at my head? I call that reasonable grounds to believe I'm at risk of death. Do you think many people would disagree?
After I read the article, I figured many of these guys, when not patrolling the streets in their costumes, post to Slashdot extolling the virtues of Libertarianism and the evils of the Nanny State.
According to some very quick research, you're allowed to respond with as much force as is required to defend yourself (presumably enough to halt the assault), including lethal force if you have reasonable grounds to believe you're at risk of death or 'grevious bodily harm'. You might call that a murky area, but it seems quite reasonable to me.
we still have almost universal scientific and mathematical illiteracy.
What exactly do you mean by that? By analogy to actual illiteracy, I would assume that mathematical illiteracy denotes an inability to do any math, even addition and subtraction, which is clearly not the case. What level of mathematical knowledge do you think constitutes basic literacy?
It isn't just the Slashdot crowd. Lots of IT folks understand the difference and use the terms appropriately. Especially folks who would actually label themselves as hackers or crackers
If IT folks aren't a part of the Slashdot crowd, who is?
I don't think I've ever heard someone say cracker without referring to something edible, except on Slashdot. And even on Slashdot, I mostly only see it used when people complain that it should have been used in place of cracker. It's dead Jim.
The way that Apple is managing its App Store - killing apps that provide undesirable competition to Apple or its buddies, that criticize the wrong politicians, etc.
When did Apple kill an app for criticizing a politician?
So any threat/ by the police is justifiable. That's an interesting view of the law you have there.
No. The GP's point is precisely that specific threats, which involve exercising an officer's legal* authority to detain people, are eminently justifiable. The fact that you willfully misconstrued this by reasoning that if any single threat is justified, then all threats are justified demonstrates your unwillingness to participate in reasoned discussion, and general trollishness. I can only hope you will be modded into oblivion.
*I assume it was legal, since I haven't heard anything about there being an unlawful arrest, and given the well known hatred of LEOs evinced by a segment of Slashdot's readership, I know there would have been. (c.f., Scrametache's thoughtful commentary above)
I'm not saying interoperability is bad. I'm just saying, from the perspective of the one in power, there seems to be no local benefit at all. Why would anyone consider that.
One might consider interoperability if one were interested in building something cool, rather than building something profitable; which, if you read the quoted portion of your parent post, is the claim which started this sub-discussion. Thus, Zuckerberg's unwillingness to inter-operate could be construed as a desire to make money, not just hack together the best website he possibly could.
Although personally, I think it's at least as likely that Zuckerberg didn't want interoperability because he was too lazy/focused-on-cool-new-features to add it.
Yeah, but you don't see them spewing shit like Zuckerberg, in front of a camera, do you?
Actually, I do. A few posts above yours someone linked to an alleged IM conversation between Zuckerberg and a friend:
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.
How often do you see, in discussions regarding Facebook, comments to the effect "Facebook users are morons who willingly gave up their privacy, and therefore are getting what they deserve"? It may not be on camera, but it is published and recorded for the world to see.
That is an example of performing math with pi. Just because pi does not have a sensible representation in the base 10 number system does not mean it does not exist as a precise number.
Furthermore, 10 (base pi) is exactly equal to pie in just 2 small digits.
The probability that your door was right does not increase to 50%, it remains at 1%.
After your initial pick, there is a 99% chance that the prize is behind a door you did not pick. After the doors are opened, there is still a 99% chance that the prize is behind a door you did not pick, but you know which of 99 doors to choose. In effect, it's as though your new choice is to keep whatever is behind your door, or to open all other 99 doors, and take whatever you find behind them.
Point well taken. It occurred to me a couple hours after I posted that my example relied on the laws of physics being (more-or-less) deterministic, and that therefore I had not addressed the main thrust of your post.
Suppose an individual is presented with the choice between X and Y. If God is all knowing, then God will know that the individual will 'choose' X. If God always knows this, and God must be, and is always right, then the individual must choose X.
The flaw in your argument is that you claim that God's knowledge leads to the individual's choice, when it is the individual's choice which leads to God's knowledge.
I can drop a ball from 1 m off the ground, and calculate precisely when it will hit the ground; however, it would be false to say that my calculation causes the ball to hit the ground when it does, even if my calculation temporally precedes the event.
You cleverly failed to mention how that image was generated, but I'm going to guess it comes from a millimeter wave scanner. Those do not detect energy fields being generate by the body, but rather emit energy, and measure how the energy interacts with, in this case, a human body and objects near it.
Going back to the origins of this discussion, you have indeed demonstrated the possibility that there might be something to eastern traditional medicines; however, the set of propositions which are possible is very large and often contradictory, so you can't believe all of them. In theory, people should believe the minimal set of proposition which explain the evidence (Occam's Razor), but in practice people use prejudice and bias as a good approximation.
Slashdot Mirror
... but only if they're both dead :P
Canada411 is the site in question. I can't vouch for how complete it is or is not, but I do know that my cell phone isn't there. White Pages is another, which has my number, but incorrectly lists it as a landline in Quebec, and has no other information.
This has been said many times before, but in the US treason is very specifically defined, as follows,
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
because the English at the time had a habit of using 'treason' as a catch-all term for 'things the [Government|Crown] doesn't like'. I note, not without irony, that many commentators on this issue, even on Slashdot, now do the same thing. Especially ironic is that treason is defined in the Constitution; yet on this very site, during the Bush era, comments often claimed that Bush's disregard for the Constitution amounted to treason, and that he should therefore be impleached, imprison, or executed.
If only I had mod points...
Why is it OK to publish the presumed private musings of diplomats, scientists and bankers, but not those of grad students, plumbers or lawyers?
Very briefly; the power gulf between the two groups.
Saying his interest has peaked can be inferred to [mean] that his interest is at "it's peak".
Yes, "His interest has peaked" certainly could mean that his interest is at its peak, but "His interest is peaked" certainly could not. In the first case, peaked is a verb; in the second it is an adjective.
Peaked, as a verb, has a meaning ('reached its peak') which peaked, the adjective, does not, as evinced by that definition not being present on the page I linked to.
The one is an adjective while the other is a verb because has (past-tense of to be) with a past participle forms the perfect tense (an event, in the past, which has completed); whereas is (present-tense of to be) with a part participle forms nothing (expect in certain rare cases, such as "He is gone"). Therefore, peaked must be serving as an adjective in that case.
Could you have possibly put a little more thought into it before going on a rant about it?
I'm pretty sure I've put more thought into either of my posts than you put into both of yours combined. Furthermore, my post was hardly a rant. If you found it particularly emotional or unreasonable, then I can only wonder what you think of the many actual rants posted to Slashdot daily.
'My interest is peaked' (...) makes literal sense in English
Except that it doesn't, assuming these possible definitions (Ending in a peak, Having a sickly appearance, and Having a peak). It's syntactically valid, but semantically meaningless, because interest, as an abstract entity, has neither form nor appearance.
I have never heard of anyone using it in [that] sense (...)
For good reason.
[He] could have actually meant "I'm Peaked" and he has a rather pointy top and wishes everyone to know.
Indeed, "My interest is peaked" could mean "I'm peaked"--in the same way that "I drove a school bus to school today" could mean "He didn't want to go to school today"--when you have no compunction against replacing three quarters of the sentence.
However, in his original wording, "I'm peaked" - yes he probably meant "I'm piqued"
Congratulations! You pass the Turing test, if only just :P
When you say womanising, do you mean that he had affairs, or just that he was, as a previous post put it, a ladies man? Furthermore, alcohol-drinking and cigarette smoking? Really? If those are two of his three worst flaws, he must be a paragon of good behaviour.
So let's take one extreme scenario - someone is giving you a "purple nurple." You have a gun in your hand, but threats to shoot the guy aren't working. He has you in a headlock with one arm, and as you are a weakling there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop the assault short of actually shooting him. Are you justified if shooting to wound? What if you know he's a bleeder?
Bludgeoning the asshole with your pistol won't work? :P It's a tough question. I'd like to say "If he's dumb enough to give a guy with a gun a purple nurple, and then ignore the gun-wielder's threats, he deserves whatever you decide to give him." But that's no longer talking about defense, that's talking about punishment. And the point of the rule of law is that it's not the place of a private citizen to arbitrarily decide who deserves what punishments for what transgressions.
In fact, upon close reading of my link above, I'm not sure you're legally allowed to threaten him with your gun, unless you have reason to believe your assailant is planning on proceeding from a purple nurple to something far more serious.
And bizarre as it sounds, I think that's actually right. Imagine the purple-nurpler is just your buddy being a dick. You know he's not going to do any worse than give you a purple nurple, and you know he'll grow bored eventually. Is it justifiable to whip out your pistol and threaten him with it? I think no.
I know that's not a very satisfying answer. It offends my sense of justice that I might have to suffer indignities heaped upon me by some asshole when I have the means to defend myself. But when the only means of defending myself involve inflicting grievous bodily harm far beyond what is being inflicted on me, I don't think it's justifiable. Take him to court afterwards, or call him an ass and stop hanging out with him. I think it's also worth pointing out that a bizarre, contrived scenario is very likely going to lead to a bizarre, counter-intuitive answer. Garbage-In, Garbage-Out, and all that :P
I can only hope this thread has grown stale enough that I don't get modded into oblivion for being a sheeple-nanny-state-collectivist-pawn of the corporate governmental over-oligarchy :P
How much force is required to defend yourself?
As I mentioned, I would assume it requires as much force as is necessary to end the assault. You have a good point, that it's easy to judge how much force is sufficient to defend oneself, but hard to judge how much force is necessary to defend oneself (I assume that was your point), but I think that difficult question is unavoidable. Unless you propose that any amount of force is justifiable (which I think is untenable), you have to set a limit somewhere.
How do you know they're going to attack you when all they do is point a gun at your head?
Why else would someone point a gun at my head? I call that reasonable grounds to believe I'm at risk of death. Do you think many people would disagree?
After I read the article, I figured many of these guys, when not patrolling the streets in their costumes, post to Slashdot extolling the virtues of Libertarianism and the evils of the Nanny State.
According to some very quick research, you're allowed to respond with as much force as is required to defend yourself (presumably enough to halt the assault), including lethal force if you have reasonable grounds to believe you're at risk of death or 'grevious bodily harm'. You might call that a murky area, but it seems quite reasonable to me.
we still have almost universal scientific and mathematical illiteracy.
What exactly do you mean by that? By analogy to actual illiteracy, I would assume that mathematical illiteracy denotes an inability to do any math, even addition and subtraction, which is clearly not the case. What level of mathematical knowledge do you think constitutes basic literacy?
It isn't just the Slashdot crowd. Lots of IT folks understand the difference and use the terms appropriately. Especially folks who would actually label themselves as hackers or crackers
If IT folks aren't a part of the Slashdot crowd, who is?
I don't think I've ever heard someone say cracker without referring to something edible, except on Slashdot. And even on Slashdot, I mostly only see it used when people complain that it should have been used in place of cracker. It's dead Jim.
The way that Apple is managing its App Store - killing apps that provide undesirable competition to Apple or its buddies, that criticize the wrong politicians, etc.
When did Apple kill an app for criticizing a politician?
So any threat/ by the police is justifiable. That's an interesting view of the law you have there.
No. The GP's point is precisely that specific threats, which involve exercising an officer's legal* authority to detain people, are eminently justifiable. The fact that you willfully misconstrued this by reasoning that if any single threat is justified, then all threats are justified demonstrates your unwillingness to participate in reasoned discussion, and general trollishness. I can only hope you will be modded into oblivion.
*I assume it was legal, since I haven't heard anything about there being an unlawful arrest, and given the well known hatred of LEOs evinced by a segment of Slashdot's readership, I know there would have been. (c.f., Scrametache's thoughtful commentary above)
I'm not saying interoperability is bad. I'm just saying, from the perspective of the one in power, there seems to be no local benefit at all. Why would anyone consider that.
One might consider interoperability if one were interested in building something cool, rather than building something profitable; which, if you read the quoted portion of your parent post, is the claim which started this sub-discussion. Thus, Zuckerberg's unwillingness to inter-operate could be construed as a desire to make money, not just hack together the best website he possibly could.
Although personally, I think it's at least as likely that Zuckerberg didn't want interoperability because he was too lazy/focused-on-cool-new-features to add it.
Yeah, but you don't see them spewing shit like Zuckerberg, in front of a camera, do you?
Actually, I do. A few posts above yours someone linked to an alleged IM conversation between Zuckerberg and a friend:
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.
How often do you see, in discussions regarding Facebook, comments to the effect "Facebook users are morons who willingly gave up their privacy, and therefore are getting what they deserve"? It may not be on camera, but it is published and recorded for the world to see.
e^{i *pi} + 1 = 0
That is an example of performing math with pi. Just because pi does not have a sensible representation in the base 10 number system does not mean it does not exist as a precise number.
Furthermore, 10 (base pi) is exactly equal to pie in just 2 small digits.
The probability that your door was right does not increase to 50%, it remains at 1%.
After your initial pick, there is a 99% chance that the prize is behind a door you did not pick. After the doors are opened, there is still a 99% chance that the prize is behind a door you did not pick, but you know which of 99 doors to choose. In effect, it's as though your new choice is to keep whatever is behind your door, or to open all other 99 doors, and take whatever you find behind them.
I don't see why his beliefs would be an embarrassment at all.
Perhaps not, but judging from your other posts in this discussion, you are much more tolerant and reasonable than most slashdotters.
Point well taken. It occurred to me a couple hours after I posted that my example relied on the laws of physics being (more-or-less) deterministic, and that therefore I had not addressed the main thrust of your post.
Suppose an individual is presented with the choice between X and Y. If God is all knowing, then God will know that the individual will 'choose' X. If God always knows this, and God must be, and is always right, then the individual must choose X.
The flaw in your argument is that you claim that God's knowledge leads to the individual's choice, when it is the individual's choice which leads to God's knowledge.
I can drop a ball from 1 m off the ground, and calculate precisely when it will hit the ground; however, it would be false to say that my calculation causes the ball to hit the ground when it does, even if my calculation temporally precedes the event.
You cleverly failed to mention how that image was generated, but I'm going to guess it comes from a millimeter wave scanner. Those do not detect energy fields being generate by the body, but rather emit energy, and measure how the energy interacts with, in this case, a human body and objects near it.
Going back to the origins of this discussion, you have indeed demonstrated the possibility that there might be something to eastern traditional medicines; however, the set of propositions which are possible is very large and often contradictory, so you can't believe all of them. In theory, people should believe the minimal set of proposition which explain the evidence (Occam's Razor), but in practice people use prejudice and bias as a good approximation.
When the domain of discourse is Linux nerds, then street cred is geek cred.
Congratulations, you just failed the Turing Test :P