Not counting the ones in this topic, only one of your previous half dozen comments was moderated down and only two of your previous seventeen posts was moderated down.
I think you should go with not ruling out paranoia, regardless of the size of the universe.
(and this should be modded off topic too, but I'm okay with that. I couldn't care less about karma)....
There is a lot more evidence for evolution than there is for global warming, but the amount of evidence isn't relevant to an observation about the mindset of the people who argue against that evidence and the methods they employ when they're clearly the same (which is all the original post was saying).
Both groups will look for any error, no matter how trivial, and use that as justification for dismissing all evidence that doesn't support their views even if that evidence is unrelated to the error. In both groups, the problem is that they've made up their mind already and the only reason they'll pay attention to opposing arguments is to find something, anything wrong so that they can "prove" that they're right.
I think, perhaps, you might be conflating people who deny global warming with people who are uncertain (which it sounds like you are). Maybe it's just a matter of definitions. Generally, p=People who are uncertain about climate change tend to look at the evidence and think "hey, we should study this more before we do anything drastic" while climate change deniers generally look at the evidence and say things like "There was a day in May where we had snow on the ground, therefore everything you're saying is a lie and all your so-called evidence is fake."
"If the console doesn't get as much ventilation as it needs to operate properly, a red light is displayed in the middle of the power ring, and the console shuts down by itself. Upon doing so, a message is displayed on the users' television, alerting them to the overheating issue."
(emphasis mine)
I can see a huge underground industry built up around this because there's no way in hell what ever "encryption" they use will last.
And then, once the encryption is broken, they can justify passing an even more draconian version of the DMCA that makes breaking encryption a felony with mandatory prison time. Hooray for the future!
This is a new variation on the old 809 scam. Basically the call goes to a pay-per-call service (like 1-900 number). The phone company gets part of the money and the person who set up the scam gets the rest.
The point of an inquiry is to determine whether there is a basis for an anti-trust case or not.
There isn't some pre-inquiry inquiry to decide if the company has enough market share or has behaved in ways that violate anti-trust laws, so there's no point in crying about how Apple doesn't meet the criteria for an anti-trust case.
Christians believe in something that might be true. Atheists believe in something that is obviously untrue (the non-existence of self).
If it sounds absurd to you, it's because I'm not framing their argument the way they would ("we're just collections of atoms, nothing special about us") in order to highlight the absurdity of it.
It sounds absurd because you're intentionally being vague about what you're talking about and misusing terms. Put simply, you're saying that atheists don't believe in a human soul and you do (which is also wrong... there are people who don't believe in a divine god who are quite happy to believe in reincarnation, souls, chi, cosmic energy and any number of other bits of woo-woo).
There's nothing absurd about not believing in something when there's absolutely no proof of its existence (and no, someone writing something a book does not qualify as proof).
You should be impressed. No mere mortal would ever look at computer and think "let's replace random parts until it starts working!" This guy is clearly some sort of magical god of electronic troubleshooting. Quite possibly with a unicorn for a sidekick.
The research mentioned in the article is about verifying identity by comparing a person's keystroke timing to a previously acquired of keystroke timing. Nothing the professor's research makes any claim of being able to determine age, gender, culture or anything else from an unknown person's typing.
At best, you could compare a person's typing to a database of typing patterns and see if you find a match. To identify pervs this way would require that you track down all the pervs, give them typing tests, ensure that they type like they normally do, store the typing profiles in a database, ensure that all programs record and send the timing of typists keystrokes, ensure that the pervs all type the same way they did on the typing test and compare the resulting keystroke timing profile.
But hey... how could any of that possibly fail to work?
Put away your straw man arguments and re-read what I actually wrote.
I said nothing negative about drugs and I certainly did not say the issue shouldn't be discussed. If anything, my comment suggests that the best way to change things is to change the mindset of the voting public which can only be done through discussion and education.
You have some interesting things to say, but you should try using them in a reply to someone who actually has an opposing viewpoint. Preaching to the choir certainly isn't going to accomplish anything.
Legalizing marijuana is not at all viable from the point of view of an elected official.
Politicians don't win elections by doing what's best for society... they win by doing what the majority of the people who vote want. Like it or not, the majority of the people who actually go out and vote do not approve of and will not support candidates who publicly embrace the view idea drugs aren't evil (which is why so very few ever get elected). Until that changes, there is absolutely no chance of legalization or decriminalization of drugs.
Even if there is a link, how can they be sure it's not due to exposure to chemicals given off by the plastic of the phone? Nothing in any of the studies I've seen would rule out chemical causes.
Whoops. It is 2. My bad for posting before the morning's caffeine kicked in, but at least I'm not as bad off as the people claiming that binary 10 = decimal 16.
The OP said he was going to be backpacking for a year. He's only got three choices. Bring a computer, use internet cafes where other people can see him or give up porn for a year.
No firefighters went in. The house was a lost cause by the time they arrived and they primarily tried to make sure the neighbors houses didn't go up as well.
And I'd be prefer that my stepfather died a horribly painful death rather than being jailed, but I'm just a tad biased.
No, there wasn't any loan shark. His "buddies" just wouldn't play with him until he paid off what he owed them. Also, the arson wouldn't have been so bad if the insurance money had gone to a new house instead of being gambled away.
As I said in another post, I don't think banning gambling (or any other vice) is a solution. I just hate the argument that there are no victims when I've seen them and been one.
Slashdot Mirror
Not counting the ones in this topic, only one of your previous half dozen comments was moderated down and only two of your previous seventeen posts was moderated down.
I think you should go with not ruling out paranoia, regardless of the size of the universe.
(and this should be modded off topic too, but I'm okay with that. I couldn't care less about karma)....
And maybe a "+1 Stylish Tinfoil Hat"
From the letter:
We are also making bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to see.
And next week, they'll add go-faster stripes to help make those downloads go faster too. Maybe we'll even get an ultra-fast version with flames!
There is a lot more evidence for evolution than there is for global warming, but the amount of evidence isn't relevant to an observation about the mindset of the people who argue against that evidence and the methods they employ when they're clearly the same (which is all the original post was saying).
Both groups will look for any error, no matter how trivial, and use that as justification for dismissing all evidence that doesn't support their views even if that evidence is unrelated to the error. In both groups, the problem is that they've made up their mind already and the only reason they'll pay attention to opposing arguments is to find something, anything wrong so that they can "prove" that they're right.
I think, perhaps, you might be conflating people who deny global warming with people who are uncertain (which it sounds like you are). Maybe it's just a matter of definitions. Generally, p=People who are uncertain about climate change tend to look at the evidence and think "hey, we should study this more before we do anything drastic" while climate change deniers generally look at the evidence and say things like "There was a day in May where we had snow on the ground, therefore everything you're saying is a lie and all your so-called evidence is fake."
Didn't follow the link, did you?
"If the console doesn't get as much ventilation as it needs to operate properly, a red light is displayed in the middle of the power ring, and the console shuts down by itself. Upon doing so, a message is displayed on the users' television, alerting them to the overheating issue." (emphasis mine)
I can see a huge underground industry built up around this because there's no way in hell what ever "encryption" they use will last.
And then, once the encryption is broken, they can justify passing an even more draconian version of the DMCA that makes breaking encryption a felony with mandatory prison time. Hooray for the future!
Think of the childr... err... horses!
Won't someone please think of the horses!?
This is a new variation on the old 809 scam. Basically the call goes to a pay-per-call service (like 1-900 number). The phone company gets part of the money and the person who set up the scam gets the rest.
The difference between A4 and letter sized paper is nowhere near that large. A4 is about 1/4 inch narrower and about 3/4 inch longer.
Inquiry != prosecution.
The point of an inquiry is to determine whether there is a basis for an anti-trust case or not.
There isn't some pre-inquiry inquiry to decide if the company has enough market share or has behaved in ways that violate anti-trust laws, so there's no point in crying about how Apple doesn't meet the criteria for an anti-trust case.
I was afraid the world would miss out on the glorious moment that I die from auto-erotic asphyxiation. Immortal fame, here I come!
Christians believe in something that might be true. Atheists believe in something that is obviously untrue (the non-existence of self).
If it sounds absurd to you, it's because I'm not framing their argument the way they would ("we're just collections of atoms, nothing special about us") in order to highlight the absurdity of it.
It sounds absurd because you're intentionally being vague about what you're talking about and misusing terms. Put simply, you're saying that atheists don't believe in a human soul and you do (which is also wrong... there are people who don't believe in a divine god who are quite happy to believe in reincarnation, souls, chi, cosmic energy and any number of other bits of woo-woo). There's nothing absurd about not believing in something when there's absolutely no proof of its existence (and no, someone writing something a book does not qualify as proof).
Maybe if he had switched to a 128 bit power supply. That's twice what you need for a 64 bit processor, right?
You should be impressed. No mere mortal would ever look at computer and think "let's replace random parts until it starts working!" This guy is clearly some sort of magical god of electronic troubleshooting. Quite possibly with a unicorn for a sidekick.
The research mentioned in the article is about verifying identity by comparing a person's keystroke timing to a previously acquired of keystroke timing. Nothing the professor's research makes any claim of being able to determine age, gender, culture or anything else from an unknown person's typing.
At best, you could compare a person's typing to a database of typing patterns and see if you find a match. To identify pervs this way would require that you track down all the pervs, give them typing tests, ensure that they type like they normally do, store the typing profiles in a database, ensure that all programs record and send the timing of typists keystrokes, ensure that the pervs all type the same way they did on the typing test and compare the resulting keystroke timing profile.
But hey... how could any of that possibly fail to work?
Also, the professor's list of published papers can be found here. There is some interesting stuff there
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~maxion/pubs/list.html
Put away your straw man arguments and re-read what I actually wrote.
I said nothing negative about drugs and I certainly did not say the issue shouldn't be discussed. If anything, my comment suggests that the best way to change things is to change the mindset of the voting public which can only be done through discussion and education.
You have some interesting things to say, but you should try using them in a reply to someone who actually has an opposing viewpoint. Preaching to the choir certainly isn't going to accomplish anything.
Legalizing marijuana is not at all viable from the point of view of an elected official.
Politicians don't win elections by doing what's best for society... they win by doing what the majority of the people who vote want. Like it or not, the majority of the people who actually go out and vote do not approve of and will not support candidates who publicly embrace the view idea drugs aren't evil (which is why so very few ever get elected). Until that changes, there is absolutely no chance of legalization or decriminalization of drugs.
Even if there is a link, how can they be sure it's not due to exposure to chemicals given off by the plastic of the phone? Nothing in any of the studies I've seen would rule out chemical causes.
A trip to a brothel outside Las Vegas would be more foolish, more fun and cost less to boot.
With luck, you wouldn't have anything left to show for it at the end of the week either.
Whoops. It is 2. My bad for posting before the morning's caffeine kicked in, but at least I'm not as bad off as the people claiming that binary 10 = decimal 16.
I think you mean hexadecimal. When 10 is interpreted as binary, it's 3 not 16.
"Idle is a complete waste of your time, don 't go there."
What part of that do you not understand?
The OP said he was going to be backpacking for a year. He's only got three choices. Bring a computer, use internet cafes where other people can see him or give up porn for a year.
No firefighters went in. The house was a lost cause by the time they arrived and they primarily tried to make sure the neighbors houses didn't go up as well.
And I'd be prefer that my stepfather died a horribly painful death rather than being jailed, but I'm just a tad biased.
No, there wasn't any loan shark. His "buddies" just wouldn't play with him until he paid off what he owed them. Also, the arson wouldn't have been so bad if the insurance money had gone to a new house instead of being gambled away.
As I said in another post, I don't think banning gambling (or any other vice) is a solution. I just hate the argument that there are no victims when I've seen them and been one.