According to the traditions of human beings (especially the traditions of Native Americans): If you conquer it, you ARE the rightful owner.
- finally someone with common sense. When I see things around them, I know that they are all my things, all I have to do is take them. I don't care if you worked for those things, as long as I can take them away from you, they are my things. You are just keeping them for me temporarily, until I decide that I need them. Society is to be used as long as it is profitable for me. Nothing should be given back to it unless I feel generous that day.
So if one race/ethnicity has a disorder that really cannot be controlled by anything, except gene manipulation/selective breeding, what the hell should the government do about it? Force the population into GATTAGA to control that disease?
That is retarded, the parent poster is retarded, the moderator who pushed that garbage up is retarded the census is retarded and everyone who gives the real information on it is retarded.
Everybody should this garbage out with bullshit. I am a 13 feet tall blue skinned Navy chick, I make $500 a year and most of it I spend on crack cocaine. There you go, government.
Will your answer to the census stay private? Will your health-care premium grow extensively and will the new 'reform' get blamed for it? Will the people make assumptions about you based on your 'political association'? Will the corporate interest together with the government involvement ensure that the economy finally ends in a total collapse?
Stay tuned to get the answer to these, and other meaningful questions.
Most people in the world are ignorant fools, most people in the world behave like idiots at one time or another, unfortunately it is what it is, intelligence is not prerequisite to survival apparently. Also it is probably true that a very large percentage of the population will also do pretty much anything for a buck, combining these facts together and you get a pretty sad place to live in.
However catholic priests don't need to do any typing to get what they are looking for, this software ain't for those, is it?
Looks like this is simply an attempt at a grant for a useless research that will accomplish nothing. Those who are on line and are hunting kids, those have to be able to fit in, to pretend to be something they are not. Figuring them out by their typing skills among tens of thousands of other participants of chat boards? Give me a break, it's bull shit.
THAT is the whole point of not being an idiot, or do you assume that all pedophiles are also stupid? They fit in, they pretend being something they are not and many of them have to be good at it, so they would not behave like adults would and that includes the typing abilities and patterns, the vocabulary, the cultural references, everything.
I think the research would get better results if they concentrated on using the web-cams to see who is in front of the computer. Shouldn't be too hard, they do this at US schools already, just supply everyone with a 'free' laptop and disallow anyone from using their own equipment on the web and make sure that the camera on the laptop can be used any time at all to view the laptop user.
Then just look for clues to figure out who is a pedophile. Job done.
Good luck figuring anything out at all from people who are proficient enough in typing, touch-typists with years of experience who is who, who is a man, who is a woman, how old they are.
FTFA: men are 'heavy-handed and women are 'lighter' and their typing 'flows more' - that is beat by touch-typing.
But the basic problem with this is that it is a Turing test. Can a 'pedophile' impersonate someone that he/she is not? I think they should be able to, they fool kids supposedly into believing that they are also kids, of-course it is not that difficult to fool a kid, but maybe it is because it is not that hard to pretend on the Internet if you are really putting in the time to do it.
I can only guess why the 'pedophile' line is used here again, is it about the money? Is Roy Maxion trying to get a grant money from the government for this 'research'? I think so.
'If children are talking to each other on Windows Live or MSN messenger, Microsoft might be able to see if there's an adult on there.'
- MSN, the world police. What are they going to do if there is a suspicion, block access and send cops?
The department, which was formed last summer, believes the new technology could be used to prevent fraud at cash machines.
- ATMs? So from pushing 4-6 digit pin and a few menu options they are going to figure out whether it is a woman/man, what's the age etc?
I can only imagine one possibility: record information collected from the actual account holder pushing the buttons and compare the speed of typing and delays between touches and releases to try and see if it's the same person. It's not as sexy as figuring out person's age and gender though, is it?
Also how are they going to figure out how pedophiles type? Are they going to find actual pedophiles and make them sit in front of a computer and type? Did they somehow figure out that pedophiles all have the same typing abilities/habits? Do pedophiles all have the same profession and are they really that easy to figure out from the rest of the 'normal' people? Anyway, I think this 'research' is a load of bull crap and it's all about grant money.
The thesis in TFA is that developers are mostly busy building CRUD code and 'websites' and that if you don't want to get completely tired of it 5 years down the road, you need to do other things, possibly just for yourself (because at work you only are building CRUD/websites) and then come up with problems where math is King, and this is so that you will get more 'respect' like those great software guys like Dijkstra, Knuth etc.
Well, I'd say if you are only doing CRUD/websites now and that's it, you should be concerned about your job 5 years down the road, that's the kind of stuff that gets automated/outsourced eventually. You are right, do something more than that.
The question really sounded like this:
I am bored with my job. Will it help me to get into heavy math and math related projects to fight this boredom I am experiencing at my work?
Answer:
Who knows? Will you find it personally satisfying getting into some heavy math stuff so you can be like Knuth and Dijkstra? Are you looking for recognition as a 'great' programmer or are you really interested in building stuff for yourself? Sounded more like you hate your job and you want to be famous to me:)
Maybe you should quit this and become a professional rock star; that will fix the boredom problem right up, if you are good of-course.
Or maybe you need to find a better job, so you don't work on CRUD/websites all the time?
Or maybe you should realize that working, having a job is kind of boring, it's not there to entertain you, it's there so you can make a living?
Or maybe you'll involve yourself in an interesting project, learn some math or whatever and become like Knuth or Dijkstra or Woz? Or like Gates? Who knows. But my gut feeling is that you are not really a math kind of guy if your primary motivation to learn more math is that you are bored of CRUD/websites job and not math itself:) so don't be too disappointed if any project you involve yourself into will degenerated into CRUD/websites kind of project quite quickly and not too much explicit mathematics will be used.
I think Hitler had PS beat to this goal, he had a much simpler tool and when the bodies are removed, you can never really tell that the picture was photoshopped !
I said Gates is boring, and yes, charity is a 'noble' cause, but it's boring when compared to all the other possible forms of resource redistribution. Give a man a fish - that does get boring.
If Gates also did something exciting with his money except for charity, which is boring but good for him, if he did something fun while doing this boring charity work as well, I wouldn't be making this comment.
Gates, show us how it's done, be a fun billionaire, build a Moon base and ship Dr. Spork there to collect He3 or something. That would be combining the fun exciting stuff with charity.
Does the value of the freedom not to pay income tax outweigh the value of the things income tax can pay for? As a society we weighed this and decided it does not.
- except in case of USA it was not 'the society' that made that choice. This tax was imposed during the civil and then the first world wars supposedly to pay for participation and it was supposed to be a temporary measure.
It was not 'the society' that implemented it and it was not 'the society' that left the tax in there permanently, it were the politicians, who saw the money and could never ever let go of it ever again, so they made sure that it never did go away by always creating a 'need' for the tax to stay until everyone forgot that this was not constitutional and almost nobody was left who remembered how it was before that particular tax.
This was a violation of the rights of the people, but then the people were bullied into giving up this right, it was not a case of society agreeing on something.
Correct, rights that can be denied over time are privileges.
Rights are privileges from one person to another and back, so as long as both people agree not to violate the same right in a reciprocal fashion, then they supposedly have created a 'right'.
If many people agree that they will reciprocate to each other for certain privileges - rights, and if they were able to enact into a law that it is government's job to protect this right, then the government is basically acting as a police and a judge to make sure nobody goes against a right of another.
That's all we can do with regards to providing the rights.
Now with an examples:
1. When majority of people set up a system, where they maintain a government, and under the law they allow themselves to own slaves from other countries/races, then again, it is their right to do so. However if the slaves fight the slave owners and over time are able to change the law so that all people are protected under the law, regardless of where they came from, then again, it is a new right for all.
2. When a majority of people set up a system, where they maintain a government, and under the law they specified that government shall not impose income taxes, but then the government finds a loophole of some kind and does this, whatever the reason (national security, debt, whatever) then it can be said that rights of all individuals have been reduced in that system, so now the system has been subverted to take away the original broad right.
So what I am saying I guess is that rights are agreements that are maintained by force at the level of the law and that rights must not be reduced to a minority or to a subset, they really are supposed to be only increased over time. If the rights are reduced over time or are provided to a reduced subset of the population that is smaller in size than the original population that used to enjoy this right, it then can be said that those are not rights, they are in fact privileges.
30 cars, I should remember that? Really? I could have 30 cars if I wanted to and so what? I can't have my own space craft, that's what I am talking about when it concerns people like Gates.
Shit, you are right, that must be the reason why I am not the richest person in the world and never will be, it's because I can barely spell in my third language.
I don't know, there was something about Gates that always struck me as boring.
He is one of the few people in the world who have access to enormous resources and yet, he just does not do anything with it that I would qualify as fun.
Springer has his cars or maybe he used to, Woz flew airplanes, right? The Virgin guy, this dude Branson, he sounds like a kind of fella who knows how to have fun with the money he made. Airplanes, submarines, space craft! Now that's the kind of stuff I am talking about.
Gates is doing his charity of-course, but common, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and.... there goes your fishing monopoly. What I mean is, he should be doing something fun with his money before he crocks. What's the point of having all that dough and do nothing exciting with it? Well, maybe he is excited with the charity works, again, I don't know. If I had crazy money, I would definitely build the biggest robots or biggest guns ever or biggest freaking submarine or a Enterprise at Moon's orbit. Something that would be hard and fun to do.
Common, Gates, do something that would show us that money can really cause great amounts of fun. Build a freaking nuclear reactor and attach it to a shark's head or something!
You would think, but look at the history, often enough military split into a number of groups, one would definitely work for the power in the office, another probably would side with some general, yet another will switch to the side of the people and a part of the military would just desert and disappear.
The problem with current situation is that it is so well automated, unlike any other time in history, it can be quite uninvolved, the power of destruction plus the power of automation is really the scary part. Very very few people can command so much power of destruction.
Plenty of people die in the system US currently has even when they do have insurance, so this point is moot. People die today and they will die tomorrow, but now they have another law that makes them into criminals and not free people.
you understand the legal logic behind requiring people to have car insurance before driving, right?
- liability.
Liability insurance in case you hurt someone else, not for your own enjoyment. That's the insurance that is necessary if you drive a car.
Health insurance must not be mandated, you have just declared it to be illegal to be an individual person that does not own property and does not want to pay taxes, lives off the grid. One by one you are taking the right of people away not to be slaves to the system, you should not be surprised at the people, when they start fighting that system, call it terrorist or whatever you want.
simple: citizens of the USA got screwed by both parties but they will have nothing better allowed, so they better like it.
Controversial? This bill is not controversial at all. It's just bad.
0. No change in politics. No change in the white house, it's just as white as it was before Obama showed up. 1. No public option, so no cheaper option to buy into. 2. No medicare buy in (Alan Grayson's proposal) 3. No cheaper drugs. 4. More expensive drugs due to extension on drug patents from 5 to 12 years. 5. Mandate, so you have to buy into expensive private insurance and again, no medicare buy in nor public option buy in. 6. Various backroom deals that move money to politicians. 7. Lies from politicians - they needed 60 senators and Lie-berman was going to filibuster, all of a sudden, when the bill is agreeable by the president they only need 50 (plus Biden). 8. It's not going to be universal coverage, they are still going to have tens of millions of uninsured. 9. The actual positive side of the bill - end of rescission, the insurance companies not able to deny coverage due to any previous conditions, that does not happen for a few years. 10. In the meantime, insurance companies will raise prices to offset any costs associated with the new regulations. 11. No ability of public negotiations with drug manufacturers. 12. No ability of public negotiations with hospitals/clinics. 13. Covering special interests, for example abortion coverage will no longer be provided by insurance it looks like, even for those who were able to buy such coverage earlier.
Just generally speaking, Obama was very specific when he was running for the office, and the reason why he got into the office was the promise of change, the kind of change that would really work for the general public. He was very specific about fighting for public option, about the kind of financial reform that needs to be done, well, none of that is happening, it is all a charade, an illusion, a lie, looks like nobody who wants to get into these positions of power should be allowed to get there. Abolishing the government completely, is that what it will take? It's going to be tough, what, with the government having all those weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the traditions of human beings (especially the traditions of Native Americans): If you conquer it, you ARE the rightful owner.
- finally someone with common sense. When I see things around them, I know that they are all my things, all I have to do is take them. I don't care if you worked for those things, as long as I can take them away from you, they are my things. You are just keeping them for me temporarily, until I decide that I need them. Society is to be used as long as it is profitable for me. Nothing should be given back to it unless I feel generous that day.
That stupid comment is insightful?
So if one race/ethnicity has a disorder that really cannot be controlled by anything, except gene manipulation/selective breeding, what the hell should the government do about it? Force the population into GATTAGA to control that disease?
That is retarded, the parent poster is retarded, the moderator who pushed that garbage up is retarded the census is retarded and everyone who gives the real information on it is retarded.
Everybody should this garbage out with bullshit. I am a 13 feet tall blue skinned Navy chick, I make $500 a year and most of it I spend on crack cocaine. There you go, government.
Will your answer to the census stay private?
Will your health-care premium grow extensively and will the new 'reform' get blamed for it?
Will the people make assumptions about you based on your 'political association'?
Will the corporate interest together with the government involvement ensure that the economy finally ends in a total collapse?
Stay tuned to get the answer to these, and other meaningful questions.
Most people in the world are ignorant fools, most people in the world behave like idiots at one time or another, unfortunately it is what it is, intelligence is not prerequisite to survival apparently. Also it is probably true that a very large percentage of the population will also do pretty much anything for a buck, combining these facts together and you get a pretty sad place to live in.
However catholic priests don't need to do any typing to get what they are looking for, this software ain't for those, is it?
Looks like this is simply an attempt at a grant for a useless research that will accomplish nothing. Those who are on line and are hunting kids, those have to be able to fit in, to pretend to be something they are not. Figuring them out by their typing skills among tens of thousands of other participants of chat boards? Give me a break, it's bull shit.
THAT is the whole point of not being an idiot, or do you assume that all pedophiles are also stupid? They fit in, they pretend being something they are not and many of them have to be good at it, so they would not behave like adults would and that includes the typing abilities and patterns, the vocabulary, the cultural references, everything.
How do you miss that from my original comment?
Combine the pedophile beards with the rapist glasses, the kind of look that women love.
I think the research would get better results if they concentrated on using the web-cams to see who is in front of the computer. Shouldn't be too hard, they do this at US schools already, just supply everyone with a 'free' laptop and disallow anyone from using their own equipment on the web and make sure that the camera on the laptop can be used any time at all to view the laptop user.
Then just look for clues to figure out who is a pedophile. Job done.
Can I have the grant money to do this now?
Good luck figuring anything out at all from people who are proficient enough in typing, touch-typists with years of experience who is who, who is a man, who is a woman, how old they are.
FTFA: men are 'heavy-handed and women are 'lighter' and their typing 'flows more' - that is beat by touch-typing.
But the basic problem with this is that it is a Turing test. Can a 'pedophile' impersonate someone that he/she is not? I think they should be able to, they fool kids supposedly into believing that they are also kids, of-course it is not that difficult to fool a kid, but maybe it is because it is not that hard to pretend on the Internet if you are really putting in the time to do it.
I can only guess why the 'pedophile' line is used here again, is it about the money? Is Roy Maxion trying to get a grant money from the government for this 'research'? I think so.
'If children are talking to each other on Windows Live or MSN messenger, Microsoft might be able to see if there's an adult on there.'
- MSN, the world police. What are they going to do if there is a suspicion, block access and send cops?
The department, which was formed last summer, believes the new technology could be used to prevent fraud at cash machines.
- ATMs? So from pushing 4-6 digit pin and a few menu options they are going to figure out whether it is a woman/man, what's the age etc?
I can only imagine one possibility: record information collected from the actual account holder pushing the buttons and compare the speed of typing and delays between touches and releases to try and see if it's the same person. It's not as sexy as figuring out person's age and gender though, is it?
Also how are they going to figure out how pedophiles type? Are they going to find actual pedophiles and make them sit in front of a computer and type? Did they somehow figure out that pedophiles all have the same typing abilities/habits? Do pedophiles all have the same profession and are they really that easy to figure out from the rest of the 'normal' people? Anyway, I think this 'research' is a load of bull crap and it's all about grant money.
The thesis in TFA is that developers are mostly busy building CRUD code and 'websites' and that if you don't want to get completely tired of it 5 years down the road, you need to do other things, possibly just for yourself (because at work you only are building CRUD/websites) and then come up with problems where math is King, and this is so that you will get more 'respect' like those great software guys like Dijkstra, Knuth etc.
Well, I'd say if you are only doing CRUD/websites now and that's it, you should be concerned about your job 5 years down the road, that's the kind of stuff that gets automated/outsourced eventually. You are right, do something more than that.
The question really sounded like this:
I am bored with my job. Will it help me to get into heavy math and math related projects to fight this boredom I am experiencing at my work?
Answer:
Who knows? Will you find it personally satisfying getting into some heavy math stuff so you can be like Knuth and Dijkstra? Are you looking for recognition as a 'great' programmer or are you really interested in building stuff for yourself? Sounded more like you hate your job and you want to be famous to me :)
Maybe you should quit this and become a professional rock star; that will fix the boredom problem right up, if you are good of-course.
Or maybe you need to find a better job, so you don't work on CRUD/websites all the time?
Or maybe you should realize that working, having a job is kind of boring, it's not there to entertain you, it's there so you can make a living?
Or maybe you'll involve yourself in an interesting project, learn some math or whatever and become like Knuth or Dijkstra or Woz? Or like Gates? Who knows. But my gut feeling is that you are not really a math kind of guy if your primary motivation to learn more math is that you are bored of CRUD/websites job and not math itself :) so don't be too disappointed if any project you involve yourself into will degenerated into CRUD/websites kind of project quite quickly and not too much explicit mathematics will be used.
I think Hitler had PS beat to this goal, he had a much simpler tool and when the bodies are removed, you can never really tell that the picture was photoshopped !
Fuck you, right?
I said Gates is boring, and yes, charity is a 'noble' cause, but it's boring when compared to all the other possible forms of resource redistribution. Give a man a fish - that does get boring.
If Gates also did something exciting with his money except for charity, which is boring but good for him, if he did something fun while doing this boring charity work as well, I wouldn't be making this comment.
Gates, show us how it's done, be a fun billionaire, build a Moon base and ship Dr. Spork there to collect He3 or something. That would be combining the fun exciting stuff with charity.
Does the value of the freedom not to pay income tax outweigh the value of the things income tax can pay for? As a society we weighed this and decided it does not.
- except in case of USA it was not 'the society' that made that choice. This tax was imposed during the civil and then the first world wars supposedly to pay for participation and it was supposed to be a temporary measure.
It was not 'the society' that implemented it and it was not 'the society' that left the tax in there permanently, it were the politicians, who saw the money and could never ever let go of it ever again, so they made sure that it never did go away by always creating a 'need' for the tax to stay until everyone forgot that this was not constitutional and almost nobody was left who remembered how it was before that particular tax.
This was a violation of the rights of the people, but then the people were bullied into giving up this right, it was not a case of society agreeing on something.
Correct, rights that can be denied over time are privileges.
Rights are privileges from one person to another and back, so as long as both people agree not to violate the same right in a reciprocal fashion, then they supposedly have created a 'right'.
If many people agree that they will reciprocate to each other for certain privileges - rights, and if they were able to enact into a law that it is government's job to protect this right, then the government is basically acting as a police and a judge to make sure nobody goes against a right of another.
That's all we can do with regards to providing the rights.
Now with an examples:
1. When majority of people set up a system, where they maintain a government, and under the law they allow themselves to own slaves from other countries/races, then again, it is their right to do so. However if the slaves fight the slave owners and over time are able to change the law so that all people are protected under the law, regardless of where they came from, then again, it is a new right for all.
2. When a majority of people set up a system, where they maintain a government, and under the law they specified that government shall not impose income taxes, but then the government finds a loophole of some kind and does this, whatever the reason (national security, debt, whatever) then it can be said that rights of all individuals have been reduced in that system, so now the system has been subverted to take away the original broad right.
So what I am saying I guess is that rights are agreements that are maintained by force at the level of the law and that rights must not be reduced to a minority or to a subset, they really are supposed to be only increased over time. If the rights are reduced over time or are provided to a reduced subset of the population that is smaller in size than the original population that used to enjoy this right, it then can be said that those are not rights, they are in fact privileges.
30 cars, I should remember that? Really? I could have 30 cars if I wanted to and so what? I can't have my own space craft, that's what I am talking about when it concerns people like Gates.
Shit, you are right, that must be the reason why I am not the richest person in the world and never will be, it's because I can barely spell in my third language.
I don't know, there was something about Gates that always struck me as boring.
He is one of the few people in the world who have access to enormous resources and yet, he just does not do anything with it that I would qualify as fun.
Springer has his cars or maybe he used to, Woz flew airplanes, right? The Virgin guy, this dude Branson, he sounds like a kind of fella who knows how to have fun with the money he made. Airplanes, submarines, space craft! Now that's the kind of stuff I am talking about.
Gates is doing his charity of-course, but common, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and .... there goes your fishing monopoly. What I mean is, he should be doing something fun with his money before he crocks. What's the point of having all that dough and do nothing exciting with it? Well, maybe he is excited with the charity works, again, I don't know. If I had crazy money, I would definitely build the biggest robots or biggest guns ever or biggest freaking submarine or a Enterprise at Moon's orbit. Something that would be hard and fun to do.
Common, Gates, do something that would show us that money can really cause great amounts of fun. Build a freaking nuclear reactor and attach it to a shark's head or something!
? It's 1 then?
0 qualifies as a phone number with many carriers and will get you an operator.
You mention Skylab and forget about a 15 year experiment with a space station before the ISS?
You would think, but look at the history, often enough military split into a number of groups, one would definitely work for the power in the office, another probably would side with some general, yet another will switch to the side of the people and a part of the military would just desert and disappear.
The problem with current situation is that it is so well automated, unlike any other time in history, it can be quite uninvolved, the power of destruction plus the power of automation is really the scary part. Very very few people can command so much power of destruction.
Plenty of people die in the system US currently has even when they do have insurance, so this point is moot. People die today and they will die tomorrow, but now they have another law that makes them into criminals and not free people.
you understand the legal logic behind requiring people to have car insurance before driving, right?
- liability.
Liability insurance in case you hurt someone else, not for your own enjoyment. That's the insurance that is necessary if you drive a car.
Health insurance must not be mandated, you have just declared it to be illegal to be an individual person that does not own property and does not want to pay taxes, lives off the grid. One by one you are taking the right of people away not to be slaves to the system, you should not be surprised at the people, when they start fighting that system, call it terrorist or whatever you want.
Realize that Costa Rica has public heath care. Rush is a drug abusing idiot.
simple: citizens of the USA got screwed by both parties but they will have nothing better allowed, so they better like it.
Controversial? This bill is not controversial at all. It's just bad.
0. No change in politics. No change in the white house, it's just as white as it was before Obama showed up.
1. No public option, so no cheaper option to buy into.
2. No medicare buy in (Alan Grayson's proposal)
3. No cheaper drugs.
4. More expensive drugs due to extension on drug patents from 5 to 12 years.
5. Mandate, so you have to buy into expensive private insurance and again, no medicare buy in nor public option buy in.
6. Various backroom deals that move money to politicians.
7. Lies from politicians - they needed 60 senators and Lie-berman was going to filibuster, all of a sudden, when the bill is agreeable by the president they only need 50 (plus Biden).
8. It's not going to be universal coverage, they are still going to have tens of millions of uninsured.
9. The actual positive side of the bill - end of rescission, the insurance companies not able to deny coverage due to any previous conditions, that does not happen for a few years.
10. In the meantime, insurance companies will raise prices to offset any costs associated with the new regulations.
11. No ability of public negotiations with drug manufacturers.
12. No ability of public negotiations with hospitals/clinics.
13. Covering special interests, for example abortion coverage will no longer be provided by insurance it looks like, even for those who were able to buy such coverage earlier.
Just generally speaking, Obama was very specific when he was running for the office, and the reason why he got into the office was the promise of change, the kind of change that would really work for the general public. He was very specific about fighting for public option, about the kind of financial reform that needs to be done, well, none of that is happening, it is all a charade, an illusion, a lie, looks like nobody who wants to get into these positions of power should be allowed to get there. Abolishing the government completely, is that what it will take? It's going to be tough, what, with the government having all those weapons.