Alan Moore actually swiped the clock in Watchmen from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which was a bit more prominent in the 1980's than it is now.
How is 1 cm any better? Different displays are a different number of cm in width, and fonts are different sizes in relation to cm, so the same amount will look different depending on the display and font size. em is a little better, but different displays are different numbers of characters in width as well.
I'd rather the kid turns into a juvenile delinquent than into you.
I don't know. I wouldn't want my kid to be narrow-minded either... but if I was given a choice "your kid can be narrow minded like him, or your kid can go around robbing and killing people and destroying property", I would really the kid rather become someone like him.
1) The corpse belongs to the heirs. Except under rare circumstances, the heirs aren't going to give permission to use it for sex. Furthermore, there are emotional reasons, which are part of being human, why just about nobody wants to will their body to someone who's going to use it for sex, and why grieving relatives are very upset at necrophilia. Ignoring these on the grounds that nobody is actually physically harmed ignores that it is possible to hurt a human being emotionally, and shows a lack of empathy
2) As a practical consideration, you're not going to find anyone who is otherwise a normal person and just wants to have sex with corpses. In the real world, necrophilia is a sign of mental illness, because that's just how human beings are. Normal people don't want to have sex with corpses, even if you don't define "normal people" circularly
It is possible for someone to be anti-Semitic and to still produce rational arguments on subjects not dealing with Jews. It is also possible that if he was 17, his ideas changed later and he could be rational even about Jews.
Stallman is a nutjob in enough ways that it seriously calls into question his entire process of judgment. It's a lot less likely that someone who ignores personal hygeine and argues for many things considered beyond the pale by almost everyone else can produce an argument worth listening to, than someone who is just anti-Semitic can produce an argument worth listening to. This is not because one flaw is more dangerous than another flaw, but rather because one flaw is more fundamental than another.
And while someone with very fundamental personality flaws can still, theoretically, produce a good argument even if it's less likely, we all have limited time and effort. We *have* to cut it down in some way--it's just not *possible* to examine every person's arguments. Yes, if the argument's bad we can determine that independently of the person--except that assumes our time is unlimited, and it's not.
If dismantling and reassembling the car caused damage, were the students involved planning to pay for the damage they caused? What if someone got hurt, were the students going to perform surgery on them to fix the injury?
(More likely, the students believed themselves invincible. They didn't consider the possibility they'd cause damage or hurt anyone because they were so sure of themselves that they didn't bother to account for it. (And no, the fact that it worked once without harm doesn't mean they were right--they just didn't hit the random chance of making a bad mistake. Crossing the street without looking out for oncoming cars works too--most of the time.)
If you RTFA, the judge concludes that the jury based the 1.3 million actual damages on loss of revenue. The judge basically ruled that the loss of revenue was not proven to be caused by the illegal download.
This doesn't apply to the RIAA because as has been stated in other comments, if the copyright is registered, the penalty is no longer limited to actual damages.
Even then, this only happens because there are tax incentives to have your employer buy insurance for you instead of for the employer to pay the consumer an equal amount and for the consumer to buy the insurance on a competitive market.
Based on his own evidence, not even that. The question is about accelerating the end in the context of starting the apocalypse--in other words, violence and killing. Someone who is "accelerating the end" by praying for the Messiah to come faster is not really what is being discussed, even though technically he is trying to get the end to come faster.
Companies like to put the burden on employees. Never on themselves. Not having lots of mandatory overtime is sure to increase the health of the employees, but *that* is one method of health-promotion they will never use. Instead they want to work the employees more and then take away their overtime pay on the grounds that the employees don't eat healthy (which was caused by the long working hours).
"Since the government meddles in our health care, it's okay for the government to meddle in our lives in other ways because it increases the cost of the health care" is an argument against government health care, not an argument for the government meddling in our lives in other ways.
For seat belts most sane people should wear a seat belt because there's little down side, but its bad as a precedent; it's being extended to other things right here.
That only applies when the evil is really obvious, such as shooting people in the streets or sending them to concentration camps to have their dead bodies used for soap obvious.
We can't expect every low level employee to be judge and jury and determine that a company is doing something wrong. The bad things the company does may not be obvious to laypeople, or may even be done in backroom deals to which the secretary isn't privy unless s/he hires an independent accountant to analyze the company's revenue statements.
To use an example that Slashdotters may be familiar with, you don't like the RIIA, but do you think your non-geek grandmother should be expected to figure that they are evil by herself?
And where does this end, anyway? Am I allowed to work at the McDonalds around the corner from the big company? After all, I know that employees of the company come there to buy food, so my salary indirectly comes from them, and I support them, even though I'm not actually their employee. (For that matter, McDonalds has done some evil things. Are all McDonalds employees now legitimate targets, on the grounds that they should know better than to work for an evil corporation?)
That is so very not true. And the reason why it's not true is because you are making the mistake of taking the legislators at their word. They are putting this law into effect because they have been paid off by big media companies. Sure, they're using poor reasoning. But that's not because they're so clueless that they don't understand good reasoning. It's because their stated reasons for wanting it passed aren't their actual reasons--of course their stated reasons won't make sense, they're really doing it for the payoff. They probably don't really believe the laws will make things better at all; they're just pretending.
When a newer system is able to function as an older one (the article, which looks poorly Babelfished, claims it's emulation, but it's probably some kind of virtualization), being able to hack into the older-system mode is usually useless in being able to hack into the system itself. Typically once the system goes into older-system mode it's too late to do anything because all the new functionality is disabled until the next boot, and even if not, the virtual machine can't touch it.
I have no doubt it's a real hack, but it's a PSP hack and isn't ever going to get us any more functionality than just hacking a PSP in the first place.
No offense, but the way this question is phrased it doesn't sound like they had any interest in the subject. We've had questions like this before, although usually it's "how do I get a kid started in programming", but we need to remember that kids are likely to have different interests and you cannot make one become a geek unless they already are.
Regardless of whether the robots are used in ethical ways or not, it is guaranteed that most of the opposition to their use will be from groups who are just looking for a way to oppose either a specific war or all wars the US is involved in. The robots will be a hook for disingenuous anti-war or anti-US activism that would not actually end if the US stopped using robots.
Every single time the headlines read "US uses ___ for military purposes, ethicists are talking about it" this has always been what has happened.
If everyone who gave to charity gave to the one who deserves it the most, then all causes in the world except for the most worthy one would receive no money, until that most worthy cause was completely paid for, in which case the second most worthy cause would receive all the money, etc.
So I'd think a bit before giving to the most worthwhile. If it was me I'd give to groups that did things I knew about even if they weren't the most worthy groups in the world, which would include geeky groups like the EFF, or maybe local organizations.
I also agree with others that volunteering your time is a bad idea. Use your time to earn money and donate the money. We have division of labor for a reason. People like volunteering because it's more personal, but "more personal" and "helps people more" aren't necessarily the same thing.
Your skin color and religion are also indicators of your likelihood of defaulting on your credit. But we consider it wrong to use them as such, because ultimately they are things we cannot or should not have to control. If credit companies use them, innocent people of the wrong skin color who don't default will end up suffering because of the existence of other people with that skin color who do. The company will of course make money since (given that the indicator does work) they will gain more from excluding the latter people than they will lose from excluding the innocent.
Most of us consider it wrong to hurt the innocent in this manner, even if it increases profits by also letting you avoid the guilty.
Is there any reason whatsoever that Slashdot would run this story? It doesn't seem to be "news for nerds" at all. (Aside, that is, from kids eager to make vulgar puns about "fracking".)
I know, it's a brain fart. It is true, however, that the Republicans lost the election. It's time to stop blaming bush for things that he may have started (or not in some cases) but which were done by Obama.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately nobody cares about men on the street. Maybe that's why over 3/4 of homeless are men.
Alan Moore actually swiped the clock in Watchmen from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which was a bit more prominent in the 1980's than it is now.
How is 1 cm any better? Different displays are a different number of cm in width, and fonts are different sizes in relation to cm, so the same amount will look different depending on the display and font size. em is a little better, but different displays are different numbers of characters in width as well.
There's a common house rule that your strength bonus is capped by the maximum on the weapon, so you can't get more than +3 bonus on the darts.
I don't know. I wouldn't want my kid to be narrow-minded either... but if I was given a choice "your kid can be narrow minded like him, or your kid can go around robbing and killing people and destroying property", I would really the kid rather become someone like him.
1) The corpse belongs to the heirs. Except under rare circumstances, the heirs aren't going to give permission to use it for sex. Furthermore, there are emotional reasons, which are part of being human, why just about nobody wants to will their body to someone who's going to use it for sex, and why grieving relatives are very upset at necrophilia. Ignoring these on the grounds that nobody is actually physically harmed ignores that it is possible to hurt a human being emotionally, and shows a lack of empathy
2) As a practical consideration, you're not going to find anyone who is otherwise a normal person and just wants to have sex with corpses. In the real world, necrophilia is a sign of mental illness, because that's just how human beings are. Normal people don't want to have sex with corpses, even if you don't define "normal people" circularly
It is possible for someone to be anti-Semitic and to still produce rational arguments on subjects not dealing with Jews. It is also possible that if he was 17, his ideas changed later and he could be rational even about Jews.
Stallman is a nutjob in enough ways that it seriously calls into question his entire process of judgment. It's a lot less likely that someone who ignores personal hygeine and argues for many things considered beyond the pale by almost everyone else can produce an argument worth listening to, than someone who is just anti-Semitic can produce an argument worth listening to. This is not because one flaw is more dangerous than another flaw, but rather because one flaw is more fundamental than another.
And while someone with very fundamental personality flaws can still, theoretically, produce a good argument even if it's less likely, we all have limited time and effort. We *have* to cut it down in some way--it's just not *possible* to examine every person's arguments. Yes, if the argument's bad we can determine that independently of the person--except that assumes our time is unlimited, and it's not.
If dismantling and reassembling the car caused damage, were the students involved planning to pay for the damage they caused? What if someone got hurt, were the students going to perform surgery on them to fix the injury?
(More likely, the students believed themselves invincible. They didn't consider the possibility they'd cause damage or hurt anyone because they were so sure of themselves that they didn't bother to account for it. (And no, the fact that it worked once without harm doesn't mean they were right--they just didn't hit the random chance of making a bad mistake. Crossing the street without looking out for oncoming cars works too--most of the time.)
If you RTFA, the judge concludes that the jury based the 1.3 million actual damages on loss of revenue. The judge basically ruled that the loss of revenue was not proven to be caused by the illegal download.
This doesn't apply to the RIAA because as has been stated in other comments, if the copyright is registered, the penalty is no longer limited to actual damages.
That is not stupidity, that is because they can expel you for lying on the application form.
Even then, this only happens because there are tax incentives to have your employer buy insurance for you instead of for the employer to pay the consumer an equal amount and for the consumer to buy the insurance on a competitive market.
Based on his own evidence, not even that. The question is about accelerating the end in the context of starting the apocalypse--in other words, violence and killing. Someone who is "accelerating the end" by praying for the Messiah to come faster is not really what is being discussed, even though technically he is trying to get the end to come faster.
This should be modded up.
Companies like to put the burden on employees. Never on themselves. Not having lots of mandatory overtime is sure to increase the health of the employees, but *that* is one method of health-promotion they will never use. Instead they want to work the employees more and then take away their overtime pay on the grounds that the employees don't eat healthy (which was caused by the long working hours).
The OP mentions the FDA. The FDA is not private industry; the whole plan won't work without the government's hand in it.
"Since the government meddles in our health care, it's okay for the government to meddle in our lives in other ways because it increases the cost of the health care" is an argument against government health care, not an argument for the government meddling in our lives in other ways.
For seat belts most sane people should wear a seat belt because there's little down side, but its bad as a precedent; it's being extended to other things right here.
That only applies when the evil is really obvious, such as shooting people in the streets or sending them to concentration camps to have their dead bodies used for soap obvious.
We can't expect every low level employee to be judge and jury and determine that a company is doing something wrong. The bad things the company does may not be obvious to laypeople, or may even be done in backroom deals to which the secretary isn't privy unless s/he hires an independent accountant to analyze the company's revenue statements.
To use an example that Slashdotters may be familiar with, you don't like the RIIA, but do you think your non-geek grandmother should be expected to figure that they are evil by herself?
And where does this end, anyway? Am I allowed to work at the McDonalds around the corner from the big company? After all, I know that employees of the company come there to buy food, so my salary indirectly comes from them, and I support them, even though I'm not actually their employee. (For that matter, McDonalds has done some evil things. Are all McDonalds employees now legitimate targets, on the grounds that they should know better than to work for an evil corporation?)
That is so very not true. And the reason why it's not true is because you are making the mistake of taking the legislators at their word. They are putting this law into effect because they have been paid off by big media companies. Sure, they're using poor reasoning. But that's not because they're so clueless that they don't understand good reasoning. It's because their stated reasons for wanting it passed aren't their actual reasons--of course their stated reasons won't make sense, they're really doing it for the payoff. They probably don't really believe the laws will make things better at all; they're just pretending.
When a newer system is able to function as an older one (the article, which looks poorly Babelfished, claims it's emulation, but it's probably some kind of virtualization), being able to hack into the older-system mode is usually useless in being able to hack into the system itself. Typically once the system goes into older-system mode it's too late to do anything because all the new functionality is disabled until the next boot, and even if not, the virtual machine can't touch it.
I have no doubt it's a real hack, but it's a PSP hack and isn't ever going to get us any more functionality than just hacking a PSP in the first place.
No offense, but the way this question is phrased it doesn't sound like they had any interest in the subject. We've had questions like this before, although usually it's "how do I get a kid started in programming", but we need to remember that kids are likely to have different interests and you cannot make one become a geek unless they already are.
Regardless of whether the robots are used in ethical ways or not, it is guaranteed that most of the opposition to their use will be from groups who are just looking for a way to oppose either a specific war or all wars the US is involved in. The robots will be a hook for disingenuous anti-war or anti-US activism that would not actually end if the US stopped using robots.
Every single time the headlines read "US uses ___ for military purposes, ethicists are talking about it" this has always been what has happened.
If everyone who gave to charity gave to the one who deserves it the most, then all causes in the world except for the most worthy one would receive no money, until that most worthy cause was completely paid for, in which case the second most worthy cause would receive all the money, etc.
So I'd think a bit before giving to the most worthwhile. If it was me I'd give to groups that did things I knew about even if they weren't the most worthy groups in the world, which would include geeky groups like the EFF, or maybe local organizations.
I also agree with others that volunteering your time is a bad idea. Use your time to earn money and donate the money. We have division of labor for a reason. People like volunteering because it's more personal, but "more personal" and "helps people more" aren't necessarily the same thing.
Your skin color and religion are also indicators of your likelihood of defaulting on your credit. But we consider it wrong to use them as such, because ultimately they are things we cannot or should not have to control. If credit companies use them, innocent people of the wrong skin color who don't default will end up suffering because of the existence of other people with that skin color who do. The company will of course make money since (given that the indicator does work) they will gain more from excluding the latter people than they will lose from excluding the innocent.
Most of us consider it wrong to hurt the innocent in this manner, even if it increases profits by also letting you avoid the guilty.
Is there any reason whatsoever that Slashdot would run this story? It doesn't seem to be "news for nerds" at all. (Aside, that is, from kids eager to make vulgar puns about "fracking".)
Windows 8 computers with secure boot may not be able to run Linux. You'll be pushed to Linux after it's too late.
I know, it's a brain fart. It is true, however, that the Republicans lost the election. It's time to stop blaming bush for things that he may have started (or not in some cases) but which were done by Obama.