But they "wouldn't experience guilt, or shame, or fear" and "wouldn't be held accountable for our sins" until after the eating. So how can they be blamed for it?
So why were they (and in fact all life on the planet if not the universe) held accountable for the action of eating that fruit, since that was done without that knowledge?
Blindly following the rules doesn't seem like standing up to the system.
He doesn't take his shoes off because the sign says he doesn't have too even though he must know that his shoes will set of the metal detector he is about to walk through. So he blindly obeys the commands on the sign - "yes sir, how high sir".
He then consents to the more thorough search without raising any complaints - civil obedience if anything.
3) is a great idea. Rather than cyclists taking up less space have them take up lots more.
How would you cope with a line of 30 cyclists all riding in the center of the slow lane in a big long line, while another cyclist riding slightly faster rides in the center of the overtaking lane for the 15 minutes it takes him to pass them all on your two lane road commute to work? Traffic lights will be fun too. Sure it might take 8 cycles of the lights for you to finally get to go through, but at least those damn cyclists will be using the whole lane like they should!
We should also stop all spending on roads as long as just one driver speeds or rolls through a stop sign or parks for longer than the parking time limit.
And of course stop all spending on sidewalks as long as just one pedestrian crosses starts to cross the crosswalk after the Walk during the "complete crossing" signal.
Or maybe it'd be better to enforce the rules? I'm pretty sure when you don't enforce rules they tend to get ignored
I'm perfectly willing to trade a little safety for more time playing with the kid. Heck I've been known to buy blocks of cheese and risk using a knife to cut them instead of buying precut slices.
Except nobody is making a decision between "shall a drive around the neighbourhood for 1 hour, or should I ride around the neighbourhood for 1 hour". If they were then sure hourly injury/accident rates would be useful, but since they aren't they would are completely useless.
What people are making a decision about is "shall a drive the 5 miles to X, or should I ride the 5 miles to X". And so accident/injury rates per mile are what they need if they want to factor that into there choice.
The $12 million is a ticket for the negligent driving/speeding/whatever analogy we are going with.
The $460 million is irrelevant, it's just what caused the SEC to notice the rules violations - just like running a red light and crashing into someone is more likely going to get you a ticket for running the red than doing so without crashing into someone. Simply because the crash makes the traffic law enforcement folk take a look when without it no one would have noticed.
So if I break the traffic laws and while doing so crash my car, you are saying I should not be fined/jailed/whatever for breaking those laws since I already punished myself amply with the damage to my car?
Sure, if the police got the facebook post via an illegal search. If it was a public confession of a crime or a private confession was reported to the police by one the people it was told to, then no.
The rest of us upgraded to computers that use more power when they work harder than when they are idle long, long ago.
And thus if something causes my computer to do any extra work that will result in more power consumption than otherwise. It doesn't make a different whether that also slowed down the work I was doing on it or whether the machine was completely idle at the time (well the former case may cause even higher power consumption if it triggers lots of swapping, etc).
If one entity was marketing and selling all the bitcoins and claiming the returns were generated by something else, then sure.
But since that isn't the case it's just a normal bubble. Or just a normal reasonable increase in asset valuation. Depending on whether you think the actual asset in question justifies the increase in value.
Except that public phones are almost extinct, making cell phones rather useful.
Cell phones didn't exist (well they did actually exist, but not for average folk and certainly not for children) when I was 14. Four of us went camping at 14 for a week. 8 hours train travel from home plus the joyous half a day walk with all the gear from there, staying in a couple of tents near a beach. Now we didn't have a cell phone with us (as I mentioned they basically didn't exist) but there was always a public phone in every town do you think we shouldn't have brought change in order to use them to get of the society's public phone kick?
Obviously no one needs a phone. People lived from thousands of years without one. Then again there's no need for electricity or town sewage or clean water pumped in pipes to homes or antibiotics or cars or planes or any of the other million things people also lived without for thousands of years; so that's not a very useful metric.
It's hardly the IRS' fault that conservative groups were more often stupid enough to use obviously political names when claiming to be under a tax rule that excluded groups engaging in primarily political activity.
Once you are dropping a 4 megaton nuclear bomb you are beyond caring about "nothing else" or you have a rather large definition for you're "actually trying to destroy".
But yes, you don't want your nuke going off when a bomber is shot down. At the very least it might be flying near more of your bombers...
Slashdot Mirror
Retroactively, for something they didn't have the a moral understanding of when they actually committed the sin.
Given the punishment extended to all living things for the rest of time that fits in with the whole scheme of course.
But they "wouldn't experience guilt, or shame, or fear" and "wouldn't be held accountable for our sins" until after the eating. So how can they be blamed for it?
So why were they (and in fact all life on the planet if not the universe) held accountable for the action of eating that fruit, since that was done without that knowledge?
Blindly following the rules doesn't seem like standing up to the system.
He doesn't take his shoes off because the sign says he doesn't have too even though he must know that his shoes will set of the metal detector he is about to walk through. So he blindly obeys the commands on the sign - "yes sir, how high sir".
He then consents to the more thorough search without raising any complaints - civil obedience if anything.
3) is a great idea. Rather than cyclists taking up less space have them take up lots more.
How would you cope with a line of 30 cyclists all riding in the center of the slow lane in a big long line, while another cyclist riding slightly faster rides in the center of the overtaking lane for the 15 minutes it takes him to pass them all on your two lane road commute to work? Traffic lights will be fun too. Sure it might take 8 cycles of the lights for you to finally get to go through, but at least those damn cyclists will be using the whole lane like they should!
I agree!
We should also stop all spending on roads as long as just one driver speeds or rolls through a stop sign or parks for longer than the parking time limit.
And of course stop all spending on sidewalks as long as just one pedestrian crosses starts to cross the crosswalk after the Walk during the "complete crossing" signal.
Or maybe it'd be better to enforce the rules? I'm pretty sure when you don't enforce rules they tend to get ignored
I'm perfectly willing to trade a little safety for more time playing with the kid. Heck I've been known to buy blocks of cheese and risk using a knife to cut them instead of buying precut slices.
So because some cyclists are idiots you treat all cyclists as pests.
I guess you are free to be a asshole if it floats your boat.
Except nobody is making a decision between "shall a drive around the neighbourhood for 1 hour, or should I ride around the neighbourhood for 1 hour". If they were then sure hourly injury/accident rates would be useful, but since they aren't they would are completely useless.
What people are making a decision about is "shall a drive the 5 miles to X, or should I ride the 5 miles to X". And so accident/injury rates per mile are what they need if they want to factor that into there choice.
One is a subset of the other, and Knight Capital does the subset that is high frequency - plus other things of course.
Hence why GETCO, another large HFT player, swallowed them up. And why they describe themselves with terms like:
"""Knight Capital Group, Inc. (NYSE Euronext: KCG) a leading liquidity provider in global markets specializing in high frequency trading""" - http://www.knight.com/careers/summerInternship.asp
Exactly.
The $12 million is a ticket for the negligent driving/speeding/whatever analogy we are going with.
The $460 million is irrelevant, it's just what caused the SEC to notice the rules violations - just like running a red light and crashing into someone is more likely going to get you a ticket for running the red than doing so without crashing into someone. Simply because the crash makes the traffic law enforcement folk take a look when without it no one would have noticed.
So if I break the traffic laws and while doing so crash my car, you are saying I should not be fined/jailed/whatever for breaking those laws since I already punished myself amply with the damage to my car?
Because they broke the rules while losing that money. Do you think the SEC should only fine institutions that make money when they break the rules?
It's what Knight Capital was in the business of doing when they gave away $460 million to other players.
of the population working in "cyber security" so how is this a problem?
Sure, if the police got the facebook post via an illegal search. If it was a public confession of a crime or a private confession was reported to the police by one the people it was told to, then no.
There's a difference between skipping the boring bits and showing completely impossible bits.
Of course you can, it just requires inventing a warp drive or a hyperspace drive or whatever your FTL of choice is...
what a massive "jump"!
The Shield.
Well it does start with the "good cop" murdering another cop, so the path is rather short I admit.
Best TV show of the 2000s hands down (and yes that includes Firefly for you Whedon fans).
The rest of us upgraded to computers that use more power when they work harder than when they are idle long, long ago.
And thus if something causes my computer to do any extra work that will result in more power consumption than otherwise. It doesn't make a different whether that also slowed down the work I was doing on it or whether the machine was completely idle at the time (well the former case may cause even higher power consumption if it triggers lots of swapping, etc).
If one entity was marketing and selling all the bitcoins and claiming the returns were generated by something else, then sure.
But since that isn't the case it's just a normal bubble. Or just a normal reasonable increase in asset valuation. Depending on whether you think the actual asset in question justifies the increase in value.
Except that public phones are almost extinct, making cell phones rather useful.
Cell phones didn't exist (well they did actually exist, but not for average folk and certainly not for children) when I was 14. Four of us went camping at 14 for a week. 8 hours train travel from home plus the joyous half a day walk with all the gear from there, staying in a couple of tents near a beach. Now we didn't have a cell phone with us (as I mentioned they basically didn't exist) but there was always a public phone in every town do you think we shouldn't have brought change in order to use them to get of the society's public phone kick?
Obviously no one needs a phone. People lived from thousands of years without one. Then again there's no need for electricity or town sewage or clean water pumped in pipes to homes or antibiotics or cars or planes or any of the other million things people also lived without for thousands of years; so that's not a very useful metric.
It's hardly the IRS' fault that conservative groups were more often stupid enough to use obviously political names when claiming to be under a tax rule that excluded groups engaging in primarily political activity.
Once you are dropping a 4 megaton nuclear bomb you are beyond caring about "nothing else" or you have a rather large definition for you're "actually trying to destroy".
But yes, you don't want your nuke going off when a bomber is shot down. At the very least it might be flying near more of your bombers...