The story feels a bit like fear mongering with its reference to "spying on stalkers", as if their privacy is somehow being infringed upon. A better phrasing would be something like "this tech is being used to protect the artist from potential harm by over zealous fans". But I guess that doesn't have quite the same "click-baity" feel.
Well now, he could have been referring to the Danish Refugee Council, Disability Rights Commission, Dutch Reform Church or even the Dogbert's Ruling Class!
More false generalizations. For having such a strong opinion as to what it is "they" want, then you should have no problem citing sources that suggest any Democrat wants to take guns away from responsible citizens who are able to pass a background check.
All you're presenting to me are false generalizations and opinions blown out of proportion; they have no basis in reality. Show me where ANY Democrat, let alone HRC, has said they think no Republicans should be allowed to own guns.
I wish more people followed basic rules of logic the way you just did. So many goddamn emotions flying around with all this Clinton/Trump shit that it's clouding peoples' better judgement, I guess.
I actually agree with that. I'm a gun enthusiast with 16 years of military service and I have no interest in seeing assault rifles, nor any other type of gun, taken away "just because". But I see very little from her on specific gun types and more on making sure only responsible, mentally healthy people can have access to them. I fail to see how that's unreasonable...
Pray tell, then...exactly what is your basis for jumping on the Clinton hate wagon? Is it because she's a Democrat and you're not? She has opinions you don't agree with? I'm genuinely curious.
That's an awful lot of adjectives...you sure they mean what you think they mean? I fail to see how trying to shed some rationality on a comment that was anything but, warranted such a response...but alrighty.
No one has said anything about taking away "muh gunns"...they just want to make it harder for people to get them who shouldn't have them.
“I know we are a smart enough nation to figure out how you protect responsible gun owners' rights and get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them,” Mrs. Clinton replied.
Nice, thank you. Except that the next move will be to discredit Snopes in some way, citing how their neighbor's boyfriend's uncle knows a guy that works for Snopes and says they take hush-money from the DNC all the time.
Yep, that's how it works and I'm not completely sure why, either. Other than, people HATE the inconvenience of security and most of them feel like they have nothing to hide, so why should they bother with additional hassle?
There are many benefits for the government to have "soldiers" doing the cyber stuff as opposed to hiring civilians, though I'll spare repeating what many others have already said in other comments. However, for the military to be able to find hackers AND in-shape bodies significantly reduces the available pool of candidates. These guys will never see combat and therefore have no reason to adhere to the same physical standards, though I do think they should be trained in at least some of the aspects such as basic rifle marksmanship, drill and ceremonies and other non-physical disciplines.I understand your statement about not having "different" type of soldiers, but in this case there's just no getting around it. Maybe they could put them in different uniforms (sweatpants, perhaps...HAH!)?
Nope, no Windows 8 tiles, thank Jeebus. I've been using it since an early DP release and have been fairly impressed with the look/feel compared to past versions. A little buggy at first but that was to be expected being an unreleased OS and all. Even that first copy I installed was better than any iteration of Windows 8, and I'm primarily a Windows user.
The way I understand tinnitus, I don't think it would make a difference.
Here's what I know: Our inner ears contain hair cells which would normally be responsible for perceiving specific frequencies when stimulated by the basilar membrane inside the cochlea (which is simulated by the 3, tiny bones which are stimulated by the attached ear drum, which is stimulated by...you get the idea.). With tinnitus, however, some of these hair cells are damaged and can no longer detect vibrations. As a result, the accompanying neurons associated with those damaged cells become "hungry" for stimulation because the brain sends an increasing level of "outbound" signal since it never receives any "inbound" signal, thereby causing the ringing sound we hear...a "loop" of information, if you will. This is very similar to the phantom-limb pain we can feel after having lost an arm or leg; this situation also causes the associated part of the brain to stop receiving signals from the amputated or damaged limb and the increased level of outbound signal causes (severe, in many cases) pain. Tinnitus works the same way, but on a much smaller scale because fewer neurons are left wanting, plus we still have many hair cells remaining which function normally and help "drown out" the ringing.
So, by that rationale I imagine that the ringing would be much more apparent initially but would eventually be drowned out by the sounds perceived by the working cells, like heart beat, breathing and digestion. Then when those sounds are not enough, our brain starts creating "phantom" stimulus which causes the hallucinations.
I think part of the problem is that the upper cadre have beat into these guys that the robots are crazy expensive and hard to obtain, therefore are perceived as rare and possibly irreplaceable. Maybe if we build several more and assigned, say, 5 - 10 to a unit then they wouldn't care as much if they are blown up.
On the other hand, I've build a very "close" relationship to my M-16, despite the fact that there are at least thousands available to me. You work with them and get to know their nuances and a familiarity is created that has taken time and effort to build.
Slashdot Mirror
The story feels a bit like fear mongering with its reference to "spying on stalkers", as if their privacy is somehow being infringed upon. A better phrasing would be something like "this tech is being used to protect the artist from potential harm by over zealous fans". But I guess that doesn't have quite the same "click-baity" feel.
This article popped up right as I'm watching Snowden which, of course, makes me 100x more intrigued.
Wait...do these guys want me to log in with all my credentials?? Now I'm confused...
Well now, he could have been referring to the Danish Refugee Council, Disability Rights Commission, Dutch Reform Church or even the Dogbert's Ruling Class!
More false generalizations. For having such a strong opinion as to what it is "they" want, then you should have no problem citing sources that suggest any Democrat wants to take guns away from responsible citizens who are able to pass a background check.
So, please, inform me correctly if you can.
All you're presenting to me are false generalizations and opinions blown out of proportion; they have no basis in reality. Show me where ANY Democrat, let alone HRC, has said they think no Republicans should be allowed to own guns.
I wish more people followed basic rules of logic the way you just did. So many goddamn emotions flying around with all this Clinton/Trump shit that it's clouding peoples' better judgement, I guess.
I actually agree with that. I'm a gun enthusiast with 16 years of military service and I have no interest in seeing assault rifles, nor any other type of gun, taken away "just because". But I see very little from her on specific gun types and more on making sure only responsible, mentally healthy people can have access to them. I fail to see how that's unreasonable...
Pray tell, then...exactly what is your basis for jumping on the Clinton hate wagon? Is it because she's a Democrat and you're not? She has opinions you don't agree with? I'm genuinely curious.
That's an awful lot of adjectives...you sure they mean what you think they mean? I fail to see how trying to shed some rationality on a comment that was anything but, warranted such a response...but alrighty.
No one has said anything about taking away "muh gunns"...they just want to make it harder for people to get them who shouldn't have them.
“I know we are a smart enough nation to figure out how you protect responsible gun owners' rights and get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them,” Mrs. Clinton replied.
Nice, thank you. Except that the next move will be to discredit Snopes in some way, citing how their neighbor's boyfriend's uncle knows a guy that works for Snopes and says they take hush-money from the DNC all the time.
Finally, a rational person...
Works for fundamentalist Christians the same way, I think...
Yep, that's how it works and I'm not completely sure why, either. Other than, people HATE the inconvenience of security and most of them feel like they have nothing to hide, so why should they bother with additional hassle?
In response to your sig: I go to bed at like 8:00 am...by your rationalization I'm a GREAT person.
There are many benefits for the government to have "soldiers" doing the cyber stuff as opposed to hiring civilians, though I'll spare repeating what many others have already said in other comments. However, for the military to be able to find hackers AND in-shape bodies significantly reduces the available pool of candidates. These guys will never see combat and therefore have no reason to adhere to the same physical standards, though I do think they should be trained in at least some of the aspects such as basic rifle marksmanship, drill and ceremonies and other non-physical disciplines. I understand your statement about not having "different" type of soldiers, but in this case there's just no getting around it. Maybe they could put them in different uniforms (sweatpants, perhaps...HAH!)?
Nope, no Windows 8 tiles, thank Jeebus. I've been using it since an early DP release and have been fairly impressed with the look/feel compared to past versions. A little buggy at first but that was to be expected being an unreleased OS and all. Even that first copy I installed was better than any iteration of Windows 8, and I'm primarily a Windows user.
The way I understand tinnitus, I don't think it would make a difference.
Here's what I know: Our inner ears contain hair cells which would normally be responsible for perceiving specific frequencies when stimulated by the basilar membrane inside the cochlea (which is simulated by the 3, tiny bones which are stimulated by the attached ear drum, which is stimulated by...you get the idea.). With tinnitus, however, some of these hair cells are damaged and can no longer detect vibrations. As a result, the accompanying neurons associated with those damaged cells become "hungry" for stimulation because the brain sends an increasing level of "outbound" signal since it never receives any "inbound" signal, thereby causing the ringing sound we hear...a "loop" of information, if you will. This is very similar to the phantom-limb pain we can feel after having lost an arm or leg; this situation also causes the associated part of the brain to stop receiving signals from the amputated or damaged limb and the increased level of outbound signal causes (severe, in many cases) pain. Tinnitus works the same way, but on a much smaller scale because fewer neurons are left wanting, plus we still have many hair cells remaining which function normally and help "drown out" the ringing.
So, by that rationale I imagine that the ringing would be much more apparent initially but would eventually be drowned out by the sounds perceived by the working cells, like heart beat, breathing and digestion. Then when those sounds are not enough, our brain starts creating "phantom" stimulus which causes the hallucinations.
In short, I would think the answer is no.
There's always one in every crowd...I assume you think we never landed on the moon, as well?
I actually meant to reply to a different guy. Sorry about that. Yours was funny...
I'm going to get off Slashdot until I have a bit more coffee
*not looking to
Sheldon Cooper, is that you? I'm to get into a geek-argument here...was a fucking joke
Maybe you're trolling, but I'm pretty sure that's what I said.
Before someone else posts it:
He clearly should have used the UP, UP, DOWN, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT, LEFT, RIGHT, B, A, START to pick up a few more lives.
ba dum, bum
I think part of the problem is that the upper cadre have beat into these guys that the robots are crazy expensive and hard to obtain, therefore are perceived as rare and possibly irreplaceable. Maybe if we build several more and assigned, say, 5 - 10 to a unit then they wouldn't care as much if they are blown up.
On the other hand, I've build a very "close" relationship to my M-16, despite the fact that there are at least thousands available to me. You work with them and get to know their nuances and a familiarity is created that has taken time and effort to build.
I can certainly see it both ways