My physics teacher got pulled over after having two scotches. He fails the breathalyzer and asks for a blood test. An hour later he is under the legal limit. The lesson: if you know you are close always stall and then demand a blood test.
That sounds wonderful...except for the fact that you know, as a former tech supporter, that users often claim to be "power users" and say they have done "everything" and now the product is "broken".
How is someone supposed to tell you from a liar?
Specifically creating presentations in Open Office is not nearly as easy not function filled as Power Point.
Specifically Open Office uses a different way to allocate space. Something which is 10 pages in OO as a.doc will only show up as 8.5 on Windows.
Specifically OO doesn't isn't the same as Microsoft. Yes it doesn't matter if everyone uses OO but it does if you are trying to communicate with the outside world which uses MS Office.
Has anyone used the Symphony Applications that come with them? We have Notes here at our shop, and it's worthless. Well, there are always things that one can fudge, but try putting VBscripts even in Mac Office. It just isn't the same.
What do we do about Powerpoint, Xcel, Visio, and the other MS utilities?
Please don't act like OO is a feasible alternative for these programs.
Other than that I would be a huge fan of this.
Actually even though identification cards which are not drivers licenses are issued by the state, they often will not be accepted as identification (try buying liquor when out of state with one).
I certainly hope I didn't come across as promoting the use of slurs in a pejorative manner. If I did I sincerely apologize.
My larger point is that many "racist" words have a sign and signifier relationship that extends beyond simple derogatory status. If someone chooses to use words such as those, they should use them appropriately and in front of those to whom they refer.
I certainly wouldn't want my child going up to a stranger and saying "Hey mister nigger!"
Aren't we the people that can make this a real hassle?
I mean - I think any search without a warrant is def. unconstitutional and I don't care if it is for my safety. The most I can do when I drive is watch out around me, but that doesn't mean some asshole isn't going to sideswipe me cause they are on the phone. But don't say I can't talk on the phone when I drive because others are incompetent. Same thing with all this terrorism prevention bullshit.
Look at DRM or any security measure enacted on a computer. This is always what I tell people: when groups of people get together they will always find a way to break the box. So why don't we make the box easy to break and then we don't have to search for the super complicated ways with which people are trying to break into the box? They will most likely choose the easiest methods which we will know cause we made the box
But back to my original point. Someone here, who is a U.S. citizen, and works for a large company, put important and time sensitive data on your laptop. Then encrypt the shit out of it.
But make it look somewhat suspicious, but not enough so it actually is suspicious (think suspicious like a sheriff in TN would think a black male in a BMW is weird).
Then travel through customs, have them snag your laptop and watch them hold onto it for a long time trying to break your encryption.
Get large corp to sue. Sometimes our litigation is worth it.
Now this is worth my idle time
on
Hurricane Bear
·
· Score: 1
But use any of the assorted names for black people, and watch the brains of everyone in the room reboot as they look around in a panic to see if any of "them" heard you.
I think this classically illustrates how racism still exists in America. Mexicans don't like being called spics, don't call a lesbian a dyke, a gay a fag, and so on...unless you are tolerant. I can say whatever I choose in mixed company and rarely will a person of particular race,gender or,who ever fits into whatever slur I said , will get mad.(I'm not talking about running into the tube and screaming "Stupid-ass, watermelon munching. Nigger") Why you ask?
Because they know I've got nothing against anyone. Shying away from certain words shows that you are afraid of them. If you would say something amongst close friends, such as saying "don't be so niggardly", but wouldn't say it in front of a black person- you are racist.
Minorities aren't stupid, yet we treat them like they are. Its like when you have that friend who acts like he enjoys your company but know he talks shit about you. Everyone gets it.
Here's an example, I am a white male in the IT sector. I play in a jazz fusion band called "Spook and the Ghosts". One of my best friends is the black drummer. You know who worries about the name or protests against it? White people. If I were to mention it at work- amongst my ivy-league-PhD-toting-engineers coworkers, they would get freaked out- but then make racist jokes. My black and Hispanic friends in Jamaica Plain [one of the ghettos(in the original sense) in Boston] think its hilarious, but they aren't going to make racist jokes because they think its safe. The PhD's (and most of white America) is racist at home and pretends like they aren't in the street. No one fools anyone.
If someone has a mental disability, call them retarded. That's what they are. When your jewish friend complains about the 25 cents he was shorted at Dunkin Doughnuts, even though he makes 100k a year, tell him to not be such a jew. He knows what your referring to.
The worst thing you can do is act one way in public and another at home.
I often asked why we can't dump our waste into space ala Superman IV.
The response is usually "Oh won't somebody think of the children if one rocket ever dropped!".
But apparently we can send it to the moon safely?
Could somebody, who perhaps knows more about the difference between uranium before and after it has been used, enlighten me as to why this would be safer?
Firstly, the above should not be marked troll. Because someone poses a valid argument that you don't agree with doesn't mean they are trolling for hate.
Secondly the GP of this particular post should be modded informative, not insightful. He is stating, in an informative manner, two components of a theory
To leave the poor modding subject, to understand why the alien substitution for God does essentially work is this. Ask a creationist or some hardcore religious person this series of questions: 1.Who/what is God 2.Where does God exist (demand a physical location or residence) 3. Ask where that location is located The end of result of this will be almost identical,(unless someone chooses answer to #2 to be "everywhere, and in everything" to which respond "so I am God also?"), to asking some body if Aliens existed, where would they live, and where would that be located and so on and and so on.
The point is you are asking a series of questions that lead to the unanswerable question of "what exists outside of the universe?Where is the universe located?"
The following excerpt is from the Wikipedia entry on Kuhn. One important concept which is not mentioned here, but later in the article is what he calls the "dogma of science", referring to the idea that to cause these 'paradigm shifts' scientist must first inscribe themselves to the current scientific dogma, almost blindly , hence the use of the word which is commonly used pejoratively to refer to religious beliefs.
"In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) Kuhn argued that science does not progress via a linear accumulation of new knowledge, but undergoes periodic revolutions, also called "paradigm shifts" (although he did not coin the phrase),[2] in which the nature of scientific inquiry within a particular field is abruptly transformed. In general, science is broken up into three distinct stages. Prescience, which lacks a central paradigm, comes first. This is followed by "normal science", when scientists attempt to enlarge the central paradigm by "puzzle-solving". Thus, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher, contra Popper's refutability criterion. As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science."
My point here is that scientist are constantly directed in two ways 1) to enhance and confirm existing hypothesis's and 2) refute the existing hypothesis's, sometimes utilizing techniques which extend outside the relevant and 'reliable' realm of science.
Because my father is an electrical contractor. And while he doesn't have a degree in EE, there are hundreds of code requirements that have nothing to do with the knowledge of how electricity works. And having worked with him before moving into IT and taking several EE courses at uni, I do have to say that I would not blatantly trust someone with a Phd in EE to wire my house.
While they may know the math behind it, that alone is not what ensures the safety.
Please don't make the assumption that because you know the math, you are qualified to actually construct something. Ask any construction worker who makes the most mistakes that slow process and they'll tell you it is the architects and engineers.
I agree. Like what if I paid into it the entire time I was working, and the government could use my money while I worked to invest it in projects that would then make my life easier once I retired?
That would probably take some kind of mathematical genius to figure out, and even then it would depend on multiple realities.
Well, I would probably phrase my arguement as such:
1. If we choose to tax people then the taxes should serve the people taxed. 2.If the taxes serve the people who are taxed, then the taxes are being used properly. 3.Homelessness is a problem that begets crime,wastes money (via police,medical,decreases property values, etc.) 4.If we were to erradicate homelessness then the community affected by homlessness would benifit. 5. If we spend money to erradicate homlessness then the tax money is being used properl (premises 1, 4).
This is a quick and valid argument. You may disagree with the premises,but if they are true, then the conclusion must also be true.
I think that based on what you though my argument would be,you may reject premise 1. However, you may also think that the current homeless shelters do not accomplish premise 4.
By constructing valid arguments, you aren't trying to convince anyone of anything, you merely set out to prove the premises. If they are true, the conclusion must be true. If a person chooses not to believe that then you wouldn't have any better chance convincing someone 1+1=2.
No one denies an individual's lack of power against a much larger group. That's why you vote in groups.
And yes, based on your statement I do think you would allow it continue. I'm assuming you don't volunteer your time to those less needy because one person can't make a difference. It is apathy like that which has fostered our current state of affairs. And you're happy with them, which it seems like you are not, then you should continue to not act.
Slashdot Mirror
And also
do you really want to *talk* to a girl who would judge you based on your computer brand?
Seriously? We judge people all the time based on the O/S.
Slashdot has a pro-windows philosophy after all! Fair and balanced coverage ftw.
My physics teacher got pulled over after having two scotches. He fails the breathalyzer and asks for a blood test. An hour later he is under the legal limit. The lesson: if you know you are close always stall and then demand a blood test.
That sounds wonderful...except for the fact that you know, as a former tech supporter, that users often claim to be "power users" and say they have done "everything" and now the product is "broken". How is someone supposed to tell you from a liar?
Specifically creating presentations in Open Office is not nearly as easy not function filled as Power Point. Specifically Open Office uses a different way to allocate space. Something which is 10 pages in OO as a .doc will only show up as 8.5 on Windows.
Specifically OO doesn't isn't the same as Microsoft. Yes it doesn't matter if everyone uses OO but it does if you are trying to communicate with the outside world which uses MS Office.
Has anyone used the Symphony Applications that come with them? We have Notes here at our shop, and it's worthless. Well, there are always things that one can fudge, but try putting VBscripts even in Mac Office. It just isn't the same.
What do we do about Powerpoint, Xcel, Visio, and the other MS utilities? Please don't act like OO is a feasible alternative for these programs. Other than that I would be a huge fan of this.
More True? It is either true or false. It cannot be both true and false.
You mean in walls.
Metacogintion? Yeah. I don't think 2 year old are learning that. They may be participating and devloping them, but you don't learn them.
Come on, if your buddy is getting a year in the slammer for cocaine, and you can get him out, wouldn't you?
Actually even though identification cards which are not drivers licenses are issued by the state, they often will not be accepted as identification (try buying liquor when out of state with one).
I certainly hope I didn't come across as promoting the use of slurs in a pejorative manner. If I did I sincerely apologize.
My larger point is that many "racist" words have a sign and signifier relationship that extends beyond simple derogatory status. If someone chooses to use words such as those, they should use them appropriately and in front of those to whom they refer.
I certainly wouldn't want my child going up to a stranger and saying "Hey mister nigger!"
Aren't we the people that can make this a real hassle?
I mean - I think any search without a warrant is def. unconstitutional and I don't care if it is for my safety. The most I can do when I drive is watch out around me, but that doesn't mean some asshole isn't going to sideswipe me cause they are on the phone. But don't say I can't talk on the phone when I drive because others are incompetent. Same thing with all this terrorism prevention bullshit.
Look at DRM or any security measure enacted on a computer. This is always what I tell people: when groups of people get together they will always find a way to break the box. So why don't we make the box easy to break and then we don't have to search for the super complicated ways with which people are trying to break into the box? They will most likely choose the easiest methods which we will know cause we made the box
But back to my original point. Someone here, who is a U.S. citizen, and works for a large company, put important and time sensitive data on your laptop. Then encrypt the shit out of it.
But make it look somewhat suspicious, but not enough so it actually is suspicious (think suspicious like a sheriff in TN would think a black male in a BMW is weird).
Then travel through customs, have them snag your laptop and watch them hold onto it for a long time trying to break your encryption.
Get large corp to sue. Sometimes our litigation is worth it.
Hilbaerious
Funny, a sponsored ad for the Dell mini came up.
Though many companies originally turned down OLPC, OLPC setup the low cost laptop at one of the main laptop manufacturing facilities in the world.
When the buy one give one comes around, support OLPC and then if you aren't going to use yours, give it to an inner city school.
But use any of the assorted names for black people, and watch the brains of everyone in the room reboot as they look around in a panic to see if any of "them" heard you.
I think this classically illustrates how racism still exists in America. Mexicans don't like being called spics, don't call a lesbian a dyke, a gay a fag, and so on...unless you are tolerant. I can say whatever I choose in mixed company and rarely will a person of particular race,gender or ,who ever fits into whatever slur I said , will get mad.(I'm not talking about running into the tube and screaming "Stupid-ass, watermelon munching. Nigger") Why you ask?
Because they know I've got nothing against anyone. Shying away from certain words shows that you are afraid of them. If you would say something amongst close friends, such as saying "don't be so niggardly", but wouldn't say it in front of a black person- you are racist.
Minorities aren't stupid, yet we treat them like they are. Its like when you have that friend who acts like he enjoys your company but know he talks shit about you. Everyone gets it.
Here's an example, I am a white male in the IT sector. I play in a jazz fusion band called "Spook and the Ghosts". One of my best friends is the black drummer. You know who worries about the name or protests against it? White people. If I were to mention it at work- amongst my ivy-league-PhD-toting-engineers coworkers, they would get freaked out- but then make racist jokes. My black and Hispanic friends in Jamaica Plain [one of the ghettos(in the original sense) in Boston] think its hilarious, but they aren't going to make racist jokes because they think its safe. The PhD's (and most of white America) is racist at home and pretends like they aren't in the street. No one fools anyone.
If someone has a mental disability, call them retarded. That's what they are. When your jewish friend complains about the 25 cents he was shorted at Dunkin Doughnuts, even though he makes 100k a year, tell him to not be such a jew. He knows what your referring to.
The worst thing you can do is act one way in public and another at home.
If they had seriously wanted to hit the market they would have rpovided a variety of options. I was going to buy one, but now I think I'll go Dell.
I often asked why we can't dump our waste into space ala Superman IV.
The response is usually "Oh won't somebody think of the children if one rocket ever dropped!".
But apparently we can send it to the moon safely?
Could somebody, who perhaps knows more about the difference between uranium before and after it has been used, enlighten me as to why this would be safer?
Firstly, the above should not be marked troll. Because someone poses a valid argument that you don't agree with doesn't mean they are trolling for hate.
,(unless someone chooses answer to #2 to be "everywhere, and in everything" to which respond "so I am God also?"), to asking some body if Aliens existed, where would they live, and where would that be located and so on and and so on.
Secondly the GP of this particular post should be modded informative, not insightful. He is stating, in an informative manner, two components of a theory
To leave the poor modding subject, to understand why the alien substitution for God does essentially work is this. Ask a creationist or some hardcore religious person this series of questions:
1.Who/what is God
2.Where does God exist (demand a physical location or residence)
3. Ask where that location is located
The end of result of this will be almost identical
The point is you are asking a series of questions that lead to the unanswerable question of "what exists outside of the universe?Where is the universe located?"
"In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) Kuhn argued that science does not progress via a linear accumulation of new knowledge, but undergoes periodic revolutions, also called "paradigm shifts" (although he did not coin the phrase),[2] in which the nature of scientific inquiry within a particular field is abruptly transformed. In general, science is broken up into three distinct stages. Prescience, which lacks a central paradigm, comes first. This is followed by "normal science", when scientists attempt to enlarge the central paradigm by "puzzle-solving". Thus, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher, contra Popper's refutability criterion. As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science."
My point here is that scientist are constantly directed in two ways 1) to enhance and confirm existing hypothesis's and 2) refute the existing hypothesis's, sometimes utilizing techniques which extend outside the relevant and 'reliable' realm of science.
Because my father is an electrical contractor. And while he doesn't have a degree in EE, there are hundreds of code requirements that have nothing to do with the knowledge of how electricity works. And having worked with him before moving into IT and taking several EE courses at uni, I do have to say that I would not blatantly trust someone with a Phd in EE to wire my house.
While they may know the math behind it, that alone is not what ensures the safety. Please don't make the assumption that because you know the math, you are qualified to actually construct something. Ask any construction worker who makes the most mistakes that slow process and they'll tell you it is the architects and engineers.
I agree. Like what if I paid into it the entire time I was working, and the government could use my money while I worked to invest it in projects that would then make my life easier once I retired?
That would probably take some kind of mathematical genius to figure out, and even then it would depend on multiple realities.
Well, I would probably phrase my arguement as such:
1. If we choose to tax people then the taxes should serve the people taxed.
2.If the taxes serve the people who are taxed, then the taxes are being used properly.
3.Homelessness is a problem that begets crime,wastes money (via police,medical,decreases property values, etc.)
4.If we were to erradicate homelessness then the community affected by homlessness would benifit.
5. If we spend money to erradicate homlessness then the tax money is being used properl (premises 1, 4).
This is a quick and valid argument. You may disagree with the premises,but if they are true, then the conclusion must also be true.
I think that based on what you though my argument would be,you may reject premise 1. However, you may also think that the current homeless shelters do not accomplish premise 4.
By constructing valid arguments, you aren't trying to convince anyone of anything, you merely set out to prove the premises. If they are true, the conclusion must be true. If a person chooses not to believe that then you wouldn't have any better chance convincing someone 1+1=2.
No one denies an individual's lack of power against a much larger group. That's why you vote in groups.
And yes, based on your statement I do think you would allow it continue. I'm assuming you don't volunteer your time to those less needy because one person can't make a difference. It is apathy like that which has fostered our current state of affairs. And you're happy with them, which it seems like you are not, then you should continue to not act.