You do know you can install GRUB on a partition, not just the master boot record, right? Anyway, who installs anything into the MBR without an alternative boot method? You got what you deserve, sorry, but I bet you won't make that stupid mistake again. We all have to learn somehow, and you're not always going to get your hand held along the way.
Wouldn't a woman be more impressed with $5k spent on something sensible? Or failing that, on something for her? Or failing even that, something a little more visible than speaker wire? I mean, if I cut off both my arms, would that prove to women that I'm so successful I don't have to work, or would it prove I'm a freaking idiot with no arms? Who the fuck looks at other people's speaker wire, anyway? You know, I could just tell women I meet that I paid $5k for my speaker wire. How many would even know the difference? Most women can tell the difference between, say, a Honda and a Porsche. Wouldn't that be a better choice for female-enticing extravagance?
He has offered to put the money in an escrow account when challenged by so-called psychics. No one has responded to his offer. Why is that?
The first link is to a paranormal phenomenon blog. Hardly an unbiased source. Can we really expect them to be honest about a man who challenges their scams? The second link is basically whining about the terms of the contract required to win the $1,000,000. So you have to agree not to sue him, that's standard for this type of contract. Uri Geller tried to sue Randi, lost, and was forced to pay Randi's legal costs.
Here's a question, how can you tell a paranormal occurrence from hallucination, delusion or outright scam? Scientific testing. Why won't people who claim to have paranormal powers submit to actual testing? Are the facts somehow getting in the way of the truthiness?
You are over-analyzing. The test is simple: can anyone hear a difference? They don't even need to be able to put it into words more complicated than "me like that one." If anyone can discern any difference whatsoever, in a double blind test, Randi will pay them. It's that simple. Mood and consciousness do not enter into the equation.
Ewoks look like Wookie children. Chewbacca is a perv.
Re:Refresh my memory...
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
No, we've always hated it rationally. Also, you don't have to do what the herd does to fit in here, you can also post smart, witty, insightful, or intriguing posts. If they are well written, and the arguments presentedtherein are cogent, you will be accepted here, as is the case anywhere that nerds congregate. Good luck.
It isn't odd to support the death penalty and not abortions. And note that I am not, in this thread, supporting or denouncing either. I am simply pointing out that the argument "A fetus is human!" is beside the point. All religions agree, sometimes murder is okay. To say "A fetus is human" as if that even begins to answer the question "is abortion morally defensible" is simply an attempt to cloud the issue. The real question is much harder to answer, and that is "When is it okay to kill another human?"
How many Muslims were celebrating in the streets? Got any hard data? How many Christians celebrate when a gay is killed, or an abortion clinic is bombed? Here, they don't do it in the streets, because they think their neighbors might disapprove, but how many would celebrate openly if they could? I don't know, and neither do you.
Of course the Christians are not being contradictory by their own moral framework, the Bible contains many stories condoning killing, but none condoning killing a fetus. I was trying to point out that the question is not, "Is a fetus a human being?" but "Is this a situation where society should condone killing?" I was not trying to point out Christian inconsistency, merely trying to frame the question in a more accurate light.
I don't care whether a fetus is human or not. Not all killing is murder. Christianity condones killing in certain circumstances. All religions do. The question isn't whether a fetus is human or not, that's beside the point. The question is, is killing a fetus one of the situations in which we as a society should condone killing? Oddly enough, many so-called Christians support the death penalty, but not abortion. Why?
As for terrorism, how many Muslims do you think support it? Is that more or less than the number of Christians who support it? I don't think you have any hard data, just wishful thinking.
Nah, I'd say that believing Islamic history is more like believing that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, Or that he transforms into wine and bread for you to eat (gross!) Or that Eve was made from a rib (although the bible can't get that story straight) Or that a flood covered the entire earth with water Or that Moses parted the red sea
All religion is nutty and stupid. The bible is as full of horrible atrocities as the Qu'ran. Why single out Islam?
Ah, good old Pareto Efficiency. If one person owns everything in the world, and no one else owns anything, that is Pareto optimal, as any change involves that one person owning less. What a beautiful metaphor for our entire economic system: screw you, I've got mine.
That's your best rebuttal? That doesn't even make sense. Oh wait. Pointing out flaws in the free market capitalist system automatically means Marxism. Of course, how silly of me. Well played.
The post highlights some very important research in game theory that show that the Homo Economicus model is severely flawed. This is important as our entire free market, capitalist system is based on assumptions from this model. Most people are more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity than pure selfish gain. That being the case, cooperative systems that allow people to punish inequality are more suited to real human nature than our current system, which rewards selfishness and increases inequality.
You always seem to support the status quo, big money, and the rights of the powerful over the rights of the little guy. Knowing where you work, it frightens me. Maybe you aren't being paid by the government to propagandize for Apple, but I don't like to think of people in positions of power, with little oversight, fighting for the rich and powerful. Maybe you've posted something sometime that sticks up for the little guy, but I've never seen it.
Nothing I've got to say is going to change anyone's mind anyway. Either they see you for what you are, or they never will because they're just like you. That's just my anti-authoritarian take on things, who knows, maybe in person you're a real nice guy.
Go read Dave's homepage. He doesn't work for Apple, he works for someone much, much scarier. And realize that, if he admits that much on his home page, the reality is probably far worse. Knowing who he really works for and what he really is puts all his posts in the proper perspective.
The cops have no right to ask for our papers. We are citizens, not sheep. Insinuating that the man beats his wife because he refused an unlawful order from the police is beyond low.
It was used in WWII. No real evidence it worked well, but the principle applies to predators. Who is going to miss a big galumphing thing charging towards them, no matter how well camouflaged? That's not the point. The point is to make the prey misjudge distance, direction, and speed, so that when you leap, they dodge the wrong way.
Humans use the same kind of visual shortcuts that other animals do. In fact, it's in the basic structure of the eye. The rods and cones in the eye are cross linked and inhibit each other, meaning that only large changes between adjacent cells are transmitted by the optic nerve. The brain then rebuilds a complete picture based on the edge and tone information transmitted.
I object to the concept of ideas as property because they are not. Ideas are non exclusionary, I can sell them and still have them. The government granted monopoly on their expression lasts a limited time, unlike ownership of real property. We us the term 'Intellectual Property' because a group of people who own a lot of it decided we should think of it more like property, because that serves their interests. Not ours.
That's nice. I think I'll start using that phrase too. In fact, I think I should have an intellectual monopoly on using the phrase 'intellectual monopoly.' But I'll license it to you;-)
Slashdot Mirror
You do know you can install GRUB on a partition, not just the master boot record, right? Anyway, who installs anything into the MBR without an alternative boot method? You got what you deserve, sorry, but I bet you won't make that stupid mistake again. We all have to learn somehow, and you're not always going to get your hand held along the way.
Wouldn't a woman be more impressed with $5k spent on something sensible? Or failing that, on something for her? Or failing even that, something a little more visible than speaker wire? I mean, if I cut off both my arms, would that prove to women that I'm so successful I don't have to work, or would it prove I'm a freaking idiot with no arms? Who the fuck looks at other people's speaker wire, anyway? You know, I could just tell women I meet that I paid $5k for my speaker wire. How many would even know the difference? Most women can tell the difference between, say, a Honda and a Porsche. Wouldn't that be a better choice for female-enticing extravagance?
He has offered to put the money in an escrow account when challenged by so-called psychics. No one has responded to his offer. Why is that?
The first link is to a paranormal phenomenon blog. Hardly an unbiased source. Can we really expect them to be honest about a man who challenges their scams? The second link is basically whining about the terms of the contract required to win the $1,000,000. So you have to agree not to sue him, that's standard for this type of contract. Uri Geller tried to sue Randi, lost, and was forced to pay Randi's legal costs.
Here's a question, how can you tell a paranormal occurrence from hallucination, delusion or outright scam? Scientific testing. Why won't people who claim to have paranormal powers submit to actual testing? Are the facts somehow getting in the way of the truthiness?
You are over-analyzing. The test is simple: can anyone hear a difference? They don't even need to be able to put it into words more complicated than "me like that one." If anyone can discern any difference whatsoever, in a double blind test, Randi will pay them. It's that simple. Mood and consciousness do not enter into the equation.
Same here. To think, we could have had 3-digit IDs, damn it!
Ewoks look like Wookie children. Chewbacca is a perv.
No, we've always hated it rationally. Also, you don't have to do what the herd does to fit in here, you can also post smart, witty, insightful, or intriguing posts. If they are well written, and the arguments presentedtherein are cogent, you will be accepted here, as is the case anywhere that nerds congregate. Good luck.
Actually, slashcode uses 666 internally as an ID for ACs, so about 665 IDs are lower than yours.
It isn't odd to support the death penalty and not abortions. And note that I am not, in this thread, supporting or denouncing either. I am simply pointing out that the argument "A fetus is human!" is beside the point. All religions agree, sometimes murder is okay. To say "A fetus is human" as if that even begins to answer the question "is abortion morally defensible" is simply an attempt to cloud the issue. The real question is much harder to answer, and that is "When is it okay to kill another human?"
Malda wrote some sort of applet for Enlightenment. Something to do with sound? I can't remember, but that's how I found CnD.
How many Muslims were celebrating in the streets? Got any hard data? How many Christians celebrate when a gay is killed, or an abortion clinic is bombed? Here, they don't do it in the streets, because they think their neighbors might disapprove, but how many would celebrate openly if they could? I don't know, and neither do you.
Of course the Christians are not being contradictory by their own moral framework, the Bible contains many stories condoning killing, but none condoning killing a fetus. I was trying to point out that the question is not, "Is a fetus a human being?" but "Is this a situation where society should condone killing?" I was not trying to point out Christian inconsistency, merely trying to frame the question in a more accurate light.
I don't care whether a fetus is human or not. Not all killing is murder. Christianity condones killing in certain circumstances. All religions do. The question isn't whether a fetus is human or not, that's beside the point. The question is, is killing a fetus one of the situations in which we as a society should condone killing? Oddly enough, many so-called Christians support the death penalty, but not abortion. Why?
As for terrorism, how many Muslims do you think support it? Is that more or less than the number of Christians who support it? I don't think you have any hard data, just wishful thinking.
Nah, I'd say that believing Islamic history is more like believing that Jesus Christ rose from the dead,
Or that he transforms into wine and bread for you to eat (gross!)
Or that Eve was made from a rib (although the bible can't get that story straight)
Or that a flood covered the entire earth with water
Or that Moses parted the red sea
All religion is nutty and stupid. The bible is as full of horrible atrocities as the Qu'ran. Why single out Islam?
Well that makes Christian terrorism like blowing up abortion clinics or murdering gays okay then. Oh wait, NO IT DOESN'T.
Ah, good old Pareto Efficiency. If one person owns everything in the world, and no one else owns anything, that is Pareto optimal, as any change involves that one person owning less. What a beautiful metaphor for our entire economic system: screw you, I've got mine.
That's your best rebuttal? That doesn't even make sense. Oh wait. Pointing out flaws in the free market capitalist system automatically means Marxism. Of course, how silly of me. Well played.
The post highlights some very important research in game theory that show that the Homo Economicus model is severely flawed. This is important as our entire free market, capitalist system is based on assumptions from this model. Most people are more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity than pure selfish gain. That being the case, cooperative systems that allow people to punish inequality are more suited to real human nature than our current system, which rewards selfishness and increases inequality.
You haven't provided us with historical data. You've provided unsupported opinion. How about some links to actual studies?
You always seem to support the status quo, big money, and the rights of the powerful over the rights of the little guy. Knowing where you work, it frightens me. Maybe you aren't being paid by the government to propagandize for Apple, but I don't like to think of people in positions of power, with little oversight, fighting for the rich and powerful. Maybe you've posted something sometime that sticks up for the little guy, but I've never seen it.
Nothing I've got to say is going to change anyone's mind anyway. Either they see you for what you are, or they never will because they're just like you. That's just my anti-authoritarian take on things, who knows, maybe in person you're a real nice guy.
Go read Dave's homepage. He doesn't work for Apple, he works for someone much, much scarier. And realize that, if he admits that much on his home page, the reality is probably far worse. Knowing who he really works for and what he really is puts all his posts in the proper perspective.
The cops have no right to ask for our papers. We are citizens, not sheep. Insinuating that the man beats his wife because he refused an unlawful order from the police is beyond low.
By this simple technique.
It was used in WWII. No real evidence it worked well, but the principle applies to predators. Who is going to miss a big galumphing thing charging towards them, no matter how well camouflaged? That's not the point. The point is to make the prey misjudge distance, direction, and speed, so that when you leap, they dodge the wrong way.
Humans use the same kind of visual shortcuts that other animals do. In fact, it's in the basic structure of the eye. The rods and cones in the eye are cross linked and inhibit each other, meaning that only large changes between adjacent cells are transmitted by the optic nerve. The brain then rebuilds a complete picture based on the edge and tone information transmitted.
I object to the concept of ideas as property because they are not. Ideas are non exclusionary, I can sell them and still have them. The government granted monopoly on their expression lasts a limited time, unlike ownership of real property. We us the term 'Intellectual Property' because a group of people who own a lot of it decided we should think of it more like property, because that serves their interests. Not ours.
That's nice. I think I'll start using that phrase too. In fact, I think I should have an intellectual monopoly on using the phrase 'intellectual monopoly.' But I'll license it to you ;-)