XFCE would be very nice except for the horrible memory leak in xfdesktop and xfce4-menu-plugin. It basically defeats the main purpose of xfce, which is to be a low-memory desktop. This REALLY needs to be fixed.
It also depends on how "mental health" is defined. Republicans have a lot of issues with denial of reality, and I think that qualifies as more "insane" than being neurotic and unhappy. (Some examples: denying global warming, believing God created the earth 6,000 years ago, etc.)
Denial is a very common defense mechanism. Accepting reality, even at emotional cost, is closer to how I would define sanity.
We could generalize and say that while Democrats are neurotic, Republicans are psychotic.;-)
'Because soldiers are already trained to talk in clean, clear and formulaic ways, it would be a very small step to have them think that way.'
Am I the only one who's thinking "danger!danger!" here?
talking is one thing, changing the way you think is more like... brainwashing?
I understood that to mean that the soldiers would do that to control their helmet to say what they wanted to say. It's a misinterpretation to interpret that as brainwashing. It means that the soldiers will "think-speak" in "clean, clear and formulaic ways". Not that they will be made to think that way in a general sense. It's intended to be a way to talk without talking aloud, not as a mind-reading device. (A mind-reading device would not be the right thing in this case--broadcasting whatever thoughts pop into a soldier's head would be a recipe for chaos. If that were possible).
So, you intend to give the distribution a leftward skew? That would have the intended effect. (Median greater than mean). I'm not sure what sort of educational policy that would entail, but it's mathematically possible.
Wouldn't proficiency examinations of some sort accomplish the same thing, though? Just to verify proficiency in something does not require years of courses. For instance, the field of law has the bar exam.
It's sad because I'd rather teach myself a lot of this stuff (and I could). But I won't get any official recognition for it.
It's really kind of a monopolistic (or oligopolistic) system if you think about it.
Your statement, "this country". Does this imply that things are done differently elsewhere? Anyone care to enlighten me about this? Hey, I wouldn't mind moving to Europe (or elsewhere).;-)
I remember reading somewhere that recumbent bicycles were banned from regular bicycle races. Is this true? If so, it seems a bit silly. Imagine the Tour de France with recumbent superbikes...
What are these IE-only websites I keep hearing about? Somehow I never seem to encounter them. (Though back in firefox's infancy they weren't too uncommon, as I recall).
Actually (and to reply seriously this time), couldn't they just put an information source inside the chip that would be destroyed upon any tampering? Unless you put it through some sort of hypothetical high-resolution scanning device, this seems like it would be mostly foolproof. (Even here it could maybe detect the scan and self-destruct then).
Of course, these guys haven't done this. But it should work in principle. Heck, someone who knows more about physics could probably think of something better. Would quantum cryptography (or something of that sort) within the chip make any sense?
Of course, if you can duplicate the data content and algorithms of the RFID chip, say by physically dismantling it layer-by-layer with a destructive analysis, you can clone it even if you don't know the shared secret. The article is claiming (without ANY credible evidence, BTW) to have somehow made this impossible, presumably by creating some random-but-repeatable property in the chip that cannot be extracted by analysis for reproduction in a cloned chip.
It's simple. The RFID chips have souls! Hey, it works for humans. Right???
You're missing the point. My point is that children (and the future adults that they become) aren't given the choice. They're brainwashed while they're highly suggestible and not capable of making the choice. I'm merely saying they have the right to be exposed to scientific facts, to learn critical thinking skills, and to know that theirs is not the only belief system. This is really only an expansion of the requirement that children be educated in the first place. This maximizes freedom for those children, by giving them some semblance of choice.
I am suggesting that children have some rights that must take precedence over their parents' rights. (This basic principle is widely accepted and uncontroversial, if you think about it).
How would you like to have been born into a Christian Science family, and never have really had the opportunity to evaluate that belief system? The notion that parents have every right to determine the beliefs of their children is disgusting. Children are not property. They do have rights.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't reliable, though. I tried using it once, the filesystem got very corrupted.
XFCE would be very nice except for the horrible memory leak in xfdesktop and xfce4-menu-plugin. It basically defeats the main purpose of xfce, which is to be a low-memory desktop. This REALLY needs to be fixed.
http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3812
This is more like user permissions.
Irrelevant first posts are selfish and spoil things for everyone.
But you think other kinds of irrelevant posts are just fine, huh?
It appears Democrats at least have an open mind to the possibility of being wrong.
Neurotics know that they are crazy, while psychotics don't know that they are crazy.
Another way of putting it: "The psychotic doesn't know what reality is; the neurotic knows what reality is, but can't stand it." (Source)
I think either of those sums it up pretty well.
It also depends on how "mental health" is defined. Republicans have a lot of issues with denial of reality, and I think that qualifies as more "insane" than being neurotic and unhappy. (Some examples: denying global warming, believing God created the earth 6,000 years ago, etc.)
Denial is a very common defense mechanism. Accepting reality, even at emotional cost, is closer to how I would define sanity.
We could generalize and say that while Democrats are neurotic, Republicans are psychotic. ;-)
'Because soldiers are already trained to talk in clean, clear and formulaic ways, it would be a very small step to have them think that way.'
Am I the only one who's thinking "danger!danger!" here? talking is one thing, changing the way you think is more like... brainwashing?
I understood that to mean that the soldiers would do that to control their helmet to say what they wanted to say. It's a misinterpretation to interpret that as brainwashing. It means that the soldiers will "think-speak" in "clean, clear and formulaic ways". Not that they will be made to think that way in a general sense. It's intended to be a way to talk without talking aloud, not as a mind-reading device. (A mind-reading device would not be the right thing in this case--broadcasting whatever thoughts pop into a soldier's head would be a recipe for chaos. If that were possible).
Nonsense. It will be called (+ c 2).
A lot of geniuses in history had really messy hair. I need a haircut.
Oh crap.
...he types before clicking preview, and clicking submit. ;-)
So, you intend to give the distribution a leftward skew? That would have the intended effect. (Median greater than mean). I'm not sure what sort of educational policy that would entail, but it's mathematically possible.
Wouldn't proficiency examinations of some sort accomplish the same thing, though? Just to verify proficiency in something does not require years of courses. For instance, the field of law has the bar exam.
It's sad because I'd rather teach myself a lot of this stuff (and I could). But I won't get any official recognition for it.
It's really kind of a monopolistic (or oligopolistic) system if you think about it.
Your statement, "this country". Does this imply that things are done differently elsewhere? Anyone care to enlighten me about this? Hey, I wouldn't mind moving to Europe (or elsewhere). ;-)
Maybe you would, but would most employers hire someone on that basis?
Not only that, but there's a slashdot user named after him! 8'O
You do have a point. But it does run contrary to innovation. But I guess that's what races like this one are for.
I remember reading somewhere that recumbent bicycles were banned from regular bicycle races. Is this true? If so, it seems a bit silly. Imagine the Tour de France with recumbent superbikes...
That would be great. Funny to see "software renderers" making a comeback in the future.
Ugh, software rendering? Seriously? *Eyes begin to bleed at the mere thought* ;)
HTTP isn't exactly alien technology. ;-)
(The .5mb installer actually downloads Chrome).
What are these IE-only websites I keep hearing about? Somehow I never seem to encounter them. (Though back in firefox's infancy they weren't too uncommon, as I recall).
I've tried removing the icon on her desktop, but that just makes her confused and annoyed =P
So make a firefox shortcut with the IE icon. :P
Actually (and to reply seriously this time), couldn't they just put an information source inside the chip that would be destroyed upon any tampering? Unless you put it through some sort of hypothetical high-resolution scanning device, this seems like it would be mostly foolproof. (Even here it could maybe detect the scan and self-destruct then).
Of course, these guys haven't done this. But it should work in principle. Heck, someone who knows more about physics could probably think of something better. Would quantum cryptography (or something of that sort) within the chip make any sense?
Of course, if you can duplicate the data content and algorithms of the RFID chip, say by physically dismantling it layer-by-layer with a destructive analysis, you can clone it even if you don't know the shared secret. The article is claiming (without ANY credible evidence, BTW) to have somehow made this impossible, presumably by creating some random-but-repeatable property in the chip that cannot be extracted by analysis for reproduction in a cloned chip.
It's simple. The RFID chips have souls! Hey, it works for humans. Right???
Not even if the "religious group" is conspiring against the government? Give me a break.
Should Al-Qaeda have freedom of assembly in the U.S.?
You're missing the point. My point is that children (and the future adults that they become) aren't given the choice. They're brainwashed while they're highly suggestible and not capable of making the choice. I'm merely saying they have the right to be exposed to scientific facts, to learn critical thinking skills, and to know that theirs is not the only belief system. This is really only an expansion of the requirement that children be educated in the first place. This maximizes freedom for those children, by giving them some semblance of choice.
I am suggesting that children have some rights that must take precedence over their parents' rights. (This basic principle is widely accepted and uncontroversial, if you think about it).
How would you like to have been born into a Christian Science family, and never have really had the opportunity to evaluate that belief system? The notion that parents have every right to determine the beliefs of their children is disgusting. Children are not property. They do have rights.