Then again, there will be no need to 'curb your drinking' when you can control the effects instead of the effects controlling you.
The problem depicted is not that of hangovers, but rather that of excessive drinking leading to a severe lapse of judgment and restraint. This seems like a smart consideration to make.
I have seen drunks with little regard for their own or other's safety, and I would prefer if such behaviour stayed rare and infrequent. We already have problems with drug addicts behaving in undesireable ways, so let's take a moment to ponder if we want more alcoholics that behave in a similar manner.
"Second: guns. Having a gun is a sign you are afraid. What are you afraid of? Ans: all the other people with guns."
Your first statement suggests that you might have a clue or two. Then you make that second statement, which suggests that you're actually pretty clueless. The one thing that defines a free man, is the right to keep and bear arms. Suppose that you take away all the guns. Suppose that you invent something tomorrow that can find and destroy every single firearm in the United States. The one weapon that YOU fear most is gone. The cops are without firearms, the criminals are without firearms, the honest citizen is without firearms. No one can any longer reach into a pocket, pull out a firearm, and kill. No one. Security guards and armed robbers alike are without guns.
Do you REALLY believe that no one will be murdered again?
If I really feel the need to murder someone, I may resort to a rock, a knife, a sword, a club, an electrical booby trap, poison, assault with a vehicle, assault with a trained animal, or just choke or beat the guy to death with my bare hands.
Wake up and smell the roses. PEOPLE murder people. Guns are as impassive and inanimate as any kitchen utensil.
I just visited the US last week, and was surprised at the level of civility I experienced there.
...Sure, you meet the occasional 'hole. But they are everywhere and not confined to any particular country (which is a pity: we could leave them all there together)...
How about those who wish for pseudonymity should use websites that allow for pseudonymity? There are some excellent arguments both for and against an anonymous internet, but I have yet to see one that requires *all* of the internet to conform to the desired policy, and I find it highly unlikely that the whole internet will require personal authentication anytime soon.
If you cannot use Facebook for fear of being discovered by your neighbours, why not use something else? I can understand someone wants to use the most popular social network, but it seems a long shot to convince such a large company to provide a service that runs counter to their economic interests.
Or as Bobby pointed out above, do some magic and create a fake persona with noone the wiser.
Is Skype disappearing today? If not, then Microsoft does not need to have recovered the cost by now. To make economical sense, they only need to have recouped their losses by the time Skype closes down. And that includes the funneling, loss leader and etc that connecting to all of these other systems will allow for.
All in all, Microsoft has turned Skype into what they want it to be now, and unlike the other emBalments, this one turned out well. Kudos.
The beauty of (natural) science is that you can replicate the results. Why spark a debate (which is more in social sciences ballpark) when you can just run the experiments and validate the statement that way? The paper would only omit important analysis steps if a patent is involved, something that the title of the paper does not imply.
Seriously, you are calling Bioware regressive for not adding "enough" gay material? If you want to fork in the money for the development teams, I'm pretty sure they'd be happy to rewrite the entire game to allow for homosexual relationships with all companions (assuming the Jedi are okay with that, but they fight with glowing vibrators, so it's probably all good). Otherwise, they are most likely busy working on content that the entire playerbase can enjoy, you know, the kind of development that generates income.
At first I thought this was irrelevant, at best a distraction from the serious topics that need to be addressed, such as freedom vs security, the importance of the second amendment, how we as a society treat the mentally ill.
Then I considered his words and I did some research and it turns out he was on the right track he just didn't take the idea far enough. Allow me to sum up firearm history. Around the third century the Roman Empire adopted Christianity. A few centuries later the Chinese invent the first firearms. Since then firearm deaths have increased roughly 2.9 billion percent!
The only rational conclusion is that our rejection of European polytheistic religions and religious philosophy caused this tragic event. To prevent future gun violence we as a nation must return to worshiping the Polytheistic gods of our ancestors. Obviously not all of them, that would be chaos. I'd recommend the Celtic gods but I'm obviously biased since I'm of English/Irish descent. A strong case can be made for the Norse gods since their movies tend to gross higher in the box office.
That's because we grease 'em up good before sending 'em out to wrestle.
Except you're wrong...Sweden does not restrict gun ownership...31 guns per 100 people and no killing sprees.
Are you kidding me? We restrict the hell out of gun ownership, and if the US is anything to go by, we have good reason to do so. The amount of guns owned per capita is an indication of gun restriction, but not the only factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Sweden
Yet it would appear Pixar has created the Pixar movies. I don't see how buying other companies can equal innovation. In fact, looking at the list of movies created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pixar_films) I would posit that the Disney buyout (2006) did not affect the production of movies in any particular direction.
Furthermore, I find it interesting you describe 'copyright killers' as leeches (leechers? lechers?) who cannot create anything themselves and want to steal other's work, since that sentence can also be applied to companies that claim the rights to any intellectual property conceived by their employees, or to any music production company that signs artists into debt.
Last, I would like to emphasize that not everyone (on personal note I would say *far* from everyone) wants to limit copyright on the basis of making money.
I don't understand your reasoning here. Are you saying that because Disney has created more characters than Mickey Mouse, it's fine that copyright protection be extended ad infinitum? Could you elaborate a bit on your argument please, as I'm sure there is at small step inbetween premise and conclusion that I am missing.
As a non-sequiteur of interest, there appears to be a correlation between financial difficulties in Europe and corruption. There does however, not appear to be anything in connection with national health services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
And this is not one of those situations where you want local authorities to use their best judgment and let slide just because it's a "good" organization.
No, it's one of those situations where you want local authorities to respect international treaties signed by the United States.
Or, you're claiming that the OSCE is a Klan cover, I'm not sure...
And we would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
you can legislate control. respect isnt the goal here
Fear is the goal. Random surges of rioting and killing is not exactly a sign of internal control, and if the offended nations cannot control what is already under their strict dominion, I don't think new legislation would improve that situation.
Eh, I'd say it's more about time people started using NoScript, Ghostery and Adblock Plus on a large scale...
I'm using all of the aforementioned as well as DNT+. No advertising agency will make a dime off of me.
On a side note, is there a well defined boundary between privacy and spite?
You mean don't try to be Apple badly. Even though Lion and Mountain Lion added iOS features, they didn't force iOS as the default UI onto their desktop/laptop OS users.
There seems to be a miscommunication here. You can prove that P = NP only if you can solve an NP-complete problem in polynomial time (or some other type that can be reduced to every other problem in the set). The article refers to NP-hard, which is not necessarily in the NPC set. Thus, solving the pancakes problem in polynomial time only guarantees that P = NP for the pancake problem (again, unless you can reduce it to every other problem).
I often use the term "Kill the whores!" when excited and "Demons are coming to rape my skull!" when leaving. Does this classify me as a psychopath or just an average academic?
Slashdot Mirror
Then again, there will be no need to 'curb your drinking' when you can control the effects instead of the effects controlling you.
The problem depicted is not that of hangovers, but rather that of excessive drinking leading to a severe lapse of judgment and restraint. This seems like a smart consideration to make.
I have seen drunks with little regard for their own or other's safety, and I would prefer if such behaviour stayed rare and infrequent. We already have problems with drug addicts behaving in undesireable ways, so let's take a moment to ponder if we want more alcoholics that behave in a similar manner.
Also, it should come with a redshirt.
"Second: guns. Having a gun is a sign you are afraid. What are you afraid of? Ans: all the other people with guns."
Your first statement suggests that you might have a clue or two. Then you make that second statement, which suggests that you're actually pretty clueless. The one thing that defines a free man, is the right to keep and bear arms. Suppose that you take away all the guns. Suppose that you invent something tomorrow that can find and destroy every single firearm in the United States. The one weapon that YOU fear most is gone. The cops are without firearms, the criminals are without firearms, the honest citizen is without firearms. No one can any longer reach into a pocket, pull out a firearm, and kill. No one. Security guards and armed robbers alike are without guns.
Do you REALLY believe that no one will be murdered again?
If I really feel the need to murder someone, I may resort to a rock, a knife, a sword, a club, an electrical booby trap, poison, assault with a vehicle, assault with a trained animal, or just choke or beat the guy to death with my bare hands.
Wake up and smell the roses. PEOPLE murder people. Guns are as impassive and inanimate as any kitchen utensil.
You actually frighten me.
I just visited the US last week, and was surprised at the level of civility I experienced there.
...Sure, you meet the occasional 'hole. But they are everywhere and not confined to any particular country (which is a pity: we could leave them all there together)...
We tried this. Now we have Australia.
DON'T PANIC!
Upper management still got paid, so everything worked out.
How about those who wish for pseudonymity should use websites that allow for pseudonymity? There are some excellent arguments both for and against an anonymous internet, but I have yet to see one that requires *all* of the internet to conform to the desired policy, and I find it highly unlikely that the whole internet will require personal authentication anytime soon.
If you cannot use Facebook for fear of being discovered by your neighbours, why not use something else? I can understand someone wants to use the most popular social network, but it seems a long shot to convince such a large company to provide a service that runs counter to their economic interests.
Or as Bobby pointed out above, do some magic and create a fake persona with noone the wiser.
Is Skype disappearing today? If not, then Microsoft does not need to have recovered the cost by now. To make economical sense, they only need to have recouped their losses by the time Skype closes down. And that includes the funneling, loss leader and etc that connecting to all of these other systems will allow for.
All in all, Microsoft has turned Skype into what they want it to be now, and unlike the other emBalments, this one turned out well. Kudos.
Land of the Free(*).
*Conditions may apply.
"To the last, I will grapple with thee... from Hell's heart, I stab at thee! For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"
The beauty of (natural) science is that you can replicate the results. Why spark a debate (which is more in social sciences ballpark) when you can just run the experiments and validate the statement that way? The paper would only omit important analysis steps if a patent is involved, something that the title of the paper does not imply.
We promise that we won't kill XOR torture Snowden.
I thought I had disabled ads.
Seriously, you are calling Bioware regressive for not adding "enough" gay material? If you want to fork in the money for the development teams, I'm pretty sure they'd be happy to rewrite the entire game to allow for homosexual relationships with all companions (assuming the Jedi are okay with that, but they fight with glowing vibrators, so it's probably all good).
Otherwise, they are most likely busy working on content that the entire playerbase can enjoy, you know, the kind of development that generates income.
In summary, get off the high horse, and realize that a mole-hill is not a mountain. If you need further clarification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molehill != http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain (not to be confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokeback_Mountain).
At first I thought this was irrelevant, at best a distraction from the serious topics that need to be addressed, such as freedom vs security, the importance of the second amendment, how we as a society treat the mentally ill.
Then I considered his words and I did some research and it turns out he was on the right track he just didn't take the idea far enough. Allow me to sum up firearm history. Around the third century the Roman Empire adopted Christianity. A few centuries later the Chinese invent the first firearms. Since then firearm deaths have increased roughly 2.9 billion percent!
The only rational conclusion is that our rejection of European polytheistic religions and religious philosophy caused this tragic event. To prevent future gun violence we as a nation must return to worshiping the Polytheistic gods of our ancestors. Obviously not all of them, that would be chaos. I'd recommend the Celtic gods but I'm obviously biased since I'm of English/Irish descent. A strong case can be made for the Norse gods since their movies tend to gross higher in the box office.
That's because we grease 'em up good before sending 'em out to wrestle.
Except you're wrong...Sweden does not restrict gun ownership...31 guns per 100 people and no killing sprees.
Are you kidding me? We restrict the hell out of gun ownership, and if the US is anything to go by, we have good reason to do so.
The amount of guns owned per capita is an indication of gun restriction, but not the only factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Sweden
Yet it would appear Pixar has created the Pixar movies. I don't see how buying other companies can equal innovation. In fact, looking at the list of movies created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pixar_films) I would posit that the Disney buyout (2006) did not affect the production of movies in any particular direction.
Furthermore, I find it interesting you describe 'copyright killers' as leeches (leechers? lechers?) who cannot create anything themselves and want to steal other's work, since that sentence can also be applied to companies that claim the rights to any intellectual property conceived by their employees, or to any music production company that signs artists into debt.
Last, I would like to emphasize that not everyone (on personal note I would say *far* from everyone) wants to limit copyright on the basis of making money.
I don't understand your reasoning here. Are you saying that because Disney has created more characters than Mickey Mouse, it's fine that copyright protection be extended ad infinitum? Could you elaborate a bit on your argument please, as I'm sure there is at small step inbetween premise and conclusion that I am missing.
As a non-sequiteur of interest, there appears to be a correlation between financial difficulties in Europe and corruption. There does however, not appear to be anything in connection with national health services. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
And this is not one of those situations where you want local authorities to use their best judgment and let slide just because it's a "good" organization.
No, it's one of those situations where you want local authorities to respect international treaties signed by the United States.
Or, you're claiming that the OSCE is a Klan cover, I'm not sure...
And we would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
27 mso then. And before you ask: wheelbarrow. (And yes, I've stopped responding to enlargement spam)
you can legislate control. respect isnt the goal here
Fear is the goal. Random surges of rioting and killing is not exactly a sign of internal control, and if the offended nations cannot control what is already under their strict dominion, I don't think new legislation would improve that situation.
Eh, I'd say it's more about time people started using NoScript, Ghostery and Adblock Plus on a large scale...
I'm using all of the aforementioned as well as DNT+. No advertising agency will make a dime off of me. On a side note, is there a well defined boundary between privacy and spite?
You mean don't try to be Apple badly. Even though Lion and Mountain Lion added iOS features, they didn't force iOS as the default UI onto their desktop/laptop OS users.
With Ballmer at the helm, "badly" is implied.
Strange. Usually "retarded" starts with an R and ends with a D.
There seems to be a miscommunication here. You can prove that P = NP only if you can solve an NP-complete problem in polynomial time (or some other type that can be reduced to every other problem in the set). The article refers to NP-hard, which is not necessarily in the NPC set. Thus, solving the pancakes problem in polynomial time only guarantees that P = NP for the pancake problem (again, unless you can reduce it to every other problem).
I often use the term "Kill the whores!" when excited and "Demons are coming to rape my skull!" when leaving. Does this classify me as a psychopath or just an average academic?