I wouldn't call it voter apathy. I would simply say most voters are more concerned[...]When ordering priorities for a lot of people[...]falls pretty low on the list.
I think the distinction is academic. Whether you don't care, or don't care enough the end result is the same: Inaction. Now, I'm going to come dangerously close to Godwinning the discussion here, but I feel an excerb from Elie Wiesel's speech The Perils of Indifference sheds some light on this distinction. Keep in mind that what he was discussing was many orders of magnitude more severe than what we are talking about, but the principle is the same.
What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means "no difference." A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil.
What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?
Of course, indifference can be tempting -- more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person's pain and despair. Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction.
These corporations are not a threat to tech innovation: Voter apathy is the threat. In every country where intellectual property concepts have been strengthened by legal precident, it has done so because the issues are too complex for the average person to understand. They are uninformed, and unable to feel any sentiments towards what is happening one way or another. They may vaguely understand that it is wrong, but being unable to form a cohesive argument against it, they shrug and move on.
It's intellectually dishonest to place the blame on a handful of individuals and corporations for this situation. If you really want to drill down to the root cause of this, it's our poor public education system and a lack of training on using critical thinking skills that has caused this, and many other, social ills. And that's true globally, not just in the United States. Wherever you cut back education and voter participation falls, corruption grows and corporations become more powerful.
The problem with all this kind of technology is that edge cases are ignored because it's viewed as always superior to existing options. It's a logical fallacy that's been reinforced by an ignorant judiciary and public officials that don't understand statistics, science, medicine, technology, etc.
How well will a person who's eyes have been dilated at the doctor's fare against this? How about people that are prone to seizures or taking certain medications that increase light sensitivity? How about people prone to migraines? Also, an 'incapacitated' person is unable to defend themselves from natural or man-made threats. For example, blinding someone and (in a panic, shock, or severe pain) they run into traffic and are struck and killed.
In each and every case, these tragic outcomes are justified because it is assumed that the use of the non-lethal device would have caused less damage than the alternative. In cases where the use of the "non-lethal" option resulted in death or permanent injury, it is never considered that a more violent option (such as a handgun) might have resulted in less harm because the devices are viewed as intrinsically non-lethal.
And none of this takes into account that non-lethal (or now, the more politically correct but still misleading term 'less lethal') weapons are not substitutes for lethal weapons, contrary to many public statements about their use. In fact, non-lethal weapons are used in many situations where no weapon would have been used now. For example, to "gain compliance". New laws have been passed to justify causing massive amounts of pain and potentially permanent injury -- "resisting without violence", for example, which can be something as simple as not getting out of your car fast enough. People are charged with these classes of crimes because when they're found guilty, that retroactively "proves" that the actions taken against them were correct.
The entire system is corrupt -- non-lethal weapons aren't any different than a bar of soap in a bag. It might not leave any marks, but the victim still has lasting physical or emotional damage that isn't visible. Many of these devices, or variants thereof, are used to torture people.
Once something goes underground, it's increasingly difficult to get reliable numbers because people are trying not to be seen doing it. Obviously some of them are succeeding.
We should coin a law about this: The products competitiveness and usefulness for the consumer in the United States is directly proportional to the number of lawsuits filed against it to keep it off the market.
The nerve of these massive media companies controlling almost all aspects of our knowledge of events around us and internationally. How the quality has sunk as share prices have risen, the unrelenting drive towards profit damaging concepts like professional integrity, validating the facts, and presenting the facts in a neutral fashion.Why, for all these things they've done we should pay them more.
Er, no. The reason blogs have become so damn popular and competition for conventional media outlets is because the quality has slipped to the point that individuals with little to no training, working in their spare time, can create competitive sources of information. Those sources of information are being made available for free. There's little value being added by paying for a professional to do what an amateur can almost just as well for free.
It's like Graphic Design (a field I am in). Fifty years ago, we had people who specialized in typography, layout, working with the presses. There were a dozen different jobs that, thanks to technology and lowering costs, have all been subsumed into one job: The graphic designer. Printing a book, a magazine, designing a logo, an advertisement for the newspaper -- these were major undertakings, requiring dozens of professionals working together to deliver a product to the client. Today, the graphic designer can do all this in an afternoon, or a few days -- maybe a week for a more engaging project, single-handedly, and at far, far less cost. And there's plenty of things that used to be only accessible to professionals that are now done for free, by hobbyists, at a suitable quality level... Like, for example, community and church newsletters.
The problem with the New York Times is they're still using an old information collection and distribution model. It'd be like a design house trying to model itself after the industry as it was in the 1950s... it's outdated and nobody wants to buy into it.
Soon the government will be keeping hidef scans of your entire body. They'll know the exact length of your pubes, when you last shaved, and when you need a haircut. And the world will be humming with 'safe' scanners that irradiate people at the entrance to every public building they go to....
Years from now, someone will hug another person in public, and a thousand lonely people will riot....
Scanning isn't about safety, it's about control. It's about depersonalization and evoking feelings of powerlessness against an authority figure. They aren't searching for bombs by looking at naked pictures of you: They're trying to make you feel vulnerable and at their mercy.
Well thank you, Taco, for calling everybody who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot
Bigot, n., def.: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
No, Taco has it right -- the vast majority of evidence on the topic supports the statement that homosexuality in a person cannot be altered. Claiming otherwise because of your personal beliefs is bigoted behavior. Hiding behind statements of religious persecution doesn't change this.
If that were true, every female prostitute would be madly in love with however many clients she has; however much of the time the opposite is the case
Your body is a complex ecosystem with a large variety of internal and external events occurring, with no one system, chemical, or interaction in control. It is best viewed in terms of pressures, relationships, etc. There is no statement that can be made about the human body that is true for every human -- but a statement can be true for the majority, or the vast majority.
Be careful of placebo effects and self-fulfilling prophecies.
I'd be more concerned with doing your research, personally. Five seconds of google could have turned up what I've presented to you.
Neither love nor sex automatically proceeds from the other, whether by physiological or metaphysical impetuses.
Again, just because something doesn't happen 100% of the time, doesn't mean there isn't a strong link between two variables.
What he is writing here is directly what happens in real life - you choose your words or actions badly and even one bad choice ends up to you not having sex with the girl.
If I walked up to a guy and said "Nice shoes, wanna fuck?" -- there's a chance he'll say yes, despite this being one of the worst ways to go about it. As to actions, many hollywood movies have been made (How to lose a guy in 7 days, anyone?) about how sometimes doing everything wrong still leads to the desired outcome. The truth is... Sex happens because we have hormones and chemicals and stuff in our brains (and *cough* elsewhere) and sometimes they're the ones doing the talking -- and what comes out of our mouth is totally irrelevant.
As to love or no love, emotional attachment or not... Being that you're not a woman, you don't have some extra chemicals besides the ones I mentioned above working against you. It's near impossible for a woman past a certain age to have sex and not develop an emotional attachment. Ever wonder why we want to cuddle or be clingy after sex (or octopus you during climax?) -- BRAIN CHEMICALS!
Believe me, if we could shut it off, or take a pill to let us have no strings attached sex like guys, the world would be a far sluttier place. I'm totally serious about this... don't laugh.
The answer is more of the opposite -- how can one not be connected.
The usual answer here is to put one machine in the DMZ, very locked down, that only has one role to fill (in this case, email). The rest have no business being directly connected.
This begs the question of why these systems were connected to the internet directly in the first place. "cyber" attacks like this aren't effective if there's no way to make a connection back to the outside world. In laymen's terms (and horribly abusing grammar in the process) -- bring the internet home, but don't trust him alone with the wine!
It's a fictional historical figure. Also, people in prison are the property of other people. It might not be politically popular to say so, but owning others (literally, figuratively, emotionally, etc.) has been present at every point in human history.
Problem: A lot of what people tag as me is to get my attention, not because it IS me. I got locked out of my account for about a week because of this mis-feature, and when I did get back in, I had to spend about three hours removing tags of things like trees, the sun, burgers, and lots of other stuff.... now it works. But the solution fails because it makes an assumption that isn't always true.
The existence of P2P incentivizes artists to make content worth paying for.
No, it doesn't. It "incentivizes" them into a new line of work, like what happens any time something becomes dirt cheap. You know, like the job you used to work at, before it was outsourced.
What we need is really electricity priced the way cell phone minutes are sold. Peak hour, off peak and night rates. Then there will be an incentive for people to buy these things to store cheap electricity at night and use it in the day and reduce the grid load on hot summer days.
They DO have these options: For industrial and commercial use. Residential just doesn't make sense for that.
News Flash: The proliferation of manufactured weapons is credited with a rise in use amongst those with limited training in the use of weapons. Also, technology is making things previously difficult to do easy, says spokesperson for Captain Obvious.
The openness of the IETF and its structure has inspired the way ICANN is run,
Yes, I believe for the ICANN people, it served as a giant lighthouse warning petty tyrants of the dangers of open, collaborative design processes. Since ICANN took office, domain name registration has become horribly convoluted, the prices have gone up, lawsuits abound, and we're now in danger of running out of real estate (IPv4 addresses), while they sit on their arse and worry about copyright. They're like a HOA -- they're fining people left and right and ordering them to take down christmas decorations, flags, and people who dare to paint their house in an unapproved color, while they forget to spend money on things like garbage collection, road repair, and snow removal.
No, actually, they ARE the internet's HOA, and about as bloody useful.
But at least it is showmanship with a useful point.
...Or it is a rigged test.
They're predicting lower than average sunspot activity over the next ten years, and there's evidence to suggest that such a downturn would effect global temperatures. Global warming is based on data from a much larger timeframe, and is weighted to account for effects like this. His wager is not.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't call it voter apathy. I would simply say most voters are more concerned[...]When ordering priorities for a lot of people[...]falls pretty low on the list.
I think the distinction is academic. Whether you don't care, or don't care enough the end result is the same: Inaction. Now, I'm going to come dangerously close to Godwinning the discussion here, but I feel an excerb from Elie Wiesel's speech The Perils of Indifference sheds some light on this distinction. Keep in mind that what he was discussing was many orders of magnitude more severe than what we are talking about, but the principle is the same.
[Source]
These corporations are not a threat to tech innovation: Voter apathy is the threat. In every country where intellectual property concepts have been strengthened by legal precident, it has done so because the issues are too complex for the average person to understand. They are uninformed, and unable to feel any sentiments towards what is happening one way or another. They may vaguely understand that it is wrong, but being unable to form a cohesive argument against it, they shrug and move on. It's intellectually dishonest to place the blame on a handful of individuals and corporations for this situation. If you really want to drill down to the root cause of this, it's our poor public education system and a lack of training on using critical thinking skills that has caused this, and many other, social ills. And that's true globally, not just in the United States. Wherever you cut back education and voter participation falls, corruption grows and corporations become more powerful.
The problem with all this kind of technology is that edge cases are ignored because it's viewed as always superior to existing options. It's a logical fallacy that's been reinforced by an ignorant judiciary and public officials that don't understand statistics, science, medicine, technology, etc. How well will a person who's eyes have been dilated at the doctor's fare against this? How about people that are prone to seizures or taking certain medications that increase light sensitivity? How about people prone to migraines? Also, an 'incapacitated' person is unable to defend themselves from natural or man-made threats. For example, blinding someone and (in a panic, shock, or severe pain) they run into traffic and are struck and killed. In each and every case, these tragic outcomes are justified because it is assumed that the use of the non-lethal device would have caused less damage than the alternative. In cases where the use of the "non-lethal" option resulted in death or permanent injury, it is never considered that a more violent option (such as a handgun) might have resulted in less harm because the devices are viewed as intrinsically non-lethal. And none of this takes into account that non-lethal (or now, the more politically correct but still misleading term 'less lethal') weapons are not substitutes for lethal weapons, contrary to many public statements about their use. In fact, non-lethal weapons are used in many situations where no weapon would have been used now. For example, to "gain compliance". New laws have been passed to justify causing massive amounts of pain and potentially permanent injury -- "resisting without violence", for example, which can be something as simple as not getting out of your car fast enough. People are charged with these classes of crimes because when they're found guilty, that retroactively "proves" that the actions taken against them were correct. The entire system is corrupt -- non-lethal weapons aren't any different than a bar of soap in a bag. It might not leave any marks, but the victim still has lasting physical or emotional damage that isn't visible. Many of these devices, or variants thereof, are used to torture people.
"While finite numbers were unavailable," WTF does that mean?
It means they wanted to sound smart about not having an answer despite being in charge of it.
Once something goes underground, it's increasingly difficult to get reliable numbers because people are trying not to be seen doing it. Obviously some of them are succeeding.
Speech isn't free, slashdot. It has a cost: Stop using Twitter. But that's not convenient, is it? And that, right there, is how freedom dies.
We should coin a law about this: The products competitiveness and usefulness for the consumer in the United States is directly proportional to the number of lawsuits filed against it to keep it off the market.
The nerve of these massive media companies controlling almost all aspects of our knowledge of events around us and internationally. How the quality has sunk as share prices have risen, the unrelenting drive towards profit damaging concepts like professional integrity, validating the facts, and presenting the facts in a neutral fashion.Why, for all these things they've done we should pay them more.
Er, no. The reason blogs have become so damn popular and competition for conventional media outlets is because the quality has slipped to the point that individuals with little to no training, working in their spare time, can create competitive sources of information. Those sources of information are being made available for free. There's little value being added by paying for a professional to do what an amateur can almost just as well for free.
It's like Graphic Design (a field I am in). Fifty years ago, we had people who specialized in typography, layout, working with the presses. There were a dozen different jobs that, thanks to technology and lowering costs, have all been subsumed into one job: The graphic designer. Printing a book, a magazine, designing a logo, an advertisement for the newspaper -- these were major undertakings, requiring dozens of professionals working together to deliver a product to the client. Today, the graphic designer can do all this in an afternoon, or a few days -- maybe a week for a more engaging project, single-handedly, and at far, far less cost. And there's plenty of things that used to be only accessible to professionals that are now done for free, by hobbyists, at a suitable quality level... Like, for example, community and church newsletters.
The problem with the New York Times is they're still using an old information collection and distribution model. It'd be like a design house trying to model itself after the industry as it was in the 1950s... it's outdated and nobody wants to buy into it.
Soon the government will be keeping hidef scans of your entire body. They'll know the exact length of your pubes, when you last shaved, and when you need a haircut. And the world will be humming with 'safe' scanners that irradiate people at the entrance to every public building they go to. ...
Years from now, someone will hug another person in public, and a thousand lonely people will riot. ...
Scanning isn't about safety, it's about control. It's about depersonalization and evoking feelings of powerlessness against an authority figure. They aren't searching for bombs by looking at naked pictures of you: They're trying to make you feel vulnerable and at their mercy.
Well thank you, Taco, for calling everybody who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot
Bigot, n., def.: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. No, Taco has it right -- the vast majority of evidence on the topic supports the statement that homosexuality in a person cannot be altered. Claiming otherwise because of your personal beliefs is bigoted behavior. Hiding behind statements of religious persecution doesn't change this.
Emotional bonding is not a simple byproduct of hormones and neurotransmitters released during and after intercourse.
Yes, it is.
If that were true, every female prostitute would be madly in love with however many clients she has; however much of the time the opposite is the case
Your body is a complex ecosystem with a large variety of internal and external events occurring, with no one system, chemical, or interaction in control. It is best viewed in terms of pressures, relationships, etc. There is no statement that can be made about the human body that is true for every human -- but a statement can be true for the majority, or the vast majority.
Be careful of placebo effects and self-fulfilling prophecies.
I'd be more concerned with doing your research, personally. Five seconds of google could have turned up what I've presented to you.
Neither love nor sex automatically proceeds from the other, whether by physiological or metaphysical impetuses.
Again, just because something doesn't happen 100% of the time, doesn't mean there isn't a strong link between two variables.
There's only one question here that needs answered: Has the current copyright owner released the flag for use under a compatible license?
couldja at least LOOK at my profile? Ngggghhh...
What he is writing here is directly what happens in real life - you choose your words or actions badly and even one bad choice ends up to you not having sex with the girl.
If I walked up to a guy and said "Nice shoes, wanna fuck?" -- there's a chance he'll say yes, despite this being one of the worst ways to go about it. As to actions, many hollywood movies have been made (How to lose a guy in 7 days, anyone?) about how sometimes doing everything wrong still leads to the desired outcome. The truth is... Sex happens because we have hormones and chemicals and stuff in our brains (and *cough* elsewhere) and sometimes they're the ones doing the talking -- and what comes out of our mouth is totally irrelevant. As to love or no love, emotional attachment or not... Being that you're not a woman, you don't have some extra chemicals besides the ones I mentioned above working against you. It's near impossible for a woman past a certain age to have sex and not develop an emotional attachment. Ever wonder why we want to cuddle or be clingy after sex (or octopus you during climax?) -- BRAIN CHEMICALS! Believe me, if we could shut it off, or take a pill to let us have no strings attached sex like guys, the world would be a far sluttier place. I'm totally serious about this... don't laugh.
The answer is more of the opposite -- how can one not be connected.
The usual answer here is to put one machine in the DMZ, very locked down, that only has one role to fill (in this case, email). The rest have no business being directly connected.
This begs the question of why these systems were connected to the internet directly in the first place. "cyber" attacks like this aren't effective if there's no way to make a connection back to the outside world. In laymen's terms (and horribly abusing grammar in the process) -- bring the internet home, but don't trust him alone with the wine!
I believe I speak for many when I say -- If you give up Linux for Windows on the basis of a minor UI change, you deserve what you're signing up for.
It's a fictional historical figure. Also, people in prison are the property of other people. It might not be politically popular to say so, but owning others (literally, figuratively, emotionally, etc.) has been present at every point in human history.
Of course, if they got pinched, it begs the question of how they were "anonymous" to begin with.
Problem: A lot of what people tag as me is to get my attention, not because it IS me. I got locked out of my account for about a week because of this mis-feature, and when I did get back in, I had to spend about three hours removing tags of things like trees, the sun, burgers, and lots of other stuff.... now it works. But the solution fails because it makes an assumption that isn't always true.
The existence of P2P incentivizes artists to make content worth paying for.
No, it doesn't. It "incentivizes" them into a new line of work, like what happens any time something becomes dirt cheap. You know, like the job you used to work at, before it was outsourced.
What we need is really electricity priced the way cell phone minutes are sold. Peak hour, off peak and night rates. Then there will be an incentive for people to buy these things to store cheap electricity at night and use it in the day and reduce the grid load on hot summer days.
They DO have these options: For industrial and commercial use. Residential just doesn't make sense for that.
News Flash: The proliferation of manufactured weapons is credited with a rise in use amongst those with limited training in the use of weapons. Also, technology is making things previously difficult to do easy, says spokesperson for Captain Obvious.
The openness of the IETF and its structure has inspired the way ICANN is run,
Yes, I believe for the ICANN people, it served as a giant lighthouse warning petty tyrants of the dangers of open, collaborative design processes. Since ICANN took office, domain name registration has become horribly convoluted, the prices have gone up, lawsuits abound, and we're now in danger of running out of real estate (IPv4 addresses), while they sit on their arse and worry about copyright. They're like a HOA -- they're fining people left and right and ordering them to take down christmas decorations, flags, and people who dare to paint their house in an unapproved color, while they forget to spend money on things like garbage collection, road repair, and snow removal.
No, actually, they ARE the internet's HOA, and about as bloody useful.
But at least it is showmanship with a useful point.
...Or it is a rigged test.
They're predicting lower than average sunspot activity over the next ten years, and there's evidence to suggest that such a downturn would effect global temperatures. Global warming is based on data from a much larger timeframe, and is weighted to account for effects like this. His wager is not.