I want one that also tracks hungry, angry bears and emits a loud noise when it senses their proximity.
You have a lot of problems with marauding bears do you? Maybe if you washed up after eating instead of leaving the peanut butter and jelly smeared all over your face....
Sure, but 126 trades in 10 days would mean that he would have to get into and out of each trade before moving to the next one (in order to fully leverage the money made on each transaction). That's in and out in less than an hour all day every day for ten days. With future information there are a lot of easier ways to capitalize on that $800.00 initial investment.
That's fine. But I have no way of weighing your opinion except against my own. The article indicated that she was, to some degree, respected by those involved in privacy advocacy. I'd weight those opinions more heavily than your own.
By the way, loved the.sig except the word you're looking for is 'former', not 'latter'. You should have a better handle on your own ignorance/stupidity/strengths/whatever than that of others....
So you didn't follow the news after the election? They recounted the votes and it wouldn't have made a difference. Perhaps you could lay some blame on the designers of the Florida ballots as that does seem to be a factor (or maybe on the ability of retired New Yorkers to follow instructions for anything more complex than a pair of Depends).
Fact, many parents think they have a "good kid", but reality says they do not.
I don't know about that. Knowing and admitting are two completely different things. I've worked with enough parents that excuse every thing that little Johnny does willfully as a misunderstanding and keep bailing them out every time the kid gets into trouble. They say it's because Johnny is basically a good kid and helping your kids out is what good parents do (and they so want to be good parents), but it sure smells like denial and guilt to me. It's usually not until the little darlings get into so much trouble (or cause so much upheaval at home) that the parents are willing to admit that they failed at some level and that they knew it back when help was offered the first time.
Never said they weren't factors, just that they weren't causes. I also think you're looking through a different interpretation of dehumanization than I am. Think about the conflicts of the past. The US fought 'Japs', 'Krauts|Jerry', 'Gooks|Charlie|Slopes' and not Japanese people or German people or Vietnamese people - regardless of the justification we may feel we had for a given conflict we still felt it necessary to make them less than human before we could pull the trigger on them. It's not the dehumanizing effect of poverty that is the problem, it's the fact that we demonize others that allows us to justify our actions toward them. So someone who wouldn't scold the neighbor from down the street because he said hello to his wife in passing had no problem lynching any 'buck nigger' who did the same.
Those thought patterns do not just run downhill from oppressors to the oppressed but operate in the opposite direction as well. Terrorists demonize the US as the Great Satan (in the case of extreme Islam) or some other evil before they ever bomb an embassy or fly planes into crowded office buildings. We tend to marginalize at best and demonize at worst those who think differently than we do, whose values are different than our own, and if they look different too - even better.
The only way to deal with terrorism properly is to deal with it's ROOT CAUSES (both real and percieved - from the point of the terrorist) i.e. poverty, oppression, discrimination...
Those are excuses, not causes. There are countless millions of poor, oppressed, discriminated against people who are not terrorists. Osama is far from poor. Most people see themselves or some group they identify with as oppressed at some level. Discrimination isn't always bad (being able to discriminate between Pepsi and Drain Cleaner is a good thing).
The root cause is about how people think about other people, not their own condition. Is it permissible to kill someone (usually at random) just because I'm poor? Is indiscriminitely blowing up people from another culture or class the opposite of discrimination (in the negative sense) or the same? Do acts of terrorism really improve the lot of those who are involved in 'the cause'? My circumstances don't change when death is dealt to another unless they are directly working to make my circumstances miserable.
The root problem is that we dehumanize others in our thought patterns before we ever justify our actions against them.
Sorry - but terrorists will just use other means. In the UK the IRA was able to perform terrorist acts without computers, mobile phones, the internet etc...
Good point. Take away their ability to use modern technology and we return to the good old days when there was no terrorism. Just when was that?
Out of sight out of mind - that's the problem. People saw 9/11 on CNN, but they don't see all the car accidents etc.
Another good point. If you advocate laying down our fundamental, constitutionally protected rights to eliminate a few deaths, you'd better also advocate the return of prohibition to eliminate even more deaths (not just car accidents). You'd also better be prepared to advocate the banning of cars altogether and just work your way down the list of things that cause accidental deaths until you get below your 9/11 threshhold over (so far) the last year and a half.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually a good thing to make enough noise to let the animals know you're approaching. It's very often the startled ones that attack.
I want one that also tracks hungry, angry bears and emits a loud noise when it senses their proximity.
You have a lot of problems with marauding bears do you? Maybe if you washed up after eating instead of leaving the peanut butter and jelly smeared all over your face....
So thats 42% of Americans who will not be /. readers.
/. users aren't even /. readers....
Based on my non-scientific observations, I'd say at least 42% of
(and masters of English prose, if I do say so myself)
Not to denigrate your own language skills, but I'd say your saying so is only so so....
Sure, but 126 trades in 10 days would mean that he would have to get into and out of each trade before moving to the next one (in order to fully leverage the money made on each transaction). That's in and out in less than an hour all day every day for ten days. With future information there are a lot of easier ways to capitalize on that $800.00 initial investment.
Considering what does get posted, I somehow doubt that.
I usually go to addall.com to find the best prices. Under $30.00US here.
So was that a 'Diss' or did you 'agree'?
That's fine. But I have no way of weighing your opinion except against my own. The article indicated that she was, to some degree, respected by those involved in privacy advocacy. I'd weight those opinions more heavily than your own.
.sig except the word you're looking for is 'former', not 'latter'. You should have a better handle on your own ignorance/stupidity/strengths/whatever than that of others....
By the way, loved the
Okay /.ers its time to put our efforts to wkr..
Lets ee how long it takes to find this guys postal address and physical location..
Post your results in this thread..
I bet we wil have it done bofre 3 hours is up..
Seems like a safe bet since you don't know that the target is female and your spelling would render a google search meaningless....
So you didn't follow the news after the election? They recounted the votes and it wouldn't have made a difference. Perhaps you could lay some blame on the designers of the Florida ballots as that does seem to be a factor (or maybe on the ability of retired New Yorkers to follow instructions for anything more complex than a pair of Depends).
That's just sad. Is this the same guy who was responsible for the plan to merge all of DoubleClick's databases together?
No. This guy is a girl, something that was revealed in the article. See if you can spot any other 'hidden' information....
No. That is more in line with the previous administration. Uh... depending on your definition of 'is' that is....
There you go. See what fun reading can be? Now your posts can actually be about the article instead of /.'s misleading intro....
And now, the new head of the avian agriculture department... the big bad wolf!
So, in your world is the story called, "The Three Little Chickens"?
Last I heard, the Washington Post's website was not run by the government (even if it is in Washington) nor by DoubleClick. What's your point?
Why not just let them loose on Google? They can't get into anything bad from there.
I can't believe that hasn't been modded as Funny...
(removing tongue from cheek...)
Whose?
until I get a personality...
/. reader who admits they don't need a PDA with a personality until they get a personality of their own....
There you have it folks. A
Would that the rest of you were so candid. Not me of course....
Fact, many parents think they have a "good kid", but reality says they do not.
I don't know about that. Knowing and admitting are two completely different things. I've worked with enough parents that excuse every thing that little Johnny does willfully as a misunderstanding and keep bailing them out every time the kid gets into trouble. They say it's because Johnny is basically a good kid and helping your kids out is what good parents do (and they so want to be good parents), but it sure smells like denial and guilt to me. It's usually not until the little darlings get into so much trouble (or cause so much upheaval at home) that the parents are willing to admit that they failed at some level and that they knew it back when help was offered the first time.
They wrote drivers against the Windows 95, 95, 2000, XP, NT, APIs.They wrote drivers against the Windows 95, 95, 2000, XP, NT, APIs.
Mod this up as insightfull. Most folks don't realize the subtle differences between Windows 95 and 95....
Is learning to read really that hard?
No. But sorting one Coward out of the vast crowd is difficult. They all look alike to me....
Never said they weren't factors, just that they weren't causes. I also think you're looking through a different interpretation of dehumanization than I am. Think about the conflicts of the past. The US fought 'Japs', 'Krauts|Jerry', 'Gooks|Charlie|Slopes' and not Japanese people or German people or Vietnamese people - regardless of the justification we may feel we had for a given conflict we still felt it necessary to make them less than human before we could pull the trigger on them. It's not the dehumanizing effect of poverty that is the problem, it's the fact that we demonize others that allows us to justify our actions toward them. So someone who wouldn't scold the neighbor from down the street because he said hello to his wife in passing had no problem lynching any 'buck nigger' who did the same.
Those thought patterns do not just run downhill from oppressors to the oppressed but operate in the opposite direction as well. Terrorists demonize the US as the Great Satan (in the case of extreme Islam) or some other evil before they ever bomb an embassy or fly planes into crowded office buildings. We tend to marginalize at best and demonize at worst those who think differently than we do, whose values are different than our own, and if they look different too - even better.
Who knows what you said A. Nonymous?
The only way to deal with terrorism properly is to deal with it's ROOT CAUSES (both real and percieved - from the point of the terrorist) i.e. poverty, oppression, discrimination...
Those are excuses, not causes. There are countless millions of poor, oppressed, discriminated against people who are not terrorists. Osama is far from poor. Most people see themselves or some group they identify with as oppressed at some level. Discrimination isn't always bad (being able to discriminate between Pepsi and Drain Cleaner is a good thing).
The root cause is about how people think about other people, not their own condition. Is it permissible to kill someone (usually at random) just because I'm poor? Is indiscriminitely blowing up people from another culture or class the opposite of discrimination (in the negative sense) or the same? Do acts of terrorism really improve the lot of those who are involved in 'the cause'? My circumstances don't change when death is dealt to another unless they are directly working to make my circumstances miserable.
The root problem is that we dehumanize others in our thought patterns before we ever justify our actions against them.
Sorry - but terrorists will just use other means. In the UK the IRA was able to perform terrorist acts without computers, mobile phones, the internet etc...
Good point. Take away their ability to use modern technology and we return to the good old days when there was no terrorism. Just when was that?
Out of sight out of mind - that's the problem. People saw 9/11 on CNN, but they don't see all the car accidents etc.
Another good point. If you advocate laying down our fundamental, constitutionally protected rights to eliminate a few deaths, you'd better also advocate the return of prohibition to eliminate even more deaths (not just car accidents). You'd also better be prepared to advocate the banning of cars altogether and just work your way down the list of things that cause accidental deaths until you get below your 9/11 threshhold over (so far) the last year and a half.