Just for reference, political statements (i.e., burning the flag, ranting on your blog) are heavily shielded by the First Amendment. Political statements paid for by a campaign to get someone elected are NOT heavily shielded by the First Amendment.
submitter makes it seem almost wistful that he and a bunch of other tards were taken in hook line and sinker when all they had to do was read and see what was really going on.
'tards'?
Yes, obviously they lack your intelligence and discernment...
Well, they've been reading Slashdot. They took our advice and didn't monitor their children's internet use, because we know that monitoring is fascist.
>I can buy 10,000 acres of rainforest ($50/acre), >according to www.rainforest.org.
Unfortunately, I don't think that just buying it is going to do the trick. You're going to have to occupy it and guard it. Which will cost somewhat more than $50/acre...
>The sky is falling. Watch out for terrorists in Fargo, >North Dakota. Attack them before they attack us.
Wait, which one is it again? Terrorists are all powerful and unstoppable so all our countermeasures are useless, or, as you say now, they don't exist (despite what we imagined happened in 2001)?
I must not have got my latest Slashdot position fax today... I forget which position the techie hip are supposed to have.
>I suspect at least some of the difficulty was simply from >not being a telecommute place - just lacking the >infrastructure.
I'm sure that's true. Come to think of it, when I worked at a huge pharma, everyone was so geographically scattered that phoning into meetings, using NetMeeting, etc. was almost the norm.
Re:Media's Strange Reluctance to Report...
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
If this sounds like a "conspiracy theory" someone please explain "the media's strange reluctance to report on any of these problems"
What the heck?
*What* reluctance? There were endless media stories trying to sow doubt about Bush's legitimacy.
>Face-to-face time is only really needed these >days for those who get some sort of warm, fuzzy >reassurance from it.
It's still not the same.
Now, I do have some experience "telecommuting"... I've worked remotely for weeks at a time from home and from foreign countries (while traveling for adoption, during family illnesses and tragedies, etc.). And I do freelance web programming on the side which is *all* remote. So I'm not speaking from total ignorance and inexperience here. I work pretty effectively remotely.
Nonetheless, when I stayed home for just a day recently from my day job (normally 100% in the office, cube worker), which just so happened to be the day we were frantically finishing testing some stuff and moving it to our live website, I was floored by how much of a pain communication was, by contrast. So much goes on "over the cube wall", so to speak, that I hadn't even realized. It's so beneficial to have all those electronic tools of communication that you mention *and* be able to stroll over, see what somebody is doing, call "does anybody know..." over the cube walls, etc.
Want your kid to be more interested in sciences and engineering? Take away the doll and give her Legos.
Yeah, that's great parenting. She can't have both? My girls do.
What a weird culture we've become. Yeah, take away their dolls, because we don't want to encourage mothering. When the girls grow up, they can just hire some other woman to take care of their children.
Except that oops; *their* parents took away their dolls too, and they all want to be in business, science, etc., not daycare. So now we don't have enough day care providers, and the ones we do have are too expensive (because in high demand). So now we need a big government program to pay for daycare....
Oh come now, of course it does. If every time you ate oatmeal, your face swelled up, you would infer that perhaps there was a connection. The correlation would imply causation.
So of course it implies it. But it can take careful investigation to prove it within a reasonable certainty.
>Why is the radio station obliged to understand the danger, >but the contestants are not?
Because the radio station is planning the freakin contest. They have staff devoted to planning the thing, and it's their responsibility to make sure that the event goes smoothly and safely.
Sheesh, you could sue the station if you slipped on the ice on their sidewalk. Why would this be any different?
>However, these people never seem to accept that if they >just didn't break the law they'd have no fines to worry >about.
Dude, come on... you've *never* accidentally gone over the speed limit? Even for a few seconds? Then you are going way too slow, to prevent natural variations from taking you over it.
Anyway, laws have developed over the years in an environment where absolute enforcement simply isn't possible. It was taken into account that you weren't going to have perfect, robotic enforcement. That now in some areas we are approaching the point where it *will* be possible is a huge paradigm shift. There's going to be trouble.
>You never hear any of them suggesting the government do a study or a trial >to see if our speed limits could safely be higher.
Probably because they are smart enough to know that the probability of success for that is lower (for now, anyway) than for urging the government to simply be slightly less Orwellian. Joe on the street still hasn't made the paradigm shift - he's still thinking "oh, they won't nail me for 1 over...".
Given the typical government approach to security (one password and you're in to everything), do you really want your neighbour who works as a receptionist in the doctor's surgery to be able - even in theory - to view your tax records?
We already have that problem - she could work for the tax department.
Perhaps we should fund the government with a method that doesn't require invasive records on every citizen.
So you are stuck buying a crapshack in the $200,000 range in a questionable neighborhood that you hope is not too bad.
$200,000 will buy you a very nice house in a medium size midwestern city. $150,000ish got me a nice five bedroom three bathroom that was built in the 70s.
>If PayPal wants to continue pretending to be a bank, >they should be regulated like one.
Am I their only customer who never thought that they were a bank?
I do some web programming on the side. I had always been paid by check, but one of my clients happened to suggest paying me by PayPal.
Why not? I agreed, he paid me, I transfered the money out right away (OK, it took three days - certainly faster than them mailing the check, me getting around to depositing it, and the check clearing), PayPal took their cut and everybody was happy. That same client always pays me via PayPal now, and a few others have from time to time.
I never *thought* they were a bank, and wouldn't ever think such a thing. They're an easy way to send some cash over the Internet. I wouldn't use them if I needed to process huge numbers of payments, or huge amounts; I'd use a credit card processor. People use PayPal specifically to *avoid* using a credit card processor!
Who *are* these mysterious people who think that PayPal is a bank? I mean, other than those constantly beating the regulation drum?
Slashdot Mirror
Just for reference, political statements (i.e., burning the flag, ranting on your blog) are heavily shielded by the First Amendment. Political statements paid for by a campaign to get someone elected are NOT heavily shielded by the First Amendment.
Why?
submitter makes it seem almost wistful that he and a bunch of other tards were taken in hook line and sinker when all they had to do was read and see what was really going on.
...
'tards'?
Yes, obviously they lack your intelligence and discernment
Interesting - the Kamasutra by Vatsyayana is currently the top book today, yesterday, this week, and for the last month.
... read ;)
Those who can't do
>If you are a parent, and your child gets abused
>by some predator through a social networking
>website, *you are a bad parent*.
Oh, really? Universally?
If they used MySpace at the library computer
(I'm just sure you support blocking websites at
libraries, right)?
Re: Where are the parents in these situations
Well, they've been reading Slashdot. They took our advice and didn't monitor their children's internet use, because we know that monitoring is fascist.
Re:Am i the only person.
>who sees this as the parents just looking
>for someone to blame other than themselves?
Yes, you're absolutely the only one. This
opinion is never seen on Slashdot.
>I can buy 10,000 acres of rainforest ($50/acre),
...
>according to www.rainforest.org.
Unfortunately, I don't think that just buying it
is going to do the trick. You're going to have
to occupy it and guard it. Which will cost
somewhat more than $50/acre
>But generally leaks are a relatively benign problem
>that will not cause symptoms until after many days
>or weeks of use.
Hey, I'm pragmatic about it. Like I said, Firefox
is my primary browser. But it's irritating to be
constantly told that we're imagining it.
>Wanna bet someone will post a 'I like Seamonkey ..
>except for the memory leak problem
It ain't FUD, bud. Firefox does have memory leak
problems. It's still my favorite and primary browser,
but the problems are real.
>Here's a wild thought: how about just ignoring them?
/. seems to notice,
And you seriously think that we wouldn't have had more
successful attacks (which, nobody at
we *haven't*) with that approach?
>Terrorists will just attack somewhere else.
...
Um, have you noticed that they haven't?
Successfully, I mean? Despite dire Slashdot
warnings about their invincibility since 2001?
Let me guess, it's because they haven't really
been trying. We've just misunderstood them and
they're really nice guys after all
>The sky is falling. Watch out for terrorists in Fargo,
... I forget which position the techie hip are
>North Dakota. Attack them before they attack us.
Wait, which one is it again? Terrorists are all powerful
and unstoppable so all our countermeasures are useless,
or, as you say now, they don't exist (despite what we
imagined happened in 2001)?
I must not have got my latest Slashdot position fax
today
supposed to have.
But...reality aside, I'm sure we'll continue to try to spend our way out of terrorism.
...
Well, in "reality", nothing is perfect or ever will be, yet we still take measures to improve our safety. I guess we're crazy.
Door locks are useless; the thief could use a sawsall. Police are useless, criminals could bring tactical nukes
>I suspect at least some of the difficulty was simply from
>not being a telecommute place - just lacking the
>infrastructure.
I'm sure that's true. Come to think of it, when I worked at
a huge pharma, everyone was so geographically scattered that
phoning into meetings, using NetMeeting, etc. was almost the
norm.
If this sounds like a "conspiracy theory" someone please explain "the media's strange reluctance to report on any of these problems"
What the heck?
*What* reluctance? There were endless media stories trying to sow doubt about Bush's legitimacy.
>Face-to-face time is only really needed these
... I've worked remotely for weeks at a time from home and from foreign countries (while traveling for adoption, during family illnesses and tragedies, etc.). And I do freelance web programming on the side which is *all* remote. So I'm not speaking from total ignorance and inexperience here. I work pretty effectively remotely.
..." over the cube walls, etc.
>days for those who get some sort of warm, fuzzy
>reassurance from it.
It's still not the same.
Now, I do have some experience "telecommuting"
Nonetheless, when I stayed home for just a day recently from my day job (normally 100% in the office, cube worker), which just so happened to be the day we were frantically finishing testing some stuff and moving it to our live website, I was floored by how much of a pain communication was, by contrast. So much goes on "over the cube wall", so to speak, that I hadn't even realized. It's so beneficial to have all those electronic tools of communication that you mention *and* be able to stroll over, see what somebody is doing, call "does anybody know
Want your kid to be more interested in sciences and engineering? Take away the doll and give her Legos.
....
Yeah, that's great parenting. She can't have both? My girls do.
What a weird culture we've become. Yeah, take away their dolls, because we don't want to encourage mothering. When the girls grow up, they can just hire some other woman to take care of their children.
Except that oops; *their* parents took away their dolls too, and they all want to be in business, science, etc., not daycare. So now we don't have enough day care providers, and the ones we do have are too expensive (because in high demand). So now we need a big government program to pay for daycare
>Correlation does not imply causality.
Oh come now, of course it does. If every time you ate oatmeal, your face swelled up, you would infer that perhaps there was a connection. The correlation would imply causation.
So of course it implies it. But it can take careful investigation to prove it within a reasonable certainty.
>Why is the radio station obliged to understand the danger,
>but the contestants are not?
Because the radio station is planning the freakin contest. They have staff devoted to planning the thing, and it's their responsibility to make sure that the event goes smoothly and safely.
Sheesh, you could sue the station if you slipped on the ice on their sidewalk. Why would this be any different?
>However, these people never seem to accept that if they
... you've *never* accidentally gone over the speed limit? Even for a few seconds? Then you are going way too slow, to prevent natural variations from taking you over it.
...".
>just didn't break the law they'd have no fines to worry
>about.
Dude, come on
Anyway, laws have developed over the years in an environment where absolute enforcement simply isn't possible. It was taken into account that you weren't going to have perfect, robotic enforcement. That now in some areas we are approaching the point where it *will* be possible is a huge paradigm shift. There's going to be trouble.
>You never hear any of them suggesting the government do a study or a trial
>to see if our speed limits could safely be higher.
Probably because they are smart enough to know that the probability of success for that is lower (for now, anyway) than for urging the government to simply be slightly less Orwellian. Joe on the street still hasn't made the paradigm shift - he's still thinking "oh, they won't nail me for 1 over
Given the typical government approach to security (one password and you're in to everything), do you really want your neighbour who works as a receptionist in the doctor's surgery to be able - even in theory - to view your tax records?
We already have that problem - she could work for the tax department.
Perhaps we should fund the government with a method that doesn't require invasive records on every citizen.
So you are stuck buying a crapshack in the $200,000 range in a questionable neighborhood that you hope is not too bad.
$200,000 will buy you a very nice house in a medium size midwestern city. $150,000ish got me a nice five bedroom three bathroom that was built in the 70s.
Google's Sununu ... checks standard list of geek prejudices ... head explodes ...
>What is your proof that it isn't?
;)
...
That God says so.
Actually, I wasn't claiming that I had "proof", but
*you* are (or at least, that you have "proof" to the
contrary).
>Did God create the stars with "already traveling
>light" to fill in what would otherwise be a 999,994,000
>gap in time and distance?
Maybe. You're not getting this "all powerful" thing, are
you?
Anyway, what with all the time dilation and other exotica
involved in this topic, I'm not sure this is the place to
play arrogant creation-basher
>If PayPal wants to continue pretending to be a bank,
>they should be regulated like one.
Am I their only customer who never thought that they
were a bank?
I do some web programming on the side. I had always
been paid by check, but one of my clients happened to
suggest paying me by PayPal.
Why not? I agreed, he paid me, I transfered the money out
right away (OK, it took three days - certainly faster than
them mailing the check, me getting around to depositing
it, and the check clearing), PayPal took their cut and
everybody was happy. That same client always pays me
via PayPal now, and a few others have from time to time.
I never *thought* they were a bank, and wouldn't ever
think such a thing. They're an easy way to send some
cash over the Internet. I wouldn't use them if I needed
to process huge numbers of payments, or huge amounts; I'd
use a credit card processor. People use PayPal
specifically to *avoid* using a credit card processor!
Who *are* these mysterious people who think that PayPal is
a bank? I mean, other than those constantly beating the
regulation drum?