Hmm, really? (was Re:First they came for...)
on
Linking Dangerously
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, and defacing a website is really the equivolent of beating someone senseless. It is wrong to vandalize websites, just as it is wrong to vandalize a wall, but it certainly not deserving of a year behind bars.
Really? If you vandalize the wall of my house, a year in prison is less painful than what you'll feel if I get to you first.
Peppering Elementary and Middle schools with cameras, and enforcing strict penalties against the students who perpetrate violence against other students (and their parents, for raising such despicable brats in the first place), would do a lot more good than sensors and other "non-invasive" measures.
You are right, but I'm thinking forests and trees. Why do we send our kids to government holding pens for eight hours a day anyway?
I think public schools made sense for about 20 years in frontier towns. I don't know why we still have them now. And when extreme measures like those you suggest start to actually make sense, maybe it is time to step back and rethink the whole thing!
Isn't this the guy... Who, after his political opponent Paul Wellstone was killed in an airplane crash, gave his first televised interview posing against a small private plane in a hangar?
Dunno; would that be relevant, somehow? Is nobody allowed to have private planes after their political opponents die in plane crashes?
I'm not even going to address the computerized aspect here...
But in a happy, free country, turnout should be low.
We don't, collectively, have to worry about politics that much, and that is a grand thing!
I vote, but frankly I'm pretty happy that no matter who wins, odds are pretty good that taxes and regulations will stay tolerable, death squads won't be roaming the streets, etc.
Turnout was 100% in good old Iraq, if that's what you want to emulate.
1. When France or Russia want to use their UN Security Council veto then it's treasonous. When the US uses its veto then it's OK.
Yep. All things and all actors are not equal. Deal with it.
If you have a brain, then you have double, triple, or quadruple standards for all kinds of things.
In general, police officer has gun, street thug has gun, we think and feel differently about it, we don't just say "oh, two guys with guns, what's the difference?". Medical advice from doctor, medical advice from spam selling herbs, hmmm, we apply a double standard, don't we?
So yes, I give more weight to the decisions of the country that has done the most to protect the free world, over a) the country that until recently was the biggest threat to the free world, and b) the country who's butt had to be saved to stay part of the free world, and shows such gratitude.
Sounds like a fun, harmless, and Constitutionally-protected way of blowing off a little steam.
Yeah, because the people who actually work in those places, or have errands to run, or something worthwhile to do don't matter. They're just meanies who want to spoil your fun.
The sick/funny part is that the people who do this crap probably like to say and think that they are on the side of the common man... secretely they are elitists, who think that the rest of humanity who doesn't share their ideas exists only for their amusement.
{snip stuff about steak and lobster, private boarding schools, other crap}
Where do you get these weird notions? You know nothing about me, what I make, or what I have.
Not that it would matter or be any of your business if I did make what you think, or have what you think I have, but I don't.
I live very frugally. Which makes opinions like yours all the more annoying. I guess you really think that people who don't share your opinions just sit on leather chairs eating caviar, or something. Your post just drips with self-pity, resentment, and envy. There really are better uses of your time and energy.
The Republican Party is geared towards saving people money.
Sounds good so far... most people consider saving money to be a good thing.
This is the key issue for Republican politics, regardless of all the morality bullshit they spew.
Well, if you are immoral, then you don't understand morality. You can't image actually having it, so you impute weird motives instead of just listening to what people say.
If you're greedy, you vote Republican, whether it's for an end to the estate tax or a $300 tax refund loan.
How is it greedy to want to save money? Your own money?
I put in the extra hours, I got the deliverable done on time, I did the work, why shouldn't I keep my money? How is that greedy? I think that coveting other people's money is what is greedy.
Is this verification that Google is vulnerable to astroturfing? If you assume that half of all web pages with the term "apple" are talking about the computer company and the other half are referring to the fruit, then it seems like a search for the term "apple" should bring up about equal numbers of computer & fruit hits.
Uh, no, it means there are a lot more web pages about Apple computer, and links to those pages, than there are pages about apple the fruit. Your assumption is what is wrong.
This example is probably bogus -- the computer company seems to be more popular than the fruit, or at least there's more for internet users to say about it, so pagerank is probably doing it's job well here.
Ah, well, OK then. Your example is bogus. Refreshingly honest of you!
But in other cases, where the commercial alternative isn't as famous as Apple Computer but it still ranks higher in Google searches than non-commercial alternatives, that probably says something about astroturfing.
Er, well, it might, if you were citing other cases. But you cited an example that you yourself say is bogus.
... is how some people, even smart people, don't or can't get the hang of search engines.
You know, the ones on newsgroup and mailing lists who say "anyone know of a good BLAH?". Then someone whaps them with a cluestick (or rather, google link).
There just seem to be brain types or personality types that don't get it. Here's the rules I try to impart:
The total number of results means *nothing*, unless you like statistics. Nobody is asking you to look at 56,000,000 results, so stop complaining about it.
You may actually need to look over a page or two of results, actually look at the titles and page summaries, and decide whether they are relevant. It's no harder than looking at the spines and covers of books. Really.
If the first page or two of results aren't relevant, you may need to qualify your search. It is usually as easy as adding a word.
But there are still some, like the author of the article, on whom any of this is lost.
Contacting the President should be a process simple enough that anyone in the USA, even those with limited technical, communication, and cognitive abilities could perform.
There's no excuse for a confusing system like this reaching the public, as the White House has someone "in-house", so to speak, who is a great benchmark for the lowest common denominator in those three areas. From the description, I believe there is no chance this procedure would have passed the "Dubya" test.
Why do you believe that? Do you really believe that Saturday Night Live parodies are reality?
I never thought much of Clinton's wisdom, morality, choices, etc. but I never deluded myself into thinking he lacked cognitive ability. Nobody gets to positions like that without it.
You do understand that self defense and owning a firearm are not the same thing, right?
As a practical matter, they are for many people.
How exactly do you propose that Grandma, or your 90 pound sister, defend themselves from Bruno, pounding on the front door, demanding entry, and not inclined to wait for the police?
Like some other posters have already mentioned, we've had free ISPs in the UK for years. Since we pay for local calls, the ISP cut a deal that gives them a percentage of the amount we pay for calls.
Can even the most ardent US-basher parse that statement?;)
Yes, we're so far behind Europe, where free things are paid for by the minute:)
Unless your car is painted some absurdly flat black, your taillights are broken, and you drive around on moonless nights, I highly doubt the license plate makes a significant difference in your visibility to other drivers...
It's a probability curve, like anything else. Up to a reasonable point, more reflective = more noticable = less likely to be hit.
You gotta have a plate; it may as well be bright and reflective. I'd rather vote against those who enact tracking schemes, or vote for those who ban them, than rely on current technological limitations of tracking systems.
I pretty much guessed as much when the DMV in our state issued everyone new license plates. The primary difference was that the new kind are many times more reflective than the old ones, making them ideal for tracking via camera at lengthy distances.
It couldn't be that a more reflective license plate makes your vehicle more visible, and thus less likely to be hit, could it?
That's why I voluntarily chose a highly reflective plate, when it became available.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and defacing a website is really the equivolent of beating someone senseless. It is wrong to vandalize websites, just as it is wrong to vandalize a wall, but it certainly not deserving of a year behind bars.
Really? If you vandalize the wall of my house, a year in prison is less painful than what you'll feel if I get to you first.
Ok, so nobody is being tortured or killed in the USA (that's what happens in Cuba at Guantanamo
Um, you're thinking of the portion of Cuba outside of Guantanamo Bay.
That's OK; easy mistake to make! :)
Peppering Elementary and Middle schools with cameras, and enforcing strict penalties against the students who perpetrate violence against other students (and their parents, for raising such despicable brats in the first place), would do a lot more good than sensors and other "non-invasive" measures.
You are right, but I'm thinking forests and trees. Why do we send our kids to government holding pens for eight hours a day anyway?
I think public schools made sense for about 20 years in frontier towns. I don't know why we still have them now. And when extreme measures like those you suggest start to actually make sense, maybe it is time to step back and rethink the whole thing!
Isn't this the guy ... Who, after his political opponent Paul Wellstone was killed in an airplane crash, gave his first televised interview posing against a small private plane in a hangar?
Dunno; would that be relevant, somehow? Is nobody allowed to have private planes after their political opponents die in plane crashes?
No, before Iraq was liberated, Hussein held an "election", where turnout was supposedly 100%, and of course, he "won".
That was my point, high or low turnout by itself doesn't mean bad or good.
I'm not even going to address the computerized aspect here ...
But in a happy, free country, turnout should be low.
We don't, collectively, have to worry about politics that much, and that is a grand thing!
I vote, but frankly I'm pretty happy that no matter who wins, odds are pretty good that taxes and regulations will stay tolerable, death squads won't be roaming the streets, etc.
Turnout was 100% in good old Iraq, if that's what you want to emulate.
1. When France or Russia want to use their UN Security Council veto then it's treasonous. When the US uses its veto then it's OK.
Yep. All things and all actors are not equal. Deal with it.
If you have a brain, then you have double, triple, or quadruple standards for all kinds of things.
In general, police officer has gun, street thug has gun, we think and feel differently about it, we don't just say "oh, two guys with guns, what's the difference?". Medical advice from doctor, medical advice from spam selling herbs, hmmm, we apply a double standard, don't we?
So yes, I give more weight to the decisions of the country that has done the most to protect the free world, over a) the country that until recently was the biggest threat to the free world, and b) the country who's butt had to be saved to stay part of the free world, and shows such gratitude.
Sounds like a fun, harmless, and Constitutionally-protected way of blowing off a little steam.
Yeah, because the people who actually work in those places, or have errands to run, or something worthwhile to do don't matter. They're just meanies who want to spoil your fun.
The sick/funny part is that the people who do this crap probably like to say and think that they are on the side of the common man ... secretely they are elitists, who think that the rest of humanity who doesn't share their ideas exists only for their amusement.
I'm sure GW ... Will encourage all States to do a trial run of these machines for the 2004 election.
Why - he actually won. It was the robot guy who wanted to use voting uncertainy as a tool.
{snip stuff about steak and lobster, private boarding schools, other crap}
Where do you get these weird notions? You know nothing about me, what I make, or what I have.
Not that it would matter or be any of your business if I did make what you think, or have what you think I have, but I don't.
I live very frugally. Which makes opinions like yours all the more annoying. I guess you really think that people who don't share your opinions just sit on leather chairs eating caviar, or something. Your post just drips with self-pity, resentment, and envy. There really are better uses of your time and energy.
The Republican Party is geared towards saving people money.
Sounds good so far ... most people consider saving money to be a good thing.
This is the key issue for Republican politics, regardless of all the morality bullshit they spew.
Well, if you are immoral, then you don't understand morality. You can't image actually having it, so you impute weird motives instead of just listening to what people say.
If you're greedy, you vote Republican, whether it's for an end to the estate tax or a $300 tax refund loan.
How is it greedy to want to save money? Your own money?
I put in the extra hours, I got the deliverable done on time, I did the work, why shouldn't I keep my money? How is that greedy? I think that coveting other people's money is what is greedy.
The ISP doesn't charge. The phone company does.
Therefore free ISP...
Yeah, I get it. But then, the phone company sends money back to the ISP. Not free. You pay. By the minute. Not free.
That's like having free hamburgers at McDonalds, but a $10 cover charge. And you can only stay five minutes :)
Is this verification that Google is vulnerable to astroturfing? If you assume that half of all web pages with the term "apple" are talking about the computer company and the other half are referring to the fruit, then it seems like a search for the term "apple" should bring up about equal numbers of computer & fruit hits.
Uh, no, it means there are a lot more web pages about Apple computer, and links to those pages, than there are pages about apple the fruit. Your assumption is what is wrong.
This example is probably bogus -- the computer company seems to be more popular than the fruit, or at least there's more for internet users to say about it, so pagerank is probably doing it's job well here.
Ah, well, OK then. Your example is bogus. Refreshingly honest of you!
But in other cases, where the commercial alternative isn't as famous as Apple Computer but it still ranks higher in Google searches than non-commercial alternatives, that probably says something about astroturfing.
Er, well, it might, if you were citing other cases. But you cited an example that you yourself say is bogus.
... is how some people, even smart people, don't or can't get the hang of search engines.
You know, the ones on newsgroup and mailing lists who say "anyone know of a good BLAH?". Then someone whaps them with a cluestick (or rather, google link).
There just seem to be brain types or personality types that don't get it. Here's the rules I try to impart:
But there are still some, like the author of the article, on whom any of this is lost.
Like cubic feet of natural gas, or amps of electricity, or whatever. Miles of toll highway.
But I can't think of many things on the internet that I'd care to be nickled and dimed to death for.
For married men(and women) to pay for hookers and strippers.
Wow, to encounter PC even in a semi-anonymous, trash-talking online forum! ;)
Surely you don't really think that there are a statistically significant number of women (and married women, yet) paying for hookers and strippers?
Contacting the President should be a process simple enough that anyone in the USA, even those with limited technical, communication, and cognitive abilities could perform.
There's no excuse for a confusing system like this reaching the public, as the White House has someone "in-house", so to speak, who is a great benchmark for the lowest common denominator in those three areas. From the description, I believe there is no chance this procedure would have passed the "Dubya" test.
Why do you believe that? Do you really believe that Saturday Night Live parodies are reality?
I never thought much of Clinton's wisdom, morality, choices, etc. but I never deluded myself into thinking he lacked cognitive ability. Nobody gets to positions like that without it.
You do understand that self defense and owning a firearm are not the same thing, right?
As a practical matter, they are for many people.
How exactly do you propose that Grandma, or your 90 pound sister, defend themselves from Bruno, pounding on the front door, demanding entry, and not inclined to wait for the police?
Like some other posters have already mentioned, we've had free ISPs in the UK for years. Since we pay for local calls, the ISP cut a deal that gives them a percentage of the amount we pay for calls.
Can even the most ardent US-basher parse that statement? ;)
Yes, we're so far behind Europe, where free things are paid for by the minute :)
Free, for $1.50 an hour?
I know we have a lot of definitions of "free" on Slashdot, but ...
Does anyone here actually use Netscape as their default browser?
Mozilla; yes of course.
What's not to like?
There's no way it's going to be able to compete on an industry standard level, but on an amateur basis, it looks like a great program.
What, ever? Why? What features do you think are impossible to implement?
Unless your car is painted some absurdly flat black, your taillights are broken, and you drive around on moonless nights, I highly doubt the license plate makes a significant difference in your visibility to other drivers...
It's a probability curve, like anything else. Up to a reasonable point, more reflective = more noticable = less likely to be hit.
You gotta have a plate; it may as well be bright and reflective. I'd rather vote against those who enact tracking schemes, or vote for those who ban them, than rely on current technological limitations of tracking systems.
I pretty much guessed as much when the DMV in our state issued everyone new license plates. The primary difference was that the new kind are many times more reflective than the old ones, making them ideal for tracking via camera at lengthy distances.
It couldn't be that a more reflective license plate makes your vehicle more visible, and thus less likely to be hit, could it?
That's why I voluntarily chose a highly reflective plate, when it became available.
Subsequent research proved, however, that all of the quotations have already made an appearance somewhere in Dick's fiction, letters, or essays
Wow! Then this must be for real! How could he possibly know things that have already made a public appearance?!?
Does this guy have a 1-900 number? I must call him at $4.95/minute, so he can amaze me by telling me things that I already know!!!!!