The myth that cigarette butts don't decompose is completely false. All it takes is water. If you live in a place where it rains often, as I do, they usually don't last for more than a couple weeks. Birds also like to pick them up and use them as part of their nests. Yes, the world is my ashtray. I have a tendency to litter paper products as well. I just don't litter plastics. When I'm smoking on someone else's property I throw my cigarette butt away unless they toss them on the ground themselves. That's just common courtesy. But I don't give a damn about throwing them on the road when I'm driving or on the ground in state parks.
I once had a neighbor who actually did have their dog shit in my driveway b/c they were too lazy to take it on a walk. That was fucked up b/c I would run over it and then my garage would smell like shit. I told him if he ever did it again his dog would die. Making my car and garage smell like shit isn't comparable to giving you an eyesore with my unsightly cigarette butts. I'm sorry that the asphalt isn't pretty with my butts on it. That poisonous asphalt that will outlast the cigarette butts by hundreds, if not thousands of years. If that's anti-social I'm okay with it. I'd rather be anti-social than have your petty aesthetic standards for the world. All cities are ugly, my cigarette butts can't make them any worse.
On a related note, I think people who carry around plastic bags to scoop up their dog's shit with are utterly ridiculous.
So it's because they're selling a defective product?
If there's a real problem that needs to be addressed perhaps there should be some more oversight with the breeders. Like required educational courses, a license, and perhaps even inspections from a vet (these might exist in some states, I don't know much about it). Either way, banning pet sales doesn't seem to be a solution to the problem. It would just create a black market where the pets are treated worse, which likely leads to more behavioral/health issues.
I still think it's a little hyperbolic calling the situation evil. Shady, perhaps, but evil is 'profoundly immoral and malevolent.' I don't think the breeders do these things because they get off on it or because they want to set their customers up to get bit or funnel money into the vets, they're just in it for the money and it costs more time, money, and effort to breed in a way that is completely legitimate and takes the animal's welfare into account. Hell, the food industry used to be run half-assed because it saved the industry a buck. That was real evil. Anytime the government takes a hands-off approach to any market, whether it be food or housing or finance or whatever, it becomes a race to the bottom to lower costs.
It's a tough thing to balance: allowing people to have the freedom to raise pets and breed them versus ensuring that the breeders aren't selling pets with severe problems. A friend of mine got a cat from the humane society and its paws are facing one another like it's extremely pigeon-toed and it has no tail. The people at the humane society said it was probably because some breeder kept inbreeding them and throwing out the deformed ones (he picked that cat among the healthy ones b/c he thought it was an opportunity to teach his child about disabilities). So yeah, I see how it can be a problem, but I do disagree with calling it evil.
As I mentioned in another post, dogs were wolves/coyotes that had their most vicious traits bred out of them by humans. When you breed out behavioral traits there are corresponding physical traits that will change as well. This can be done in a relatively short period of time, as demonstrated by silver foxes:
Here's the gist of it: Russians bred these foxes for the fur and they wanted them to be more passive because the handlers got bit all the time. So they bred the most passive ones and not the aggressive ones, and after only a few generations their physical traits changed and they began acting more like domesticated dogs.
With cats, the theory you present seems more plausible as there is only an acute difference between house cats and wildcats. But compare a lapdog to a wolf. It's hard to believe that the one is derived from the other (which is probably why most people don't realize it).
I think this is a problem both political parties suffer from in the States. They're both represented by the biggest morons b/c they have the loudest mouths and have the most motivation to shove their platforms down others' throats.
Almost every liberal I know thinks I'm a conservative based on my views and every conservative thinks I'm a liberal. Take the 'environmentalist' issue, for example: Conservative friends think I'm a big hippy b/c I believe in being a good steward. Liberal friends think I'm anti-environment b/c I throw my cigarette butts on the ground (oftentimes on blacktop. ..) and I drive an old v6.
The worst is how they always accuse one another of menace. "Liberals think blah blah blah." "Conservatives think blah blah blah." They both think there is a clear good side and bad side and of course, they're on the side of good.
Dogs are nothing more than wolves/coyotes that have been bred for specific traits by humans since we started domesticating animals several thousand years ago. Do you really believe that there is such a thing as a wild Yorkshire Terrier or a wild Pomeranian? They wouldn't exist if we didn't create them and their only survival trait is their 'cuteness' and at one point in history their ability to eat rats. Let a Chihuahua go out in the wild an see how long it lasts. I give it a couple of days at best.
Another side effect is miscarriage, which some ergotamines are intentionally used for. Of course, if the woman is already delivering, that wouldn't be an issue.
Personally, if I was a woman I imagine the only worse thing that could happen to me than childbirth would be childbirth on acid. I'd want something to knock me the fuck out, not something that would keep me up for the next eight hours with hypersensitivity. I'm assuming Hoffman concluded that the ergotamines were useless for childbirth pains?
I think it's funny how people freak out about that. They define new as never owned before, which makes sense. Everything you buy has a warranty on it and these guys put discs in sleeves all day (maybe it's just a UK thing, being hard to exchange -- here in the States there are no questions asked if you just want to exchange it for a working copy of the same item within the warranty period of 30 days). I think gamers that act like their discs are some ultra-fragile work of art are just ridiculous. If you're really worried about scratches buy a PS3 b/c Blu-rays can take some extremely heavy damage (to test this theory, I took a demo disc and rubbed it on the carpet, scratched it with a brillo pad, and rubbed it on the edge of a counter -- it only stopped working after I cut it with a knife).
I've had my complaints about the brick and mortar game companies, especially Gamestop, but this isn't one of them. Allowing the employees to play the games allows them to give me first hand information about it rather than quoting some press release or video game mag. That's kind of the whole purpose behind going to a brick and mortar specialty store rather than just buying it off the internet or going to a giant like Wal-Mart or Target.
I haven't heard of a K-12 school teaching logic or philosophy. So yes, reasoning and comprehension does need to be taught at the higher level.
Personally, I feel that logic should be taught in elementary school. It's a joke that we expect our grade school students to write argumentative essays without understanding the nuts and bolts of the argument. We should also teach the fundamentals of philosophy in high school. Most people go to college knowing who Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are, but they know nothing of their ideas. So we don't teach people to reason until college, despite the fact that almost everything they do in math is deduction and everything in science induction (when we're not just shoving facts down their throats). And all they know about Aristotle is that he was Greek, or maybe they know of his association with Alexander the Great (but probably not). That's why kids don't realize his importance.
Like this guy. He says he's not interested in philosophy because it has nothing to do with CS. Bullshit, he just doesn't realize it. Computer programming is logic and a bug is a fallacy in that logic. We take Aristotle for granted.
From personal experience, I can tell him English is equally important. I'm not overly qualified when it comes to CS but I work on computers. You're not always communicating with other tech people and oftentimes you deal with people who don't speak English natively. Without writing skills you're bound to have communication problems. If your boss needs a tech manual along with that program you wrote, it better not have any grammatical errors.
I don't see why Apple would be nervous. They never really measure their success by market share. Sure, when they have large market share they boast about it to their stockholders, but Apple isn't a 'market share or bust' type company and their strategies reflect that.
I think Apple is fine with Android being the market share king. It's not Microsoft. When smart phones get to the point where everyone has one -- and by everyone I mean poor people as well as the well-to-do -- then Apple is bound to have less market share (although they may be selling more phones). They have no interest in selling their products at the razor thin margins necessary to capture that part of the market. They'll keep their technology on the bleeding edge and charge more for it, just as they've always done.
Concerning this article about Android hardware problems: it's yet another flawed use of statistics on Slashdot. Who would have thought? Of course, as you point out, larger market share will garner more complaints. Personally, even if one could conclude that Android phones are less reliable (I don't think this study does), I would assume that has more to do with the fact that any manufacturer can make an Android phone. If they're going to compare hardware, they shouldn't be identifying the phones by what operating system it runs, the should be identifying it by the hardware manufacturer. Don't some companies make Win7 phones that are made with the exact same components as their Android phones? If you're trying to grade the hardware, the software is probably irrelevant.
What free democratic country are you talking about? I didn't know those existed anywhere other than fantasy land.
I live in the U.S., a republic. You know, the electoral college? The House of Representatives selected Thomas Jefferson as president over Aaron Burr when the college tied (as the Constitution demands). The Supreme Court arbitrarily chose George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000 (I've never received a sufficient explanation for that one). A Supreme Court justice is appointed for life. State legislatures draw out congressional districts to get the results they want. The Patriot Act. Judges can make up laws by way of 'precedent' (isn't it ironic that every judge thinks the Constitution agrees with their worldview and this changes every couple generations?). The 3/5ths compromise. Any idiot can become a police officer and abuse their fellow citizens' civil liberties. A police officer's testimony is assumed true in the court of law regardless of any actual evidence. The Ron Paul/Barney Frank bill to end the federal criminalization of marijuana won't even be debated in the House because ONE congressman who leads the Judiciary Committee opposes it. Is any of that free and democratic?
Even if you take the popular vote into consideration, or maybe congress, only like 40% of the population votes.
I'm all for openness, freedom, and blah blah blah but only AFTER something is done about education in this country. I don't give a damn about the will of the majority until the majority knows what the fuck they're talking about. Like, when people actually know what form of government the country currently has - A REPUBLIC. Talking about a free democratic nation is as absurd as talking about a harmonious communist nation. Reality is never ideal.
So don't talk about "Democracy fails if such and such happens." Democracy never worked to begin with.
Wouldn't it be in our best interest to ensure that Mexico's economy does better and their standards of living increase? Israel managed to create a strong economy with our money in the desert and we get doodley squat in return (unless you count the ire of the Muslim world).
At least if we invested in Mexico then:
1. It would decrease illegal immigration 2. It would help the Mexican government stick it to the cartels, which helps us (crime) 3. It would make NAFTA more useful, like it is with Canada (Canada is our #1 trade partner and Mexico has ~3x the population . ..that's backwards). If more Mexicans had money then more Mexicans would buy American goods. 4. Concerning humanitarianism, it's good to help our neighbors and there is a possibility that creating a quality economy in Mexico could spread the fortunes down to Latin America and so on. It would be in the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, looking out for everyone on the hemisphere. 5. Americans would be able to vacation in Mexico without going to ultra-lavish spots without concern for their health/welfare
Basically, there's no way to stop illegal immigration without making Mexico a decent place to live. A place with low crime, quality education, available jobs, and enough clean water for all. But what am I thinking? We can't even do those things for ourselves, it just looks like we're doing a good job when we compare ourselves to Mexico. No wonder so few Americans pay attention to Canada . . . we are to Canada what Mexico is to us (poor health, poor education, high crime). It's embarrassing.
I have a gun, does that make me more apt at killing someone than if I didn't have a gun?
Yes. Accidents happen. How many people are the victim of shovel accidents a year? According to Wiki, "There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000." I don't know why their information is so dated, but somehow I doubt gun accidents stopped occurring since 2000.
It doesn't really matter how tough your gun laws are with New Hampshire and Pennsylvania so close by. Even if federal gun control was passed, it would take years and years for guns to become difficult to obtain considering how many of them are out there. But year after year they would become more difficult to obtain, and I would be willing to bet year after year there would be less victims of gun violence.
I'm not against guns, I'm all for hunting. I'm against handguns and here's a handy-dandy chart to show you why:
Notice where "blunt objects" ranks on that chart -- your rocks, shovels, sticks, ect. Not to mention that a rocks and sticks naturally form in nature, shovels are tools. Handguns are tools as well, but they have one function: to kill people.
1. Nuclear missiles don't kill people, people with nuclear missiles kill people
2. I'm sure you and your guns can't do anything about a military coup implementing a dictatorship. Your rifle vs. a predator drone? Good luck. Furthermore, why is bearing arms a right? And if it is a right, I want my right to bear a nuclear missile, which is an armament.
3. People can get guns in places where they are illegal but it is much more difficult to do so and those places have very few gun related deaths. Furthermore, you're not taking into account people who have guns and use them in an act of heated rage. If Bob gets fired and wants to shoot his boss in a country where guns are legal, he can go across the street to the local pawn shop and buy one (or maybe just pull out the handy firearm he always keeps on him just in case a mad dictator wants to take over the country). If Bob had to go through a lengthy, underground process to find a gun, it would give him time to cool down and put things in perspective. Or, if he still decided to pursue the gun, there's a good likelihood he'll be arrested for doing so.
Perhaps you should try harder than whipping out the standard NRA bullet points.
Not to mention that guns could be illegal for civilian use and the second amendment will still hold as long as the states have militias.
If you're looking for more down-to-earth geek girls
Why would anyone do that? I really don't understand the geek-girl fantasy, just like I don't understand how dating sites try to find a 'compatible' person for everyone. I think it's better for society if one's partner has different interests and opinions. I fear for the generation whose opinions are always validated by their spouse, the couples who always do everything together, where one can't survive without the other. I've never dated a girl who knew what Linux or Unix was, and I don't intend to (even though I've dated a few that unwittingly used Unix in the form of OS X, I never explained it to them and they wouldn't have cared).
I think guys who look for geek girls only do so because they don't have any overlapping interests with normal girls. They're so absorbed in their geek lifestyle they have nothing else to talk about. When I want to talk about geeky stuff I go to Slashdot.
btw -- the stereotype of geek girls being unhealthy/unattractive is less of a stereotype and more of an observation. Geek guys tend to suffer from the same thing. Usually this has to do with the fact that geeky activities involve sitting on your ass staring at a screen and only moving your fingers. It's like the stereotype that bookworms wear glasses: it's not really a stereotype, it's a tendency, because reading for long periods of time can cause your vision to become impaired. Of course, there are exceptions: I'm a geek, a bookworm, I have 20/20 vision, I'm healthy, and I'm a sexy beast (okay, part of that is made up).
How come she insists on posting pictures of herself everywhere? It makes me question whether these are her genuine interests or whether she's just an attention whore who found an audience to exploit.
The girl geeks I've always known are butt-ugly, but the 'girl geeks' in the media are always attractive. Isn't it more sexist to only care about a girl geek's opinion because she is somewhat attractive? Judging by some writing samples, this Nixie Pixel girl looks like a moron kid and I see no reason why I should give a damn about anything she says. Because she 'dabbles' in Linux? Do you really think she would do so if it didn't fuel her website/Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/YouTube with hits from suckers such as yourself? All she does is exploit the fantasies of thousands of nerds.
That's a good point. The biggest problem with predicting future technologies is predicting the bumps in the road along the way. The Mesopotamians progressed technologically quite quickly, especially for their time. But Europeans during the medieval period progressed quite slow, especially for the time. Not to mention that the bumps in the road won't always be technological. Look at the political opposition that recently occurred with stem cells. Or to go with a more well known, historic example, the conflict between geocentric and heliocentric ideas. Then there's economics to worry about. Progress costs money.
I agree. Google Translate works great, especially between Romance and Germanic languages. The Chinese to English has some hiccups but it works well enough to be functional. I don't think I've had to use it with any other languages, but I would expect similar functionality.
Will we ever have Douglas Adam's Babel Fish? I'm sure we'll get something close enough such as a Google Translate realtime Android app or something of the sort - it would input what's being said through your phone's microphone and then output a translation to your headphones. Vonnegut had a similar device in his novel Galapagos. Like I've said about Kurzweil many times before: the sci-fi authors know as much.
That's almost exactly what I was going to post. Kurzweil will say anything to get his name in the news. While I'm sure he's a most interesting conversationalist, his predictions usually make me yawn. They're either too obvious or he anticipates they'll take place so far in the future that it amounts to nothing more than a guess. I assume he puts a lot of thought and research into his predictions, but his success rate seems to be no better than that of sci-fi authors.
Take Fahrenheit 451, replace literal book burning with figurative book burning, and what do you have? Society today.
To me, it seems like Kurzweil's always trying to motivate the scientific community to make him immortal. He was on Real Time with Bill Maher the other day and it was hilarious how excited Kurzweil was over the prospect of immortality whereas Bill found the idea humorous. It's like futurism is Kurzweil's religion: he sees it as the path to eternal life as long as he can rally the scientific community behind his ideas before he dies. So in a way, he's trying to create self-fulfilling prophecies rather than truly predict what will happen.
- We try to predict the content of posts based on our years of sociologically studying Slashdot to demonstrate our own importance and keen insight
Posts like yours, which say, "you people are going to say blah blah blah and it all amounts to nothing," show up at least once a day here. Why? I'm going to find a story about Google in the firehose and make a post that says, "You will all discuss something somewhat related to Google with the exception of some trolls and some responses to responses to responses to responses which will be offtopic; one of which will contain a Godwin. I am the Great Wizard of Slashdot. Bow before my greatness!"
Perhaps we need a new constitution if the current one is so unfavorable. I think it's about time. It's so silly how the 'interpretation' of the constitution varies from justice to justice, judge to judge, politician to politician, ect. How ridiculous is it that we deify the founding fathers and their words? James Madison was the father of the U.S. Constitution. He was the same idiot who led American troops into battle only to retreat minutes later with Washington D.C. in flames. The document is nothing but a bundle of compromises between issues that mattered 200 years ago -- the 3/5ths compromise and the bicameral congress are primary examples.
At what point will we finally say 'fuck that document and it's archaic language and ideology' and start anew? We don't even know what half the amendments mean in the context of modern society -- we've had to have judges set these ridiculous precedents that later get changed by new precedents (Dred Scott, Miranda, warrants, ect.). For some reason, everyone thinks the U.S. Constitution is in complete agreement with their own political views when nothing could be further from the truth.
Yes, AC, I see your opinions and predictions are oh so objective and well thought out.
If your plan for openness and freedom is to scare the government into implementing draconian policies that may be impossible to enforce, then you're in for a rude awakening. Marijuana prohibition is draconian and impossible to enforce but people still face legal penalties for marijuana related 'crimes.'
If you think that the whitehats are a failure then you simply don't understand security. Every increase of security limits efficiency, costs extra resources, and limits functionality. Practically every 'feature' adds to a system's insecurity. Even if you take a computer offline, it can still be compromised by means of social engineering, theft, or breaking and entering (like the computer in Mission: Impossible -- it's a hyperbolic situation that excellently demonstrates the impossibility of total security).
Security, whether digital or structural, will always consist of assessing threats and creating a barrier that is too difficult to be worth crossing. Not one that is impossible to cross, that's an impossible standard. If you live in a bad neighborhood where houses are frequently broken into, a pet pit bull to watch the house while you're at work may be sufficient security: although a burglar could kill your dog and still break into your house, most won't because it's not worth the risk. However, a bank can't use a single pit bull to secure millions of dollars. If Fort Knox was guarded by a pit bull, it wouldn't be for long. But Fort Knox isn't impenetrable, it's just not worth it for anyway. It would require so many resources and risks that anyone with those resources won't do it: guys like Goldfinger rarely, if ever, exist.
So yeah, the black hats may have swept the rug out from the feet of the white hats for right now, but it will just make the white hats much stronger. They're worth more money now and their opinions command more respect than they previously did. If your draconian policies become law the white hats working for the government will have the legal tools they need to give these black hats the Kevin Mitnick treatment (which they deserve infinitely more than he did).
Slashdot Mirror
The myth that cigarette butts don't decompose is completely false. All it takes is water. If you live in a place where it rains often, as I do, they usually don't last for more than a couple weeks. Birds also like to pick them up and use them as part of their nests. Yes, the world is my ashtray. I have a tendency to litter paper products as well. I just don't litter plastics. When I'm smoking on someone else's property I throw my cigarette butt away unless they toss them on the ground themselves. That's just common courtesy. But I don't give a damn about throwing them on the road when I'm driving or on the ground in state parks.
I once had a neighbor who actually did have their dog shit in my driveway b/c they were too lazy to take it on a walk. That was fucked up b/c I would run over it and then my garage would smell like shit. I told him if he ever did it again his dog would die. Making my car and garage smell like shit isn't comparable to giving you an eyesore with my unsightly cigarette butts. I'm sorry that the asphalt isn't pretty with my butts on it. That poisonous asphalt that will outlast the cigarette butts by hundreds, if not thousands of years. If that's anti-social I'm okay with it. I'd rather be anti-social than have your petty aesthetic standards for the world. All cities are ugly, my cigarette butts can't make them any worse.
On a related note, I think people who carry around plastic bags to scoop up their dog's shit with are utterly ridiculous.
So it's because they're selling a defective product?
If there's a real problem that needs to be addressed perhaps there should be some more oversight with the breeders. Like required educational courses, a license, and perhaps even inspections from a vet (these might exist in some states, I don't know much about it). Either way, banning pet sales doesn't seem to be a solution to the problem. It would just create a black market where the pets are treated worse, which likely leads to more behavioral/health issues.
I still think it's a little hyperbolic calling the situation evil. Shady, perhaps, but evil is 'profoundly immoral and malevolent.' I don't think the breeders do these things because they get off on it or because they want to set their customers up to get bit or funnel money into the vets, they're just in it for the money and it costs more time, money, and effort to breed in a way that is completely legitimate and takes the animal's welfare into account. Hell, the food industry used to be run half-assed because it saved the industry a buck. That was real evil. Anytime the government takes a hands-off approach to any market, whether it be food or housing or finance or whatever, it becomes a race to the bottom to lower costs.
It's a tough thing to balance: allowing people to have the freedom to raise pets and breed them versus ensuring that the breeders aren't selling pets with severe problems. A friend of mine got a cat from the humane society and its paws are facing one another like it's extremely pigeon-toed and it has no tail. The people at the humane society said it was probably because some breeder kept inbreeding them and throwing out the deformed ones (he picked that cat among the healthy ones b/c he thought it was an opportunity to teach his child about disabilities). So yeah, I see how it can be a problem, but I do disagree with calling it evil.
As I mentioned in another post, dogs were wolves/coyotes that had their most vicious traits bred out of them by humans. When you breed out behavioral traits there are corresponding physical traits that will change as well. This can be done in a relatively short period of time, as demonstrated by silver foxes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
Here's the gist of it: Russians bred these foxes for the fur and they wanted them to be more passive because the handlers got bit all the time. So they bred the most passive ones and not the aggressive ones, and after only a few generations their physical traits changed and they began acting more like domesticated dogs.
With cats, the theory you present seems more plausible as there is only an acute difference between house cats and wildcats. But compare a lapdog to a wolf. It's hard to believe that the one is derived from the other (which is probably why most people don't realize it).
Why is it evil? Are you implying that animals have rights? Good luck with that argument.
I think this is a problem both political parties suffer from in the States. They're both represented by the biggest morons b/c they have the loudest mouths and have the most motivation to shove their platforms down others' throats.
Almost every liberal I know thinks I'm a conservative based on my views and every conservative thinks I'm a liberal. Take the 'environmentalist' issue, for example: Conservative friends think I'm a big hippy b/c I believe in being a good steward. Liberal friends think I'm anti-environment b/c I throw my cigarette butts on the ground (oftentimes on blacktop. . .) and I drive an old v6.
The worst is how they always accuse one another of menace. "Liberals think blah blah blah." "Conservatives think blah blah blah." They both think there is a clear good side and bad side and of course, they're on the side of good.
I agree. It really just inconveniences San Francisco residents. Now they have to go to Oakland or San Jose to buy a dog. Oh no!
I beg to differ with.
Dogs are nothing more than wolves/coyotes that have been bred for specific traits by humans since we started domesticating animals several thousand years ago. Do you really believe that there is such a thing as a wild Yorkshire Terrier or a wild Pomeranian? They wouldn't exist if we didn't create them and their only survival trait is their 'cuteness' and at one point in history their ability to eat rats. Let a Chihuahua go out in the wild an see how long it lasts. I give it a couple of days at best.
Perhaps you should brush up on your biology.
Another side effect is miscarriage, which some ergotamines are intentionally used for. Of course, if the woman is already delivering, that wouldn't be an issue.
Personally, if I was a woman I imagine the only worse thing that could happen to me than childbirth would be childbirth on acid. I'd want something to knock me the fuck out, not something that would keep me up for the next eight hours with hypersensitivity. I'm assuming Hoffman concluded that the ergotamines were useless for childbirth pains?
I think it's funny how people freak out about that. They define new as never owned before, which makes sense. Everything you buy has a warranty on it and these guys put discs in sleeves all day (maybe it's just a UK thing, being hard to exchange -- here in the States there are no questions asked if you just want to exchange it for a working copy of the same item within the warranty period of 30 days). I think gamers that act like their discs are some ultra-fragile work of art are just ridiculous. If you're really worried about scratches buy a PS3 b/c Blu-rays can take some extremely heavy damage (to test this theory, I took a demo disc and rubbed it on the carpet, scratched it with a brillo pad, and rubbed it on the edge of a counter -- it only stopped working after I cut it with a knife).
I've had my complaints about the brick and mortar game companies, especially Gamestop, but this isn't one of them. Allowing the employees to play the games allows them to give me first hand information about it rather than quoting some press release or video game mag. That's kind of the whole purpose behind going to a brick and mortar specialty store rather than just buying it off the internet or going to a giant like Wal-Mart or Target.
I haven't heard of a K-12 school teaching logic or philosophy. So yes, reasoning and comprehension does need to be taught at the higher level.
Personally, I feel that logic should be taught in elementary school. It's a joke that we expect our grade school students to write argumentative essays without understanding the nuts and bolts of the argument. We should also teach the fundamentals of philosophy in high school. Most people go to college knowing who Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are, but they know nothing of their ideas. So we don't teach people to reason until college, despite the fact that almost everything they do in math is deduction and everything in science induction (when we're not just shoving facts down their throats). And all they know about Aristotle is that he was Greek, or maybe they know of his association with Alexander the Great (but probably not). That's why kids don't realize his importance.
Like this guy. He says he's not interested in philosophy because it has nothing to do with CS. Bullshit, he just doesn't realize it. Computer programming is logic and a bug is a fallacy in that logic. We take Aristotle for granted.
From personal experience, I can tell him English is equally important. I'm not overly qualified when it comes to CS but I work on computers. You're not always communicating with other tech people and oftentimes you deal with people who don't speak English natively. Without writing skills you're bound to have communication problems. If your boss needs a tech manual along with that program you wrote, it better not have any grammatical errors.
I don't see why Apple would be nervous. They never really measure their success by market share. Sure, when they have large market share they boast about it to their stockholders, but Apple isn't a 'market share or bust' type company and their strategies reflect that.
I think Apple is fine with Android being the market share king. It's not Microsoft. When smart phones get to the point where everyone has one -- and by everyone I mean poor people as well as the well-to-do -- then Apple is bound to have less market share (although they may be selling more phones). They have no interest in selling their products at the razor thin margins necessary to capture that part of the market. They'll keep their technology on the bleeding edge and charge more for it, just as they've always done.
Concerning this article about Android hardware problems: it's yet another flawed use of statistics on Slashdot. Who would have thought? Of course, as you point out, larger market share will garner more complaints. Personally, even if one could conclude that Android phones are less reliable (I don't think this study does), I would assume that has more to do with the fact that any manufacturer can make an Android phone. If they're going to compare hardware, they shouldn't be identifying the phones by what operating system it runs, the should be identifying it by the hardware manufacturer. Don't some companies make Win7 phones that are made with the exact same components as their Android phones? If you're trying to grade the hardware, the software is probably irrelevant.
Information's natural state is to be free
wtf does that even mean?
What free democratic country are you talking about? I didn't know those existed anywhere other than fantasy land.
I live in the U.S., a republic. You know, the electoral college? The House of Representatives selected Thomas Jefferson as president over Aaron Burr when the college tied (as the Constitution demands). The Supreme Court arbitrarily chose George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000 (I've never received a sufficient explanation for that one). A Supreme Court justice is appointed for life. State legislatures draw out congressional districts to get the results they want. The Patriot Act. Judges can make up laws by way of 'precedent' (isn't it ironic that every judge thinks the Constitution agrees with their worldview and this changes every couple generations?). The 3/5ths compromise. Any idiot can become a police officer and abuse their fellow citizens' civil liberties. A police officer's testimony is assumed true in the court of law regardless of any actual evidence. The Ron Paul/Barney Frank bill to end the federal criminalization of marijuana won't even be debated in the House because ONE congressman who leads the Judiciary Committee opposes it. Is any of that free and democratic?
Even if you take the popular vote into consideration, or maybe congress, only like 40% of the population votes.
I'm all for openness, freedom, and blah blah blah but only AFTER something is done about education in this country. I don't give a damn about the will of the majority until the majority knows what the fuck they're talking about. Like, when people actually know what form of government the country currently has - A REPUBLIC. Talking about a free democratic nation is as absurd as talking about a harmonious communist nation. Reality is never ideal.
So don't talk about "Democracy fails if such and such happens." Democracy never worked to begin with.
Wouldn't it be in our best interest to ensure that Mexico's economy does better and their standards of living increase? Israel managed to create a strong economy with our money in the desert and we get doodley squat in return (unless you count the ire of the Muslim world).
At least if we invested in Mexico then:
1. It would decrease illegal immigration .that's backwards). If more Mexicans had money then more Mexicans would buy American goods.
2. It would help the Mexican government stick it to the cartels, which helps us (crime)
3. It would make NAFTA more useful, like it is with Canada (Canada is our #1 trade partner and Mexico has ~3x the population . .
4. Concerning humanitarianism, it's good to help our neighbors and there is a possibility that creating a quality economy in Mexico could spread the fortunes down to Latin America and so on. It would be in the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, looking out for everyone on the hemisphere.
5. Americans would be able to vacation in Mexico without going to ultra-lavish spots without concern for their health/welfare
Basically, there's no way to stop illegal immigration without making Mexico a decent place to live. A place with low crime, quality education, available jobs, and enough clean water for all. But what am I thinking? We can't even do those things for ourselves, it just looks like we're doing a good job when we compare ourselves to Mexico. No wonder so few Americans pay attention to Canada . . . we are to Canada what Mexico is to us (poor health, poor education, high crime). It's embarrassing.
I have a gun, does that make me more apt at killing someone than if I didn't have a gun?
Yes. Accidents happen. How many people are the victim of shovel accidents a year? According to Wiki, "There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000." I don't know why their information is so dated, but somehow I doubt gun accidents stopped occurring since 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
It doesn't really matter how tough your gun laws are with New Hampshire and Pennsylvania so close by. Even if federal gun control was passed, it would take years and years for guns to become difficult to obtain considering how many of them are out there. But year after year they would become more difficult to obtain, and I would be willing to bet year after year there would be less victims of gun violence.
I'm not against guns, I'm all for hunting. I'm against handguns and here's a handy-dandy chart to show you why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
Notice where "blunt objects" ranks on that chart -- your rocks, shovels, sticks, ect. Not to mention that a rocks and sticks naturally form in nature, shovels are tools. Handguns are tools as well, but they have one function: to kill people.
1. Nuclear missiles don't kill people, people with nuclear missiles kill people
2. I'm sure you and your guns can't do anything about a military coup implementing a dictatorship. Your rifle vs. a predator drone? Good luck. Furthermore, why is bearing arms a right? And if it is a right, I want my right to bear a nuclear missile, which is an armament.
3. People can get guns in places where they are illegal but it is much more difficult to do so and those places have very few gun related deaths. Furthermore, you're not taking into account people who have guns and use them in an act of heated rage. If Bob gets fired and wants to shoot his boss in a country where guns are legal, he can go across the street to the local pawn shop and buy one (or maybe just pull out the handy firearm he always keeps on him just in case a mad dictator wants to take over the country). If Bob had to go through a lengthy, underground process to find a gun, it would give him time to cool down and put things in perspective. Or, if he still decided to pursue the gun, there's a good likelihood he'll be arrested for doing so.
Perhaps you should try harder than whipping out the standard NRA bullet points.
Not to mention that guns could be illegal for civilian use and the second amendment will still hold as long as the states have militias.
If you're looking for more down-to-earth geek girls
Why would anyone do that? I really don't understand the geek-girl fantasy, just like I don't understand how dating sites try to find a 'compatible' person for everyone. I think it's better for society if one's partner has different interests and opinions. I fear for the generation whose opinions are always validated by their spouse, the couples who always do everything together, where one can't survive without the other. I've never dated a girl who knew what Linux or Unix was, and I don't intend to (even though I've dated a few that unwittingly used Unix in the form of OS X, I never explained it to them and they wouldn't have cared).
I think guys who look for geek girls only do so because they don't have any overlapping interests with normal girls. They're so absorbed in their geek lifestyle they have nothing else to talk about. When I want to talk about geeky stuff I go to Slashdot.
btw -- the stereotype of geek girls being unhealthy/unattractive is less of a stereotype and more of an observation. Geek guys tend to suffer from the same thing. Usually this has to do with the fact that geeky activities involve sitting on your ass staring at a screen and only moving your fingers. It's like the stereotype that bookworms wear glasses: it's not really a stereotype, it's a tendency, because reading for long periods of time can cause your vision to become impaired. Of course, there are exceptions: I'm a geek, a bookworm, I have 20/20 vision, I'm healthy, and I'm a sexy beast (okay, part of that is made up).
How come she insists on posting pictures of herself everywhere? It makes me question whether these are her genuine interests or whether she's just an attention whore who found an audience to exploit.
The girl geeks I've always known are butt-ugly, but the 'girl geeks' in the media are always attractive. Isn't it more sexist to only care about a girl geek's opinion because she is somewhat attractive? Judging by some writing samples, this Nixie Pixel girl looks like a moron kid and I see no reason why I should give a damn about anything she says. Because she 'dabbles' in Linux? Do you really think she would do so if it didn't fuel her website/Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/YouTube with hits from suckers such as yourself? All she does is exploit the fantasies of thousands of nerds.
That's a good point. The biggest problem with predicting future technologies is predicting the bumps in the road along the way. The Mesopotamians progressed technologically quite quickly, especially for their time. But Europeans during the medieval period progressed quite slow, especially for the time. Not to mention that the bumps in the road won't always be technological. Look at the political opposition that recently occurred with stem cells. Or to go with a more well known, historic example, the conflict between geocentric and heliocentric ideas. Then there's economics to worry about. Progress costs money.
Fortitude.
I agree. Google Translate works great, especially between Romance and Germanic languages. The Chinese to English has some hiccups but it works well enough to be functional. I don't think I've had to use it with any other languages, but I would expect similar functionality.
Will we ever have Douglas Adam's Babel Fish? I'm sure we'll get something close enough such as a Google Translate realtime Android app or something of the sort - it would input what's being said through your phone's microphone and then output a translation to your headphones. Vonnegut had a similar device in his novel Galapagos. Like I've said about Kurzweil many times before: the sci-fi authors know as much.
That's almost exactly what I was going to post. Kurzweil will say anything to get his name in the news. While I'm sure he's a most interesting conversationalist, his predictions usually make me yawn. They're either too obvious or he anticipates they'll take place so far in the future that it amounts to nothing more than a guess. I assume he puts a lot of thought and research into his predictions, but his success rate seems to be no better than that of sci-fi authors.
Take Fahrenheit 451, replace literal book burning with figurative book burning, and what do you have? Society today.
To me, it seems like Kurzweil's always trying to motivate the scientific community to make him immortal. He was on Real Time with Bill Maher the other day and it was hilarious how excited Kurzweil was over the prospect of immortality whereas Bill found the idea humorous. It's like futurism is Kurzweil's religion: he sees it as the path to eternal life as long as he can rally the scientific community behind his ideas before he dies. So in a way, he's trying to create self-fulfilling prophecies rather than truly predict what will happen.
What does your post fall under?
- We try to predict the content of posts based on our years of sociologically studying Slashdot to demonstrate our own importance and keen insight
Posts like yours, which say, "you people are going to say blah blah blah and it all amounts to nothing," show up at least once a day here. Why? I'm going to find a story about Google in the firehose and make a post that says, "You will all discuss something somewhat related to Google with the exception of some trolls and some responses to responses to responses to responses which will be offtopic; one of which will contain a Godwin. I am the Great Wizard of Slashdot. Bow before my greatness!"
Perhaps we need a new constitution if the current one is so unfavorable. I think it's about time. It's so silly how the 'interpretation' of the constitution varies from justice to justice, judge to judge, politician to politician, ect. How ridiculous is it that we deify the founding fathers and their words? James Madison was the father of the U.S. Constitution. He was the same idiot who led American troops into battle only to retreat minutes later with Washington D.C. in flames. The document is nothing but a bundle of compromises between issues that mattered 200 years ago -- the 3/5ths compromise and the bicameral congress are primary examples.
At what point will we finally say 'fuck that document and it's archaic language and ideology' and start anew? We don't even know what half the amendments mean in the context of modern society -- we've had to have judges set these ridiculous precedents that later get changed by new precedents (Dred Scott, Miranda, warrants, ect.). For some reason, everyone thinks the U.S. Constitution is in complete agreement with their own political views when nothing could be further from the truth.
Yes, AC, I see your opinions and predictions are oh so objective and well thought out.
If your plan for openness and freedom is to scare the government into implementing draconian policies that may be impossible to enforce, then you're in for a rude awakening. Marijuana prohibition is draconian and impossible to enforce but people still face legal penalties for marijuana related 'crimes.'
If you think that the whitehats are a failure then you simply don't understand security. Every increase of security limits efficiency, costs extra resources, and limits functionality. Practically every 'feature' adds to a system's insecurity. Even if you take a computer offline, it can still be compromised by means of social engineering, theft, or breaking and entering (like the computer in Mission: Impossible -- it's a hyperbolic situation that excellently demonstrates the impossibility of total security).
Security, whether digital or structural, will always consist of assessing threats and creating a barrier that is too difficult to be worth crossing. Not one that is impossible to cross, that's an impossible standard. If you live in a bad neighborhood where houses are frequently broken into, a pet pit bull to watch the house while you're at work may be sufficient security: although a burglar could kill your dog and still break into your house, most won't because it's not worth the risk. However, a bank can't use a single pit bull to secure millions of dollars. If Fort Knox was guarded by a pit bull, it wouldn't be for long. But Fort Knox isn't impenetrable, it's just not worth it for anyway. It would require so many resources and risks that anyone with those resources won't do it: guys like Goldfinger rarely, if ever, exist.
So yeah, the black hats may have swept the rug out from the feet of the white hats for right now, but it will just make the white hats much stronger. They're worth more money now and their opinions command more respect than they previously did. If your draconian policies become law the white hats working for the government will have the legal tools they need to give these black hats the Kevin Mitnick treatment (which they deserve infinitely more than he did).