Here's a nice, objective response from the Cato Institute, a bunch of swell guys who would never let their libertarian fanaticism get in the way of honest critique.
2.) "Who cares?"
Come on, let's drop this boring old stuff and go back to grandiose announcements of incremental version announcements of glib and websites that have really cool PC cases.
3.) "I got bored..."
I didn't really understand it, but being a slashdot reader I just can't admit that something went over my head, as my inadequacies in most areas have led me to overvalue my own intelligence in an attempt to assuage my own ego.
Who the hell cares that they're not "efficient"? They're moral. Or would you like to have your home just taken away and given to someone else because someone else thinks that another person would more "efficiently" use it?
Because 100 spams a day is too much to easily ignore for most of us. I don't like wading through junk, I don't like seeing something as astoundingly useful as e-mail rendered less so, and I certainly don't like subsidizing their annoying me through higher ISP charges.
Take what positions you will about other US foreign policy actions, this just seems gratuitously obnoxious on our part, unless they really are trying to push Monsanto corn on everyone.
Because most are either generic "wow that's cool" posts, or snide little comments about how.1 isn't THAT small and why isn't anyone else as good as me in math well no I'm not a semiconductor engineer but I know more about it than anyone else on earth.
Re:This will last real long.
on
Borrowing ROMs
·
· Score: 1
Uhh...they won't do it, because it would be insane. I mean, paying someone a salary to make sure that nobody's renting Krazy Klimber would just be off-the-charts crazy.
"So what did you do today, Jim?"
"Well, I made sure people can't get Bump N' Jump from that site I told you about."
"You wasted time doing that?! Just to make sure nobody on the internet can steal Bump N' Jump?!"
"Well, actually it just means nobody on this site can."
"What?! You spent time making sure all those people on that site can't take it?"
"Actually the site is set up so only one copy can be used at a time."
"So you actually took time making sure one person couldn't play Bump N' Jump. Jim, you're fired."
Only that the "Prove it" part didn't happen. Note he was not being prosecuted for demonstrating to the court official on the 18th, but rather for the initial breakin on the 8th which he did with no prodding.
So, analogy would be:
Person A: Your house is vulnerable. Somebody could break in anytime he/she wants. Person B: Is not!
Person A: Yes it is. And suggest you get it fixed before somebody takes advantage of it.
Person B: Prove it!
Person A: Puts hand on front door's doorknob, turns doorknob, pushes door open. See?
Person B: Well I'll be. I'm glad you showed me before anyone else broke in.
Person A: No problem. By the way, I did the same thing last week; went into your house, rifled through your papers, drank your beer. No need to thank me.
Because we all know how quickly the issues would have been looked at / fixed if he went thru the "proper"/cover my ass channels...
So? He wasn't an employee, he wasn't responsible for the system, and whether they fixed it or not wouldn't have affected him. That's like me breaking into your house to "prove" how bad your security is, then justifying it by complaining that if you had just told me how bad my locks were I wouldn't have changed them.
Re:Plots are all the same
on
Fahrenheit
·
· Score: 1
Yep, I've been waiting for one of those for years. Simsville was supposed to be like that I think, but that was scrapped, unfortunately. Shenmue came close, but you couldn't really interact with most objects beyond picking them up.
The reason, besides the fact that americans are generally lazier than people coming over with H1-Bs
What a load of garbage. In my last job, if you came in at 11 pm, the people there still working were almost exclusively citizens. And this was a company with a lot of H-1Bs.
Perhaps the New York Times should take their database of archived articles off line, since some of the people depicted in their stories would probably prefer if other people couldn't read about certain things they did.
Uhh...So, if the New York Times quoted someone advocating the overthrow of the government, then by that logic the reporters and editors of the paper should also grab their guns and march on Washington. That's some interesting logic; a paper should immediately assume the ideology of people it quotes.
It was an article pointing out the fact that a lot of personal data has entered the web, and it's hard to erase. What the hell is the matter with you people? Can't you tell the difference between a news or feature article and an editorial? And what's with the mindlessly combative tone? "Should we be surprised at the NYT attacking search engines?" When has the NYT come out against search engines? This makes absolutely no sense.
as if someone else remembering and sharing the things YOU publish is worse than credit card purchase databases, phone records, credit records being created and shared by OTHERS without your consent
Where does it say that the examples the article cites are WORSE than credit card purchase databases, phone records, or credit records?
The way this story submission was phrased made no sense whatsoever.
In fact what is the big deal about anime in general?
There is some very good anime, and there's a lot of bad anime; it follows Sturgeon's Law just like everything else. Unfortunately most anime fans seem to lack any critical ability when judging anime, so I think a lot of people are turned off when they turn on something that they've heard raved about, then find it isn't that good.
Personally I think Bebop is great, but I a) first watched it on DVD, which is always at least a little better than the tv versions, and b) recognize that not everyone shares my tastes. Don't give up on anime because of it, I'd just recommend you try renting a different title.
You find the 'biochemist thing' troubling, but not so much as to actually make you think in new ways? Hm. So in that case, no, I can't point out any evidence which will convince you.
In other words, "damn, I don't have any other examples, so I'll just pretend that I do but won't tell."
This does not mean that there isn't plenty of it out there; there is. Many of the greats, and many less famous scientists have been bullied, persuaded, mind-controled and, yes, in the harshest of circumstances, even killed. Go get over your mental blocks, and then go do some research.
Mind-controlled? How exactly does that work?
No. Only in the controlled experiment settings you choose to look at. --Which again cuts directly to my point that the Evidence skeptics cry for is, for all intents and purposes, unattainable. There have been a wide number of studies which have given positive results of various phenomena. But a good study doesn't mean good marketing.
No. In all experiments. None of the "promising" ones are ever successfully duplicated. This stuff isn't hard to test; if it exists it should show up easily, if it doesn't then it won't.
If someone claims they can bend spoons with their mind, let them try. If someone can read minds, then let's see them do it. There aren't millions of variables here, the majority of paranormal claims are easy to test. They never work. NEVER. It doesn't matter how many ad hominem attacks you launch against me, James Randi, or skeptics in general, it still won't make ESP exist.
but that people writing books I might want to read are penalized for the same thing?
Now you're REALLY making things up out of whole cloth. How are they penalized? This isn't a rhetorical question, please tell me how all the John Edwards, Erich von Danikens, and Uri Gellers are PENALIZED. Go ahead.
I know this is slashdot, but for some reason I was under the impression that the blokes who actually posted the stories had something at least partially resembling a clue.
I find your faith refreshing.
Maybe the reason that you don't know anybody who uses Turbolinux, dear poster, is that you almost certainly live in the states! Sigh.
Hmmm, I don't know anyone who requires insulin injections, so I'm going to assume that nobody on earth does.
And Authority, (Respected Bodies of Scientists) are NEVER going to place their jobs and reputations in jeopardy by admitting that they were wrong, that Magic exists and the $20 New Orleans psychic had it right the whole time. Just won't happen.
Only it has happened, many times. Many physicists have shown themselves to be quite credulous, which is why the best debunkers tend to be magicians.
People who get too successful in convincing the world of phenomenon outside the accepted realm of science are ridiculed, tormented, punished and murdered. Or nailed to crosses. Take your pick. There is, quite simply, NO way that a person with genuine abilities would be allowed to change the whole Western belief paradigm by way of James Randi's little challenge. --Think about it. Even in the corridors of accepted science, researchers are regularly assassinated for rocking the boat.
Right. Do you also believe in UFOs, astral projection, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trans-mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?
Can you please point out any evidence of researchers being "regularly assassinated"? Beyond the biochemist thing, which is troubling but not necessarily evidence of a conspiracy?
James Randi has too much personal stake in his 'Quest for Truth'. Remember the last time you were caught out and shown to be 180 degrees of wrong in a subject you were not just spouting with authority for years, but upon which you based massive amounts of self-worth? Perhaps this has never happened to you. Perhaps you are very good at the denial game, (which allows you to continue living in a wishful thinking daydream and not feel like a damned fool). This is James Randi. I strongly suspect that he would do almost anything to prevent himself from being proven wrong in a massive public forum. This is the kind of bias James Randi comes installed with. He has NOTHING to do with truth, and everything to do with witch hunting and serving his ego-based agenda.
Only that James Randi's challenge includes an independent judging panel agreed upon by both he and the testee. Go read how the Randi challenge is set up; it's a fair, even-handed way to test supposed supernatural powers. And on another note, he HAS been proven wrong, just not on supernatural/alien issues; check his web page. He freely admits this.
As chance would have it, I happen to know several people who have 'supernatural' abilities but who, a) Have never heard of James Randi and his little propaganda machine, b) have been so sufficiently tormented and stunted for being different while growing up by ignorant and/or cruel people around them, that they instinctively cringe away from such mean-spirited (and most likely fixed) public challenges like Randi's; they would probably shrivel up and die if forced to stand on a stage facing a million eyes determined to see only what they want to see, and to pour out only scorn and disbelief regardless of what is demonstrated
Then tell them to take the test and make a million dollars. There are thousands of people who are convinced they have powers. In controlled experiment settings, they're always proved wrong. ALWAYS. The powers evaporate, leaving a string of excuses, evasions, and prevarications.
Liberals do tend to attack the person when they are unable to justify there flawed beliefs.
Uhhh, and conservatives don't. Go turn on the Fox News Channel, or turn on Rush Limbaugh.
As I sense that since you are not only attempting to belittle Rand (understandable but sad given that you have never read enough to understand more than what your profs poured into your head) but also me, I will take your leave.
Alright, obviously you're not particularly literate in English, as I already enunciated quite clearly that my professors never even mentioned Rand, her being a third-rate intellect that most serious scholars don't even bother with.
Every discussion I have ever gotten into with a bleeding heart ends with the subtle suggestion that if I were only as smart, enlightened, educated, etc. as them that I would surely understand.
In other words, the exact attitude you're assuming? Fanatics like you truly don't see that your tactics are the same as your enemies'.
Actually I have read some. The sheer bad writing prevents me from reading more.
Rand is about more than capitalism, though not much more. It tends to appeal to younger, more naive readers who think they can identify with the characters; they're utterly convinced of their own superiority, and resentful of the world for not taking them seriously. Fortunately most people grow out of Rand before they hit their 30s.
Give me a break. What arrogance. I must be aping my professors' opinions, simply because I disagree with you? Rand will come up very rarely in philosophy courses, simply because she was such a mediocre intellect. Hell, one of my old professors was a well-known expert on Rand, and I still don't remember hearing her name in the class.
I strongly recommend you check out the philosophers who came up with much of the stuff Rand appropriated. Try Adam Smith, or Friedrich Nietzsche. If you want a more literate defender of laissez-faire capitalism, try Robert Nozick. No, they're not as easy to read as the Fountainhead, but believe me they'll be worth the effort.
Slashdot Mirror
Translations:
1.) "Read Tom G. Palmer's response"
Here's a nice, objective response from the Cato Institute, a bunch of swell guys who would never let their libertarian fanaticism get in the way of honest critique.
2.) "Who cares?"
Come on, let's drop this boring old stuff and go back to grandiose announcements of incremental version announcements of glib and websites that have really cool PC cases.
3.) "I got bored..."
I didn't really understand it, but being a slashdot reader I just can't admit that something went over my head, as my inadequacies in most areas have led me to overvalue my own intelligence in an attempt to assuage my own ego.
Who the hell cares that they're not "efficient"? They're moral. Or would you like to have your home just taken away and given to someone else because someone else thinks that another person would more "efficiently" use it?
Maybe they just thought by the year 2000 we'd have evolved to a new stage of consciousness, and would live eternal lives as cosmic spirits of energy.
It was the 70s, remember.
Because 100 spams a day is too much to easily ignore for most of us. I don't like wading through junk, I don't like seeing something as astoundingly useful as e-mail rendered less so, and I certainly don't like subsidizing their annoying me through higher ISP charges.
Take what positions you will about other US foreign policy actions, this just seems gratuitously obnoxious on our part, unless they really are trying to push Monsanto corn on everyone.
That's what you get for electing a Republican.
No, "evil" is something else. ICANN leaders are just unprincipled.
Because most are either generic "wow that's cool" posts, or snide little comments about how .1 isn't THAT small and why isn't anyone else as good as me in math well no I'm not a semiconductor engineer but I know more about it than anyone else on earth.
Uhh...they won't do it, because it would be insane. I mean, paying someone a salary to make sure that nobody's renting Krazy Klimber would just be off-the-charts crazy.
"So what did you do today, Jim?"
"Well, I made sure people can't get Bump N' Jump from that site I told you about."
"You wasted time doing that?! Just to make sure nobody on the internet can steal Bump N' Jump?!"
"Well, actually it just means nobody on this site can."
"What?! You spent time making sure all those people on that site can't take it?"
"Actually the site is set up so only one copy can be used at a time."
"So you actually took time making sure one person couldn't play Bump N' Jump. Jim, you're fired."
Only that the "Prove it" part didn't happen. Note he was not being prosecuted for demonstrating to the court official on the 18th, but rather for the initial breakin on the 8th which he did with no prodding.
So, analogy would be:
Person A: Your house is vulnerable. Somebody could break in anytime he/she wants.
Person B: Is not!
Person A: Yes it is. And suggest you get it fixed before somebody takes advantage of it.
Person B: Prove it!
Person A: Puts hand on front door's doorknob, turns doorknob, pushes door open. See?
Person B: Well I'll be. I'm glad you showed me before anyone else broke in.
Person A: No problem. By the way, I did the same thing last week; went into your house, rifled through your papers, drank your beer. No need to thank me.
Person B reaches for the cell phone...
Problem with real fencing is it's far too formalized, especially with the foil. Kind of sucks a lot of the fun out of it.
Because we all know how quickly the issues would have been looked at / fixed if he went thru the "proper"/cover my ass channels...
So? He wasn't an employee, he wasn't responsible for the system, and whether they fixed it or not wouldn't have affected him. That's like me breaking into your house to "prove" how bad your security is, then justifying it by complaining that if you had just told me how bad my locks were I wouldn't have changed them.
Yep, I've been waiting for one of those for years. Simsville was supposed to be like that I think, but that was scrapped, unfortunately. Shenmue came close, but you couldn't really interact with most objects beyond picking them up.
Or maybe he just quite naturally felt that it would be wrong to put others at risk for his own actions.
The reason, besides the fact that americans are generally lazier than people coming over with H1-Bs
What a load of garbage. In my last job, if you came in at 11 pm, the people there still working were almost exclusively citizens. And this was a company with a lot of H-1Bs.
Perhaps the New York Times should take their database of archived articles off line, since some of the people depicted in their stories would probably prefer if other people couldn't read about certain things they did.
Uhh...So, if the New York Times quoted someone advocating the overthrow of the government, then by that logic the reporters and editors of the paper should also grab their guns and march on Washington. That's some interesting logic; a paper should immediately assume the ideology of people it quotes.
It was an article pointing out the fact that a lot of personal data has entered the web, and it's hard to erase. What the hell is the matter with you people? Can't you tell the difference between a news or feature article and an editorial? And what's with the mindlessly combative tone? "Should we be surprised at the NYT attacking search engines?" When has the NYT come out against search engines? This makes absolutely no sense.
as if someone else remembering and sharing the things YOU publish is worse than credit card purchase databases, phone records, credit records being created and shared by OTHERS without your consent
Where does it say that the examples the article cites are WORSE than credit card purchase databases, phone records, or credit records?
The way this story submission was phrased made no sense whatsoever.
Reminds me of a recent penny arcade strip:
Penny-Arcade
In fact what is the big deal about anime in general?
There is some very good anime, and there's a lot of bad anime; it follows Sturgeon's Law just like everything else. Unfortunately most anime fans seem to lack any critical ability when judging anime, so I think a lot of people are turned off when they turn on something that they've heard raved about, then find it isn't that good.
Personally I think Bebop is great, but I a) first watched it on DVD, which is always at least a little better than the tv versions, and b) recognize that not everyone shares my tastes. Don't give up on anime because of it, I'd just recommend you try renting a different title.
You find the 'biochemist thing' troubling, but not so much as to actually make you think in new ways? Hm. So in that case, no, I can't point out any evidence which will convince you.
In other words, "damn, I don't have any other examples, so I'll just pretend that I do but won't tell."
This does not mean that there isn't plenty of it out there; there is. Many of the greats, and many less famous scientists have been bullied, persuaded, mind-controled and, yes, in the harshest of circumstances, even killed. Go get over your mental blocks, and then go do some research.
Mind-controlled? How exactly does that work?
No. Only in the controlled experiment settings you choose to look at. --Which again cuts directly to my point that the Evidence skeptics cry for is, for all intents and purposes, unattainable. There have been a wide number of studies which have given positive results of various phenomena. But a good study doesn't mean good marketing.
No. In all experiments. None of the "promising" ones are ever successfully duplicated. This stuff isn't hard to test; if it exists it should show up easily, if it doesn't then it won't.
If someone claims they can bend spoons with their mind, let them try. If someone can read minds, then let's see them do it. There aren't millions of variables here, the majority of paranormal claims are easy to test. They never work. NEVER. It doesn't matter how many ad hominem attacks you launch against me, James Randi, or skeptics in general, it still won't make ESP exist.
but that people writing books I might want to read are penalized for the same thing?
Now you're REALLY making things up out of whole cloth. How are they penalized? This isn't a rhetorical question, please tell me how all the John Edwards, Erich von Danikens, and Uri Gellers are PENALIZED. Go ahead.
I know this is slashdot, but for some reason I was under the impression that the blokes who actually posted the stories had something at least partially resembling a clue.
I find your faith refreshing.
Maybe the reason that you don't know anybody who uses Turbolinux, dear poster, is that you almost certainly live in the states! Sigh.
Hmmm, I don't know anyone who requires insulin injections, so I'm going to assume that nobody on earth does.
I don't know, Maine still has some amazing skies.
And Authority, (Respected Bodies of Scientists) are NEVER going to place their jobs and reputations in jeopardy by admitting that they were wrong, that Magic exists and the $20 New Orleans psychic had it right the whole time. Just won't happen.
Only it has happened, many times. Many physicists have shown themselves to be quite credulous, which is why the best debunkers tend to be magicians.
People who get too successful in convincing the world of phenomenon outside the accepted realm of science are ridiculed, tormented, punished and murdered. Or nailed to crosses. Take your pick. There is, quite simply, NO way that a person with genuine abilities would be allowed to change the whole Western belief paradigm by way of James Randi's little challenge. --Think about it. Even in the corridors of accepted science, researchers are regularly assassinated for rocking the boat.
Right. Do you also believe in UFOs, astral projection, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trans-mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?
Can you please point out any evidence of researchers being "regularly assassinated"? Beyond the biochemist thing, which is troubling but not necessarily evidence of a conspiracy?
James Randi has too much personal stake in his 'Quest for Truth'. Remember the last time you were caught out and shown to be 180 degrees of wrong in a subject you were not just spouting with authority for years, but upon which you based massive amounts of self-worth? Perhaps this has never happened to you. Perhaps you are very good at the denial game, (which allows you to continue living in a wishful thinking daydream and not feel like a damned fool). This is James Randi. I strongly suspect that he would do almost anything to prevent himself from being proven wrong in a massive public forum. This is the kind of bias James Randi comes installed with. He has NOTHING to do with truth, and everything to do with witch hunting and serving his ego-based agenda.
Only that James Randi's challenge includes an independent judging panel agreed upon by both he and the testee. Go read how the Randi challenge is set up; it's a fair, even-handed way to test supposed supernatural powers. And on another note, he HAS been proven wrong, just not on supernatural/alien issues; check his web page. He freely admits this.
As chance would have it, I happen to know several people who have 'supernatural' abilities but who, a) Have never heard of James Randi and his little propaganda machine, b) have been so sufficiently tormented and stunted for being different while growing up by ignorant and/or cruel people around them, that they instinctively cringe away from such mean-spirited (and most likely fixed) public challenges like Randi's; they would probably shrivel up and die if forced to stand on a stage facing a million eyes determined to see only what they want to see, and to pour out only scorn and disbelief regardless of what is demonstrated
Then tell them to take the test and make a million dollars. There are thousands of people who are convinced they have powers. In controlled experiment settings, they're always proved wrong. ALWAYS. The powers evaporate, leaving a string of excuses, evasions, and prevarications.
Liberals do tend to attack the person when they are unable to justify there flawed beliefs.
Uhhh, and conservatives don't. Go turn on the Fox News Channel, or turn on Rush Limbaugh.
As I sense that since you are not only attempting to belittle Rand (understandable but sad given that you have never read enough to understand more than what your profs poured into your head) but also me, I will take your leave.
Alright, obviously you're not particularly literate in English, as I already enunciated quite clearly that my professors never even mentioned Rand, her being a third-rate intellect that most serious scholars don't even bother with.
Every discussion I have ever gotten into with a bleeding heart ends with the subtle suggestion that if I were only as smart, enlightened, educated, etc. as them that I would surely understand.
In other words, the exact attitude you're assuming? Fanatics like you truly don't see that your tactics are the same as your enemies'.
You are pitiful.
Son, I think you're projecting.
Actually I have read some. The sheer bad writing prevents me from reading more.
Rand is about more than capitalism, though not much more. It tends to appeal to younger, more naive readers who think they can identify with the characters; they're utterly convinced of their own superiority, and resentful of the world for not taking them seriously. Fortunately most people grow out of Rand before they hit their 30s.
Give me a break. What arrogance. I must be aping my professors' opinions, simply because I disagree with you? Rand will come up very rarely in philosophy courses, simply because she was such a mediocre intellect. Hell, one of my old professors was a well-known expert on Rand, and I still don't remember hearing her name in the class.
I strongly recommend you check out the philosophers who came up with much of the stuff Rand appropriated. Try Adam Smith, or Friedrich Nietzsche. If you want a more literate defender of laissez-faire capitalism, try Robert Nozick. No, they're not as easy to read as the Fountainhead, but believe me they'll be worth the effort.