Saliva testing only shows up marijuana usage in the last four to five hours? What kind of weed keeps you wired (at least enough to still affect motor skills at that point) after 4 hours and where can I get some?
This isn't "exposing identities" - the vast majority of these posts are facebook and twitter accounts using their real names! These are proud racists - obviously having no issues with how other people view their thoughts. This isn't some IP-investigative / anonymous coward mission where cryptic handles are associated with real people. Their friends and family already know this stuff - there's simply more people being aware of this right now
No no, you've got it all wrong. Bitcoins will become popular as soon as hipsters become aware of it's existence. Right now, most hipsters aren't aware of bitcoins - the news feeds on their latest iGadget doesn't usually run stories on bitcoins. And they don't read "mainstream" techie sites like/. - they prefer to get their news from their local independent free magazines, and from carrier pigeons (which don't run stories on bitcoins).
But eventually one will hear about it, and when they do - they'll start foaming at the mouth and jump on that currency in a heartbeat! "Oh you still use dollar bills to buy things brah? That's so 2011. I only deal with BitCoins now. Yeah you've probably never heard of it - it's a pretty obscure currency - it's like, an only online currency dude. There's only a few places that actually accept them as a valid currency." And as he's telling his hipster friends at the local dive bar, sipping his locally brewed IPA (that his friends had to buy him, because the bar doesn't accept BitCoins yet) - his buddies will jump on the BitCoin bandwagon (but hopefully before it gets too mainstream) and hipsters will cash in on bitcoins like wildfire.
Now of course, retailers will realize this soon enough and realize they're sitting on a gold mine! All these hipsters will have bitcoins with nowhere to spend them, so every independent brewery, vintage clothing store, horn-rimmed eyeglass shop, pipe & tobacco company, scarf retailer and unsigned recording artist will immediately start accepting bit coins as a form of payment. And before we know it, bitcoins are mainstream and will be used everywhere. The only real losers here will be the hipsters after a year or two, who will be eventually disappointed when they realize bitcoins are totally mainstream now.
"Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme and will NEVER be popular or mainstream, and I will continue to shout this mantra for any story on bitcoins on Slashdot. This includes stories that contradict my position - such as this one. As a tekkie of some sorts, I am still bitter that I never involved myself with bitcoin mining during the early days despite having the resources available at the time - and I will continue spewing this nonsense until this self-fulfilling prophecy becomes true. Either that or I work for a bank / paypal"
And your point is? A collectible is a collectible. Does that mean my personally signed, limited edition discography with the number #823 / 1000 is any less valuable? If anything that increases the value
How may times SHOULD you have gone to jail for saying something: 0.
Incorrect. We don't know what he said - perhaps you have some absolutist position on discussion over the internet - that *anything* can be said without being an arrestable offense. How about some reminders of things that are said that are most certainly illegal?
- Yelling fire in a crowded theater (inciting panic)
- Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred
- Extortion
- Threats of violence, rape or murder
I shouldn't have to re-iterate that old mantra of "not all free speech is free!", and you may disagree on the law on some points like what "racial hatred" is exactly. But if you don't like what someone said and send them a message saying you will find and murder them - do you honestly believe that you shouldn't go to jail? Threats of murder get you jail time, whether it's done in person, over the phone, or over the internet - despite being "just something you said".
Mods, can you please stop modding these False Equivalencies as Insightful? It's getting really annoying. "Demicans and Republocrats are the same!! THE SAME I say. They both vote the same on these issue!" Except that whenever this mantra is repeated, you cherry pick your topics to fit your narritive of "new boss, same as the old boss". NDAA agreement, warrant-less wiretapping, war on drugs, war on Afghanistan, regard for the Bill of Rights or Constitution. The SAAAAAME I tell you!
Oh, did you leave out a few key topics where they parties might not have aligning values? Gee, how about abortion, same-sex rights (and general tolerance / attitude towards gay folk), thoughts on military spending, healthcare for the poor? Because when I hear of some US politician denying evolution and promoting intelligent design teaching in school, I would bet my life savings that there's an R next to their name in the ballot and not a D. One party (and their members) acknowledge climate change as real, and the other party has some members blaming hurricanes on gay marriage! You bet your fucking ass there's a difference between parties.
We get it. You're bitter about the two party system. Maybe the Libs or Greens are a much better choice for you, and get a somewhat passing grade in your hypothetical leadership, morals and ethics test - but they aren't getting elected any time soon. Maybe the D and R candidates both get a failing grade in your test (say 50%). But if one scores a 5% and the other gets a 40% grade, that's a huge difference - you don't get to say "Well they both get an F grade and both fail - therefore they're equally bad".
Now if the Netherlands would re-relax their laws concerning foreigners purchasing recreational drugs, I could really see a huge spike in tourism next year
I can't remember the details, I think it was a restaurant or hotel, maybe a bed and breakfast or something? I know it was here on slashdot earlier too, but the chain of events went something like this, sorry if I get the events a little mixed up or wrong.
Business sues google because of some reason, perhaps an unfavorable review or something
Business takes google to court, eventually gets a court order and forces google to remove the listing
Google complies, removes listing (not sure if they had to pay)
Google also removes the site listing from their search index
Business complains, "we didn't want all our info removed! Just the bad stuff!" or something along those lines.
Do you have some better terms for those words, that are "less offensive" or perhaps "not insulting"? Is there a better way Dawkins can label these people as that won't be insulting? Being insulted or offended is something a recipient is responsible for, not the speaker. And it doesn't matter how it's phrased - whatever words or methods he uses to describe the religious masses will be interpreted as hostile or aggressive. Really, what other words can be better used to describe the 4 you mentioned there?
They're not brainwashed, they have a "highly conditioned belief system"
They're not ignorant - they're "knowledgeably challenged"
They're not unthining - they're "consciously challenged"
and they're not delusional - they're just suffering from a bit of "truthiness perception disorder", right?
Calling people ignorant, contrary to the claim Dawkins makes, is in fact an insult;
The definition of ignorance is a lack of knowledge, education, or awareness. That's it! There's really no better word to describe the religious masses - because they don't know, they don't have knowledge. They "know" their religion is true, and don't question it. Not questioning things tends to make you ignorant.
Dawkins used to be a little nicer about this stuff. But when you publish a book called The God Delusion, I think you've gone beyond calling people "ignorant" of evolution. You've accused them of being delusional.
What's wrong with the word delusional - did you look up the definition of the word? It's pretty appropriate. Some of the first few search results.
A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary
having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions
a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc: he has delusions of grandeur
How is that not a suitable definition? Maybe more people are delusional that you realize, simply as the way you were brought up. Even if you're a more moderate religious person (i.e. evolution is real) then the definition of delusional still applies to any concept of belief. Believe in a superior being / higher power - despite having ZERO evidence, and when all evidence to date contradicts every holy scripture - then yea that's delusional.
It's not just religion - look at how superstitious people are when it comes to other things. Horoscopes, superstitious habits, reiki, tarot cards etc.. people believe the darnedest things. If I had to pull a number out of my ass, I'd bet at least 80% of North America is delusional about something in their lives - even as harmless as something like wearing some trinket in hopes of their local sports team winning. But when it's applied to religion - O NO you're insulting my beliefs and so aggressive!
In fact, I find the entire idea that someone can patent a touchescreen with some processing capability in a housing with a battery to be stupid
The touché screen - is that some special type of app that automatically finds the top 10 wittiest remarks (relevant to the current display on the screen)? That sounds like a legitimately patentable idea to me. A damn good one at that.
This video sums it up pretty nicely. Posting fake job ads, claim there aren't enough qualified local folk to fill this job, then claim an H1-B is necessary!
"What's our goal here? Well our goal is clearly NOT to find a qualified U.S. worker. That sounds funny, but that's what we're trying to do here!"
Well... I was attempting to make more of a (failed) humorous point about the ridiculousness of the premise that "Mining asteroids could present legal trouble in the United States!". If there's any chance that corporations won't mine asteroids (or at least run into legal trouble) because they're - then it's probably an equally likely (and ridiculous) that anyone attempting to land on the moon and establish a moon base would have to buy the property from Dennis Hope, or one of the millions of people he's sold "moon land" too. I'm sure the actual value of meteorite or an actual asteroid segment is pretty high per kg
Damn, I better stake my claim before it's too late. Move over Dennis Hope , there's a new real estate mogul on the market. Asteroids for sale here, only $500 each!
I highly doubt that the U.S. or any entity can claim jurisdiction on the asteroid belt and any materials, or mining techniques there. Even if they did, this doesn't seem like something that can be enforced. Maybe with tariffs on goods coming from the asteroids? Even if there was, I'm sure there's plenty of other people willing to buy the goods if they don't like the U.S. rules
Exactly, DNT is useless and the whole concept may have been deliberately designed to be useless. A little header where "DNT=1" in the html and... Presto! No more tracking!
Except that there's no way to actually enforce that companies won't track
Except that we still won't know if our browsers will give out our information even with this flag on
Except that [the Digital Advertising Alliance plainly said that it "does not require companies to honor DNT," ]
Except that there's too much money at stake to just prevent sites from gathering your data. Even if your data is anonymized (meaning you set the flag on, and you don't see targeted ads as a result) - there's no guarantee that your data isn't still being collected by 3rd parties from the sites you go to. This is why there was such a fuss over the decision to make IE10 do-not-track's setting off by default. The only way you can guarantee your data isn't being used is to prevent it from being sent in the first place, or somehow falsify the data being sent back to the server
All science fiction, but I've read quite a few of his books. Most of his novels are based around now or in the near future, and I often have some eye-opening experiences about how life & the world could be so much different if a few circumstances were changed.
I'm mostly in favor of the idea of "some basic internet access for free for everyone" as some sort of entitlement - I like the idea that if someone wishes to seek knowledge on the internet, but can't afford some basic internet for themselves - then the government (or municipality) should be providing some basic access. Free access to knowledge, basic access to learning materials and all that jazz. But they already do that (can't say if this is the case in the US or other developed nations, please correct me if I'm wrong). I worked in several remote work sites near small towns during several summers, and even the smaller towns had libraries where anyone could go use the internet for free. Most people already have some sort of basic free access to internet
Whether you consider this a "right" or "entitlement", this is pretty much in the same category as food. There's practically no starvation in the US or Canada in this day - you'll get food stamps, or a free meal at a homeless shelter, food bank donations or something if you absolutely can't afford food yourself. You won't get to go to an all-you-can-eat buffet, and you won't get lobster or caviar as your meal, but you won't starve. Similarly, you won't get high speed internet access, or access to porn, video games for your basic provided internet access at the library, nor will it be 24/7. But you can have access if you want for free. Mobile broadband as a human right? That seems fairly ridiculous, how is that even possible without first providing a mobile device to everyone? Mobile broadband as a right is a ridiculous concept.
If it's like the last preview, it needs a lot more DRAGON BURNING DOWN THE TOWN and a lot less of dwarves singing.
WHAT THE FUCK?!!!
Oh jeez, there's no satisfying some people. I can understand when nerds might dislike Matthew Mcconaughey's latest rom com because of jealousy, or because the plot is unrealistic, or because they have a Y chromosome. But even when they make a movie glorifying irritable, overweight neckbeards - arguably slashdot's greatest demographic - there's still haters!
I think that people's opinions are largely irrelevant to the actual question or the point of the question. What exactly is a good job? Using magic rock logic, you could conclude that they're doing a good job because of no plane crashes by terrorists. Or maybe their "job" is security theater, which they're doing an excellent job at.
If you polled Americans on whether they thought the IRS was doing a good job, I'd be surprised if they actually had 50% or more saying "yes" to that. Even if the bookkeeping and accounting is stellar, people will say no because they just hate paying taxes. Maybe 80% or more of that 54% that said good job don't even fly - making the question completely pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
Saliva testing only shows up marijuana usage in the last four to five hours? What kind of weed keeps you wired (at least enough to still affect motor skills at that point) after 4 hours and where can I get some?
This isn't "exposing identities" - the vast majority of these posts are facebook and twitter accounts using their real names! These are proud racists - obviously having no issues with how other people view their thoughts. This isn't some IP-investigative / anonymous coward mission where cryptic handles are associated with real people. Their friends and family already know this stuff - there's simply more people being aware of this right now
No no, you've got it all wrong. Bitcoins will become popular as soon as hipsters become aware of it's existence. Right now, most hipsters aren't aware of bitcoins - the news feeds on their latest iGadget doesn't usually run stories on bitcoins. And they don't read "mainstream" techie sites like /. - they prefer to get their news from their local independent free magazines, and from carrier pigeons (which don't run stories on bitcoins).
But eventually one will hear about it, and when they do - they'll start foaming at the mouth and jump on that currency in a heartbeat! "Oh you still use dollar bills to buy things brah? That's so 2011. I only deal with BitCoins now. Yeah you've probably never heard of it - it's a pretty obscure currency - it's like, an only online currency dude. There's only a few places that actually accept them as a valid currency." And as he's telling his hipster friends at the local dive bar, sipping his locally brewed IPA (that his friends had to buy him, because the bar doesn't accept BitCoins yet) - his buddies will jump on the BitCoin bandwagon (but hopefully before it gets too mainstream) and hipsters will cash in on bitcoins like wildfire.
Now of course, retailers will realize this soon enough and realize they're sitting on a gold mine! All these hipsters will have bitcoins with nowhere to spend them, so every independent brewery, vintage clothing store, horn-rimmed eyeglass shop, pipe & tobacco company, scarf retailer and unsigned recording artist will immediately start accepting bit coins as a form of payment. And before we know it, bitcoins are mainstream and will be used everywhere. The only real losers here will be the hipsters after a year or two, who will be eventually disappointed when they realize bitcoins are totally mainstream now.
discovered a novel way to stay mentally healthy with the help of drugs
"Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme and will NEVER be popular or mainstream, and I will continue to shout this mantra for any story on bitcoins on Slashdot. This includes stories that contradict my position - such as this one. As a tekkie of some sorts, I am still bitter that I never involved myself with bitcoin mining during the early days despite having the resources available at the time - and I will continue spewing this nonsense until this self-fulfilling prophecy becomes true. Either that or I work for a bank / paypal"
And your point is? A collectible is a collectible. Does that mean my personally signed, limited edition discography with the number #823 / 1000 is any less valuable? If anything that increases the value
How may times SHOULD you have gone to jail for saying something: 0.
Incorrect. We don't know what he said - perhaps you have some absolutist position on discussion over the internet - that *anything* can be said without being an arrestable offense. How about some reminders of things that are said that are most certainly illegal?
- Yelling fire in a crowded theater (inciting panic)
- Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred
- Extortion
- Threats of violence, rape or murder
I shouldn't have to re-iterate that old mantra of "not all free speech is free!", and you may disagree on the law on some points like what "racial hatred" is exactly. But if you don't like what someone said and send them a message saying you will find and murder them - do you honestly believe that you shouldn't go to jail? Threats of murder get you jail time, whether it's done in person, over the phone, or over the internet - despite being "just something you said".
Mods, can you please stop modding these False Equivalencies as Insightful? It's getting really annoying. "Demicans and Republocrats are the same!! THE SAME I say. They both vote the same on these issue!" Except that whenever this mantra is repeated, you cherry pick your topics to fit your narritive of "new boss, same as the old boss". NDAA agreement, warrant-less wiretapping, war on drugs, war on Afghanistan, regard for the Bill of Rights or Constitution. The SAAAAAME I tell you!
Oh, did you leave out a few key topics where they parties might not have aligning values? Gee, how about abortion, same-sex rights (and general tolerance / attitude towards gay folk), thoughts on military spending, healthcare for the poor? Because when I hear of some US politician denying evolution and promoting intelligent design teaching in school, I would bet my life savings that there's an R next to their name in the ballot and not a D. One party (and their members) acknowledge climate change as real, and the other party has some members blaming hurricanes on gay marriage! You bet your fucking ass there's a difference between parties.
We get it. You're bitter about the two party system. Maybe the Libs or Greens are a much better choice for you, and get a somewhat passing grade in your hypothetical leadership, morals and ethics test - but they aren't getting elected any time soon. Maybe the D and R candidates both get a failing grade in your test (say 50%). But if one scores a 5% and the other gets a 40% grade, that's a huge difference - you don't get to say "Well they both get an F grade and both fail - therefore they're equally bad".
Episode 7 : A crushed hope - Return of the Binks
Now if the Netherlands would re-relax their laws concerning foreigners purchasing recreational drugs, I could really see a huge spike in tourism next year
I can't remember the details, I think it was a restaurant or hotel, maybe a bed and breakfast or something? I know it was here on slashdot earlier too, but the chain of events went something like this, sorry if I get the events a little mixed up or wrong.
Business sues google because of some reason, perhaps an unfavorable review or something
Business takes google to court, eventually gets a court order and forces google to remove the listing
Google complies, removes listing (not sure if they had to pay)
Google also removes the site listing from their search index
Business complains, "we didn't want all our info removed! Just the bad stuff!" or something along those lines.
They're not brainwashed, they have a "highly conditioned belief system"
They're not ignorant - they're "knowledgeably challenged"
They're not unthining - they're "consciously challenged"
and they're not delusional - they're just suffering from a bit of "truthiness perception disorder", right?
Calling people ignorant, contrary to the claim Dawkins makes, is in fact an insult;
The definition of ignorance is a lack of knowledge, education, or awareness. That's it! There's really no better word to describe the religious masses - because they don't know, they don't have knowledge. They "know" their religion is true, and don't question it. Not questioning things tends to make you ignorant.
Dawkins used to be a little nicer about this stuff. But when you publish a book called The God Delusion, I think you've gone beyond calling people "ignorant" of evolution. You've accused them of being delusional.
What's wrong with the word delusional - did you look up the definition of the word? It's pretty appropriate. Some of the first few search results.
A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary
having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions
a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc: he has delusions of grandeur
How is that not a suitable definition? Maybe more people are delusional that you realize, simply as the way you were brought up. Even if you're a more moderate religious person (i.e. evolution is real) then the definition of delusional still applies to any concept of belief. Believe in a superior being / higher power - despite having ZERO evidence, and when all evidence to date contradicts every holy scripture - then yea that's delusional.
It's not just religion - look at how superstitious people are when it comes to other things. Horoscopes, superstitious habits, reiki, tarot cards etc.. people believe the darnedest things. If I had to pull a number out of my ass, I'd bet at least 80% of North America is delusional about something in their lives - even as harmless as something like wearing some trinket in hopes of their local sports team winning. But when it's applied to religion - O NO you're insulting my beliefs and so aggressive!
In fact, I find the entire idea that someone can patent a touchescreen with some processing capability in a housing with a battery to be stupid
The touché screen - is that some special type of app that automatically finds the top 10 wittiest remarks (relevant to the current display on the screen)? That sounds like a legitimately patentable idea to me. A damn good one at that.
This video sums it up pretty nicely. Posting fake job ads, claim there aren't enough qualified local folk to fill this job, then claim an H1-B is necessary!
"What's our goal here? Well our goal is clearly NOT to find a qualified U.S. worker. That sounds funny, but that's what we're trying to do here!"
Well... I was attempting to make more of a (failed) humorous point about the ridiculousness of the premise that "Mining asteroids could present legal trouble in the United States!". If there's any chance that corporations won't mine asteroids (or at least run into legal trouble) because they're - then it's probably an equally likely (and ridiculous) that anyone attempting to land on the moon and establish a moon base would have to buy the property from Dennis Hope, or one of the millions of people he's sold "moon land" too. I'm sure the actual value of meteorite or an actual asteroid segment is pretty high per kg
Damn, I better stake my claim before it's too late. Move over Dennis Hope , there's a new real estate mogul on the market. Asteroids for sale here, only $500 each!
I highly doubt that the U.S. or any entity can claim jurisdiction on the asteroid belt and any materials, or mining techniques there. Even if they did, this doesn't seem like something that can be enforced. Maybe with tariffs on goods coming from the asteroids? Even if there was, I'm sure there's plenty of other people willing to buy the goods if they don't like the U.S. rules
Exactly, DNT is useless and the whole concept may have been deliberately designed to be useless. A little header where "DNT=1" in the html and... Presto! No more tracking!
Except that there's no way to actually enforce that companies won't track
Except that we still won't know if our browsers will give out our information even with this flag on
Except that [the Digital Advertising Alliance plainly said that it "does not require companies to honor DNT," ]
Except that there's too much money at stake to just prevent sites from gathering your data. Even if your data is anonymized (meaning you set the flag on, and you don't see targeted ads as a result) - there's no guarantee that your data isn't still being collected by 3rd parties from the sites you go to. This is why there was such a fuss over the decision to make IE10 do-not-track's setting off by default. The only way you can guarantee your data isn't being used is to prevent it from being sent in the first place, or somehow falsify the data being sent back to the server
All science fiction, but I've read quite a few of his books. Most of his novels are based around now or in the near future, and I often have some eye-opening experiences about how life & the world could be so much different if a few circumstances were changed.
I'm mostly in favor of the idea of "some basic internet access for free for everyone" as some sort of entitlement - I like the idea that if someone wishes to seek knowledge on the internet, but can't afford some basic internet for themselves - then the government (or municipality) should be providing some basic access. Free access to knowledge, basic access to learning materials and all that jazz. But they already do that (can't say if this is the case in the US or other developed nations, please correct me if I'm wrong). I worked in several remote work sites near small towns during several summers, and even the smaller towns had libraries where anyone could go use the internet for free. Most people already have some sort of basic free access to internet
Whether you consider this a "right" or "entitlement", this is pretty much in the same category as food. There's practically no starvation in the US or Canada in this day - you'll get food stamps, or a free meal at a homeless shelter, food bank donations or something if you absolutely can't afford food yourself. You won't get to go to an all-you-can-eat buffet, and you won't get lobster or caviar as your meal, but you won't starve. Similarly, you won't get high speed internet access, or access to porn, video games for your basic provided internet access at the library, nor will it be 24/7. But you can have access if you want for free. Mobile broadband as a human right? That seems fairly ridiculous, how is that even possible without first providing a mobile device to everyone? Mobile broadband as a right is a ridiculous concept.
If it's like the last preview, it needs a lot more DRAGON BURNING DOWN THE TOWN and a lot less of dwarves singing. WHAT THE FUCK ?!!!
Oh jeez, there's no satisfying some people. I can understand when nerds might dislike Matthew Mcconaughey's latest rom com because of jealousy, or because the plot is unrealistic, or because they have a Y chromosome. But even when they make a movie glorifying irritable, overweight neckbeards - arguably slashdot's greatest demographic - there's still haters!
What's that Baxter? You managed to injure 7 workers and set the factory on fire? How'd you do that? Heck, I'm not even mad, that's amazing!
Preferably with blackjack and hookers?
I think that people's opinions are largely irrelevant to the actual question or the point of the question. What exactly is a good job? Using magic rock logic, you could conclude that they're doing a good job because of no plane crashes by terrorists. Or maybe their "job" is security theater, which they're doing an excellent job at.
If you polled Americans on whether they thought the IRS was doing a good job, I'd be surprised if they actually had 50% or more saying "yes" to that. Even if the bookkeeping and accounting is stellar, people will say no because they just hate paying taxes. Maybe 80% or more of that 54% that said good job don't even fly - making the question completely pointless.