Pro tip: never trust your domain or your business to a company who got its name from a Thrill Kill Kult song and advertises its services with soft-core porn.
That seems like it would depend on what I used my domain for or what my business was. Soft-core porn site? Seems fitting.
Apparently, slashdot feels like telling the omnipotent mysterious monolith what to do. Bad idea...
(spoilers for 3001, although its been a while and I have a bad memory so maybe not...)
Not really, the monoliths were destroyed by a computer virus in 3001 if I recall, so I'm sure slashdot could come up with enough goatse trolls, rickrolls, kdawson stories, overrated moderations etc to annoy the monoliths into leaving, if not blowing up.
I'll get things started
I, for one, welcome our monolithic, slashdot browsing, beowulf cluster running overlords.
It hasn't been going on for billions of years so complex life forms can not have had time to evolve.
The graphic on this wiki page suggests that life on earth arose 1.5 billion years after the earth was formed, nearly two billion years went by before multicellular life, and then another billion years before cnidarians, which developmentally are reasonably close to us and certainly what I would consider complex, were around. I don't know much about that, and I doubt anyone knows for sure what was going on in that time, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that a ~4 billion lag time from when your planet/moon is around to when complex life forms is a -universal- constant. There's nothing to say it couldn't happen much much faster on Enceladus, we only have one example of life arising, it would be a mistake to assume that is the constant or even typical rate of life arising. The cambrian explosion is certainly evidence that the rate changes wildly. Furthermore, we haven't even -seen- this environment, the only thing we know about it is that it's possible and it isn't like earth, so if we should expect anything, its that the timeline for life arising on Enceladus would be significantly different from Earth's.
things like second life make me afraid the movie idiocracy will come true...
Really? In terms of stupidity, second life is far, far better than some things people did with their time in the past. Burning women at the stake for being witches comes to mind. We're not doing that anymore, I have to think that's a strong sign we're improving over time.
How do I protect myself from a skimmer inside a gas pump?
Or use a bike. Better for you and the environment too at the same time.
Okay, that's one problem avoided. So then how would one protect themselves from a skimmer on any other type of card reader, like at an ATM, vending machine, or a gas pump since no, you can't always just bike everywhere.
When are the "cheerleaders getting dressed" videos going to leak? You know someone was making them...
I didn't know you were into that. I'll borrow my mom's car after this hot pocket and go by salvation army today to get a cheerleader outfit and e-mail the video to you. Not sure what the odds are that they'll have a 3xl cheerleader skirt though...
You probably made the rookie mistake of diluting the undiluted water with undiluted water. That will totally cancel it out. You should repeat the test, diluting the water with diluted water, and I think you'll find it quenches thirst better.
My guess is that it's some type of blood disease (hemo = blood, pathy= disease) that makes you dramatically misunderstand how evolution works. Specifically the hemopath, who we can call nitehawk here, fails to recieve enough oxygen to the brain, making him think that evolution works to reduce the number of stupid people by killing them, when in fact evolution appears to work on whole species rather than individuals in a species, and doesn't work on anything like "intelligence" but only fitness. A secondary effect would be mistaking ignorance as to the effectiveness of homeopathy for stupidity. In fact, I'd argue that there are many smart people who use homeopathic medicine. In those cases, society and the medical profession have failed to adequately educate those people.
Part of this is because you obviously have a much better chance of demonstrating effectiveness if your competitor is 'nothing,' whereas using an active comparator (product X) runs the risk of making you look no better than product X.
So do you/they run the active comparator test and not publish the results if they're not better than X, or do you/they not run the test at all because if they weren't better than X they'd be obligated to report it? Obviously if it performed much better than X they'd want to tell people, you're saying they don't always risk finding that out?
Herbal medicine (a.k.a. naturopathy ) is BY NO MEANS the same thing as homeopathy. You should really educate yourself before you start correcting people
The wiki page for naturopathy mentions some controversy over a lack of concrete evidence it works. Apparently homeopathy does too. A wiki mention of controversy doesn't prove much of anything, but I'm not a medical expert, so I have no way of evaluating either on my own. Before I educate myself further on the differences between the two, tell me honestly, is it two different words for snake oil? Because if neither one has proof going for it, I think my time would be better spent browsing youtube comments.
Typical corporate PR hypocrisy on **anything** that might appeal to heterosexual male sexuality
FTFY. Lets not be confused about the motivations behind this. Apple is not taking a stand against male sexuality, they're trying to convince more parents to buy iphones for their kids.
It appears all you know about feminism comes from corporate press statements and talk radio, which might be why you have such a low opinion of it.
Yes: phrasing. One was an offhand statement of opinion phrased in such a way that it could be taken as a call for censorship
I'd argue that we probably shouldn't assume someone, especially on slashdot, is advocating censorship if the statement could be taken another way and such a statement would be a complete tangent, unless that person is an elected official. For the record, I'm not.
that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknob of an insecure office and make copies of highly confidential documents.
Makes you wonder if the reporter had typed in "http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/project" on the first try instead of the 3,727th try, would the government have been okay with that? If a reporter were outside an unlocked government door, pawing it 3,727 times before successfully opening it, that would be pretty strange, but doesn't change anything.
Who are you, and why are you deciding what should I watch?
I'm not the IOC, nor am I trying to prevent you from watching it, so calm down, don't get your tinfoil undies in a knot. I'm just saying it's pretty tasteless to gawk at a tragedy like that. I'm also not trying to claim a moral superiority here. I was tempted to watch it myself, and I have seen other videos that were similarly tasteless. So go ahead, you'd be no worse than I am, but I do think it is tasteless, just my opinion.
If we started making exceptions to freedom of speech/press every time somebody got offended, then we would be left with nothing.
I think there's a pretty clear line between "not showing someone getting killed" and "not showing anything offensive to anyone."
It's my opinion however that "not showing someone dying" should not be enforced by law, enforced by corporate interests, and especially not barred by copyright law used as a weapon by corporate interests. Blogger showing it was bad, IOC was even worse.
I'm sure you have some way of guaranteeing that the exchange via Internet will be "productive", and not a lot of name-calling by both sides?
Man, I really thought the sarcasm was so thick in my post that no one would mistake it for seriousness.
No, I don't, I'm pretty sure this will start and end with trolling and misguided proselytizing on both sides, having accomplished nothing other than possibly some death threats. You know, just as all other interactions on the internet, and all interactions between the arab world and the west tend to be.
The IOC has taken an extreme protectionist stance on all its content for many years. It doesn't matter if it's fair use or not, the IOC will object on principle.
The Olympics are big money.
I think this actually IS a new low for the IOC. They're going to profit from the images taken at the games, that's normal.
Ordering a blogger to take down video would be pretty low and stupid as is: as if someone is going to watch someone's blog instead of the games on NBC or whatever. That's absurd. A blogger is no competition.
What takes this to a whole new level is that it's the death of a competitor.... so... THE IOC IS HOPING TO PROFIT FROM THE VIDEO OF THIS ATHELETE DYING?!?
Jesus.
Were it not the IOC I would assume this was done in the name of taste. People shouldn't be watching videos of a tragic event like this. But it being the IOC, and seeing as they just claimed Lindsey Vonn's name (or exclusive rights to use it in advertising... whatever...), I have to think that this is -at best- an attempt to set a precedent that absolutely all video from the olympics are absolutely the IOCs property, and can't be shown anywhere. More likely, they're going to try to sell the video to news organizations and want a fucking monopoly.
Actually, there IS the possibility that due to a translation error, some people could be offended by the resulting statements. We should probably have an open, mature dialogue in advance with the Arab world about how cultural differences are not necessarily evil, just different, and they could discuss their values so we could take those into account when communicating, and we could pledge to respect those. That way, when such translation errors come up, both sides will realize that no offense was meant, and none will be taken. Otherwise there could be some hurt feelings, although I guess we would sort it out quickly by just talking it out. Other than that, I can't think of anything that will go wrong with a productive exchange via Internet.
To be fair, the "Mike & Ike" claim was made by the kid. And he might be lying.
Which one has more credibility though: the kid, or the school which enacted a horribly invasive home spying program disguised as free laptops? The school essentially lied to hundreds of families in addition to violating their privacy, and then was so stupid they confronted the victims with proof that they were spying on them.
I'd say even if the kid had a prior drug conviction (which he doesn't appear to), I'd trust his word and judgment over the moronic criminals running his school.
Slashdot Mirror
Pro tip: never trust your domain or your business to a company who got its name from a Thrill Kill Kult song and advertises its services with soft-core porn.
That seems like it would depend on what I used my domain for or what my business was. Soft-core porn site? Seems fitting.
Apparently, slashdot feels like telling the omnipotent mysterious monolith what to do. Bad idea...
(spoilers for 3001, although its been a while and I have a bad memory so maybe not...)
Not really, the monoliths were destroyed by a computer virus in 3001 if I recall, so I'm sure slashdot could come up with enough goatse trolls, rickrolls, kdawson stories, overrated moderations etc to annoy the monoliths into leaving, if not blowing up.
I'll get things started
I, for one, welcome our monolithic, slashdot browsing, beowulf cluster running overlords.
It hasn't been going on for billions of years so complex life forms can not have had time to evolve.
The graphic on this wiki page suggests that life on earth arose 1.5 billion years after the earth was formed, nearly two billion years went by before multicellular life, and then another billion years before cnidarians, which developmentally are reasonably close to us and certainly what I would consider complex, were around. I don't know much about that, and I doubt anyone knows for sure what was going on in that time, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that a ~4 billion lag time from when your planet/moon is around to when complex life forms is a -universal- constant. There's nothing to say it couldn't happen much much faster on Enceladus, we only have one example of life arising, it would be a mistake to assume that is the constant or even typical rate of life arising. The cambrian explosion is certainly evidence that the rate changes wildly. Furthermore, we haven't even -seen- this environment, the only thing we know about it is that it's possible and it isn't like earth, so if we should expect anything, its that the timeline for life arising on Enceladus would be significantly different from Earth's.
Which in some ways is at least more -rational-, though not better or more moral, than killing them because we think they're fictional monsters.
I obviously didn't say we were -much- better today, just that to me, it doesn't seem we're getting dumber.
things like second life make me afraid the movie idiocracy will come true...
Really? In terms of stupidity, second life is far, far better than some things people did with their time in the past. Burning women at the stake for being witches comes to mind. We're not doing that anymore, I have to think that's a strong sign we're improving over time.
How do I protect myself from a skimmer inside a gas pump?
Or use a bike. Better for you and the environment too at the same time.
Okay, that's one problem avoided. So then how would one protect themselves from a skimmer on any other type of card reader, like at an ATM, vending machine, or a gas pump since no, you can't always just bike everywhere.
Ride 50 miles one way to work on your bicycle.
Not too hard, I'd only need to do it once before my boss fires me for being 4 hours late.
When are the "cheerleaders getting dressed" videos going to leak? You know someone was making them...
I didn't know you were into that. I'll borrow my mom's car after this hot pocket and go by salvation army today to get a cheerleader outfit and e-mail the video to you. Not sure what the odds are that they'll have a 3xl cheerleader skirt though...
You probably made the rookie mistake of diluting the undiluted water with undiluted water. That will totally cancel it out. You should repeat the test, diluting the water with diluted water, and I think you'll find it quenches thirst better.
That would be the end of life as we know it. Quite literally, as a matter of fact, since we're all made of carbon.
Bah. I'm nitrogen-based, so the only thing I'll need to worry about is head shoulders shampoo.
Hemopathy, what's that?
My guess is that it's some type of blood disease (hemo = blood, pathy= disease) that makes you dramatically misunderstand how evolution works. Specifically the hemopath, who we can call nitehawk here, fails to recieve enough oxygen to the brain, making him think that evolution works to reduce the number of stupid people by killing them, when in fact evolution appears to work on whole species rather than individuals in a species, and doesn't work on anything like "intelligence" but only fitness. A secondary effect would be mistaking ignorance as to the effectiveness of homeopathy for stupidity. In fact, I'd argue that there are many smart people who use homeopathic medicine. In those cases, society and the medical profession have failed to adequately educate those people.
Part of this is because you obviously have a much better chance of demonstrating effectiveness if your competitor is 'nothing,' whereas using an active comparator (product X) runs the risk of making you look no better than product X.
So do you/they run the active comparator test and not publish the results if they're not better than X, or do you/they not run the test at all because if they weren't better than X they'd be obligated to report it? Obviously if it performed much better than X they'd want to tell people, you're saying they don't always risk finding that out?
As everyone knows the more you dilute a Homeopatheic reagent the more powerful it becomes.
Hmm... I find that actually works quite well with water and thirst. The more I dillute my water, the more effective it becomes at curing my thirst.
Herbal medicine (a.k.a. naturopathy ) is BY NO MEANS the same thing as homeopathy. You should really educate yourself before you start correcting people
The wiki page for naturopathy mentions some controversy over a lack of concrete evidence it works. Apparently homeopathy does too. A wiki mention of controversy doesn't prove much of anything, but I'm not a medical expert, so I have no way of evaluating either on my own. Before I educate myself further on the differences between the two, tell me honestly, is it two different words for snake oil? Because if neither one has proof going for it, I think my time would be better spent browsing youtube comments.
Typical corporate PR hypocrisy on **anything** that might appeal to heterosexual male sexuality
FTFY. Lets not be confused about the motivations behind this. Apple is not taking a stand against male sexuality, they're trying to convince more parents to buy iphones for their kids.
It appears all you know about feminism comes from corporate press statements and talk radio, which might be why you have such a low opinion of it.
I find it laughable that slashdot labels so many stories as evil censorship or somehow violating "your rights online" when it is nothing of the sort.
The fact is, a consumer retailer like Apple can censor whatever products to choose to its customers.
FTFY
Right now they are no different that a tee shirt shop that doesn't want to carry tee shirts pro KKK shirts.
Did you just compare porn to the ku klux klan? What the hell type of porn do you watch? Alternatively, what the hell happens at a KKK uh... meeting?
Do you see the difference?
Yes: phrasing. One was an offhand statement of opinion phrased in such a way that it could be taken as a call for censorship
I'd argue that we probably shouldn't assume someone, especially on slashdot, is advocating censorship if the statement could be taken another way and such a statement would be a complete tangent, unless that person is an elected official. For the record, I'm not.
that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknob of an insecure office and make copies of highly confidential documents.
Makes you wonder if the reporter had typed in "http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/project" on the first try instead of the 3,727th try, would the government have been okay with that? If a reporter were outside an unlocked government door, pawing it 3,727 times before successfully opening it, that would be pretty strange, but doesn't change anything.
Who are you, and why are you deciding what should I watch?
I'm not the IOC, nor am I trying to prevent you from watching it, so calm down, don't get your tinfoil undies in a knot. I'm just saying it's pretty tasteless to gawk at a tragedy like that. I'm also not trying to claim a moral superiority here. I was tempted to watch it myself, and I have seen other videos that were similarly tasteless. So go ahead, you'd be no worse than I am, but I do think it is tasteless, just my opinion.
If we started making exceptions to freedom of speech/press every time somebody got offended, then we would be left with nothing.
I think there's a pretty clear line between "not showing someone getting killed" and "not showing anything offensive to anyone."
It's my opinion however that "not showing someone dying" should not be enforced by law, enforced by corporate interests, and especially not barred by copyright law used as a weapon by corporate interests. Blogger showing it was bad, IOC was even worse.
I'm sure you have some way of guaranteeing that the exchange via Internet will be "productive", and not a lot of name-calling by both sides?
Man, I really thought the sarcasm was so thick in my post that no one would mistake it for seriousness.
No, I don't, I'm pretty sure this will start and end with trolling and misguided proselytizing on both sides, having accomplished nothing other than possibly some death threats. You know, just as all other interactions on the internet, and all interactions between the arab world and the west tend to be.
The IOC has taken an extreme protectionist stance on all its content for many years. It doesn't matter if it's fair use or not, the IOC will object on principle.
The Olympics are big money.
I think this actually IS a new low for the IOC. They're going to profit from the images taken at the games, that's normal.
Ordering a blogger to take down video would be pretty low and stupid as is: as if someone is going to watch someone's blog instead of the games on NBC or whatever. That's absurd. A blogger is no competition.
What takes this to a whole new level is that it's the death of a competitor.... so... THE IOC IS HOPING TO PROFIT FROM THE VIDEO OF THIS ATHELETE DYING?!?
Jesus.
Were it not the IOC I would assume this was done in the name of taste. People shouldn't be watching videos of a tragic event like this. But it being the IOC, and seeing as they just claimed Lindsey Vonn's name (or exclusive rights to use it in advertising... whatever...), I have to think that this is -at best- an attempt to set a precedent that absolutely all video from the olympics are absolutely the IOCs property, and can't be shown anywhere. More likely, they're going to try to sell the video to news organizations and want a fucking monopoly.
...what could possibly go wrong?
Actually, there IS the possibility that due to a translation error, some people could be offended by the resulting statements. We should probably have an open, mature dialogue in advance with the Arab world about how cultural differences are not necessarily evil, just different, and they could discuss their values so we could take those into account when communicating, and we could pledge to respect those. That way, when such translation errors come up, both sides will realize that no offense was meant, and none will be taken. Otherwise there could be some hurt feelings, although I guess we would sort it out quickly by just talking it out. Other than that, I can't think of anything that will go wrong with a productive exchange via Internet.
To be fair, the "Mike & Ike" claim was made by the kid. And he might be lying.
Which one has more credibility though: the kid, or the school which enacted a horribly invasive home spying program disguised as free laptops? The school essentially lied to hundreds of families in addition to violating their privacy, and then was so stupid they confronted the victims with proof that they were spying on them.
I'd say even if the kid had a prior drug conviction (which he doesn't appear to), I'd trust his word and judgment over the moronic criminals running his school.