Has it become fashionable to not even read TFS now? It specifically says "opt in service", ie. if you find the intrusion of privacy unacceptable, you don't have to sign up. There is NOTHING morally wrong about any of this.
This isn't about capitalism or democracy, this is about individual freedom. The Chinese government, by censoring everything, is taking away its citizens' freedom to know what is going on. The Chinese government doesn't own the citizens as slaves and thus has no right to do this to them. The US, as a self-proclaimed defender of the citizens' freedom, is rightfully criticizing China.
You can't just put the pepper in a blender and expect the capsaicin to rise to the top. Distilling is hard. If you start with something which is already over 6% capsaicin, it will be a lot easier to get to the 30-35% in pepper spray than it is from one of the milder peppers.
Flame me but can't we just let individuals choose their own path? There is no reason the Chinese government needs to force their world view down their citizens' throats.
using the term "Free Software" is implying that someone sides with the FSF and GPL over other open source licenses.
No, the term "free software" implies the four freedoms, nothing more, nothing less. There's lots of pubic domain and BSD-ware which is called free software (eg. Chromium, Postgres, BSD itself). If you're trying to draw a line between free software and open source, the line has already been drawn.
Because "don't set this place on fire" is not a fire escape plan. Bugs and vulnerabilities will happen either way, and you still need a plan for dealing with them.
No, it's probably because in that experiment the best liar is the only one who doesn't have an incentive to misreport (ie. lie about) the results. Counterintuitive, I know.
I would say yes, it is acceptable. Consider the full consequences, not just the immediate:
1) You don't give him the money. A child dies, but leaving behind a lot of evidence and likely causing the criminal to go to jail (or at least get really psychologically shaken up and maybe change his ways)
2) You do give him the money. No one dies, but the criminal gets a few hundred dollars and gets away. Encouraged by his success, he goes out and does it again, and so do his friends. Even more people will give the criminals money, and one or more children will die along the way.
It's like blackmail, going along only makes sense in the short term.
If a robber points a gun at a child and tells you to hand over all your money, and you refuse, and the child gets shot, you are NOT responsible for the child's death. That would be ridiculous, and would essentially give criminals legal force. The robber alone is responsible.
Pragmatically, this might cause trouble for Hong Kong, but morally, Google's in the right here.
No. Anarchy is undemocratic, because for practical purposes, in an anarchic state, the strong rule the weak.
Look at that word again. An-archy. No ruler. If you have the strong ruling over the weak, you have a ruler, and therefore no anarchy. Anarchy is impractical beyond a certain size and difficult to maintain, but in a functioning anarchy no one has control over what you do or don't do. I agree that anarchy is undemocratic, since in a demo-cracy the people are in control of everything. In an anarchy, each individual is in control over himself.
Listen closely. I'd like to help you but I can't. I'd like to tell you to take a copy of your policy to Norma Wilcox on... Norma Wilcox, W-I-L-C-O-X... on the third floor, but I can't. I also do not advise you to fill out and file a WS2475 form with our legal department on the second floor. I would not expect someone to get back to you quickly to resolve the matter. I'd like to help, but there's nothing I can do.
Don't just switch to Linux. Switch to 1/4 Linux, 1/4 BSD, 1/4 Mac and 1/4 Solaris. That way it'll be extremely difficult to, through security vulnerabilities in the systems, take out more than 1/4 of the network. Taking out more than 1/2 of the network will be virtually impossible.
Microsoft(R) Windows - The world's most widely used operating system, designed by Microsoft with you in mind.
GNU 1.0 - Will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience with other operating systems. When we get around to it, we will add a portable Common Lisp, a spreadsheet and an Empire game.
Unix 1.0 - Experience history in a lively, engaging way with the original Unix terminal, running on modern hardware over 2000 times as powerful as should be enough for anybody.
Windows 95 - Still the world's best operating system, featuring a friendly user environment with Microsoft Bob.
Emacs - An extremely intuitive and powerful operating system, now enhanced with a decent text editor (vim).
So if a comment disagrees with your opinions in one part it makes the rest of the comment no longer informative? It doesn't matter how much you dislike the parent's anti-government ideology, you're still being biased when the job (moderation) you took up calls for neutrality.
The summary sounds like "we underestimated how dangerous a medium distance fall can be, so we didn't have the correct priorities and more people died than could have". That isn't really a flaw in the algorithm, it's just a flaw in one specific parameter in the algorithm.
Simpler explanation: Latin plurals ending in -ii (eg. filii, anything ending in -arii, nuntii) come from singulars ending in -ius, so the -us -> -i 2nd declension plural rule still holds. "virii", if it exists, can only be a plural of "virius".
Slashdot Mirror
To me, the summary feels like it's trying to talk about something, but just as a background for the overarching sexual metaphor.
Has it become fashionable to not even read TFS now? It specifically says "opt in service", ie. if you find the intrusion of privacy unacceptable, you don't have to sign up. There is NOTHING morally wrong about any of this.
They're the same thing.
Just Verizon's 0.002 cents.
This isn't about capitalism or democracy, this is about individual freedom. The Chinese government, by censoring everything, is taking away its citizens' freedom to know what is going on. The Chinese government doesn't own the citizens as slaves and thus has no right to do this to them. The US, as a self-proclaimed defender of the citizens' freedom, is rightfully criticizing China.
You can't just put the pepper in a blender and expect the capsaicin to rise to the top. Distilling is hard. If you start with something which is already over 6% capsaicin, it will be a lot easier to get to the 30-35% in pepper spray than it is from one of the milder peppers.
Flame me but can't we just let individuals choose their own path? There is no reason the Chinese government needs to force their world view down their citizens' throats.
using the term "Free Software" is implying that someone sides with the FSF and GPL over other open source licenses.
No, the term "free software" implies the four freedoms, nothing more, nothing less. There's lots of pubic domain and BSD-ware which is called free software (eg. Chromium, Postgres, BSD itself). If you're trying to draw a line between free software and open source, the line has already been drawn.
Unix time going up to 2038 is 2^31 seconds, or 4 bytes.
Yeah, the summary was a bit unclear on that one.
Because "don't set this place on fire" is not a fire escape plan. Bugs and vulnerabilities will happen either way, and you still need a plan for dealing with them.
No, it's probably because in that experiment the best liar is the only one who doesn't have an incentive to misreport (ie. lie about) the results. Counterintuitive, I know.
I would say yes, it is acceptable. Consider the full consequences, not just the immediate:
1) You don't give him the money. A child dies, but leaving behind a lot of evidence and likely causing the criminal to go to jail (or at least get really psychologically shaken up and maybe change his ways)
2) You do give him the money. No one dies, but the criminal gets a few hundred dollars and gets away. Encouraged by his success, he goes out and does it again, and so do his friends. Even more people will give the criminals money, and one or more children will die along the way.
It's like blackmail, going along only makes sense in the short term.
Or maybe the people who don't have moral or emotional problems with lying are more likely to get into power.
If a robber points a gun at a child and tells you to hand over all your money, and you refuse, and the child gets shot, you are NOT responsible for the child's death. That would be ridiculous, and would essentially give criminals legal force. The robber alone is responsible.
Pragmatically, this might cause trouble for Hong Kong, but morally, Google's in the right here.
No. Anarchy is undemocratic, because for practical purposes, in an anarchic state, the strong rule the weak.
Look at that word again. An-archy. No ruler. If you have the strong ruling over the weak, you have a ruler, and therefore no anarchy. Anarchy is impractical beyond a certain size and difficult to maintain, but in a functioning anarchy no one has control over what you do or don't do. I agree that anarchy is undemocratic, since in a demo-cracy the people are in control of everything. In an anarchy, each individual is in control over himself.
Listen closely. I'd like to help you but I can't. I'd like to tell you to take a copy of your policy to Norma Wilcox on... Norma Wilcox, W-I-L-C-O-X... on the third floor, but I can't. I also do not advise you to fill out and file a WS2475 form with our legal department on the second floor. I would not expect someone to get back to you quickly to resolve the matter. I'd like to help, but there's nothing I can do.
He specifically said that he was posting to undo the moderation.
Don't just switch to Linux. Switch to 1/4 Linux, 1/4 BSD, 1/4 Mac and 1/4 Solaris. That way it'll be extremely difficult to, through security vulnerabilities in the systems, take out more than 1/4 of the network. Taking out more than 1/2 of the network will be virtually impossible.
Security through variety, it could have saved a million lives if it was implemented
#1? So what's the error above that?
Russia seems like a paradise
Choose your operating system(s)
Microsoft(R) Windows - The world's most widely used operating system, designed by Microsoft with you in mind.
GNU 1.0 - Will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience with other operating systems. When we get around to it, we will add a portable Common Lisp, a spreadsheet and an Empire game.
Unix 1.0 - Experience history in a lively, engaging way with the original Unix terminal, running on modern hardware over 2000 times as powerful as should be enough for anybody.
Windows 95 - Still the world's best operating system, featuring a friendly user environment with Microsoft Bob.
Emacs - An extremely intuitive and powerful operating system, now enhanced with a decent text editor (vim).
The filter already exists. And it seems to be working quite well right now.
So if a comment disagrees with your opinions in one part it makes the rest of the comment no longer informative? It doesn't matter how much you dislike the parent's anti-government ideology, you're still being biased when the job (moderation) you took up calls for neutrality.
The summary sounds like "we underestimated how dangerous a medium distance fall can be, so we didn't have the correct priorities and more people died than could have". That isn't really a flaw in the algorithm, it's just a flaw in one specific parameter in the algorithm.
Simpler explanation: Latin plurals ending in -ii (eg. filii, anything ending in -arii, nuntii) come from singulars ending in -ius, so the -us -> -i 2nd declension plural rule still holds. "virii", if it exists, can only be a plural of "virius".