So what you're saying is - you don't have to wade into the shallow end of the gene pool?
I shop at Wal-mart because I'm a cheap bastard. I worked their for 2 years (Really. And I have no problems with the way they treat their workers. Crazy, huh?) and, outside of some of the people who work/shop there, I have no problems with them. If you use common sense, you can get quality product at a good price.
don't forget Amazon Prime. $80/yr for free 2-day shipping? That's a guaranteed money-loser for them.
Most businesses do not have consciences, especially those with over a billion dollars in revenues, so stop trying to pretend that they do. There is no way that they put out a "guaranteed money-loser." Period. Either it makes them money or they stop doing it. My best guess - Amazon Prime encourages users to use Amazon more consistently which allows a greater amount of profit to be gleaned from them than if they had not signed up for Amazon Prime. My employer offers free 3-day shipping for $30 a year. Some online retailers offer free shipping all year with no requirement of membership to a "special club." Most retailers offer free shipping offers so regularly that it might as well be 100% free all the time.
If you don't believe me, check out this trade magazine for more than 3 seconds. Amazon Prime is not some amazingly special gift from God to Amazon's customers. It is a money making tool, plain and simple.
First, he DID cause the mob to gather. He was hosting a concert. He did not, however, ask the mob to become unruly.
Second, asking someone to refrain from committing a crime is not akin to admitting that you caused them to start committing a crime. If that were the case, then asking someone to stop raping you would be an admission that you wanted to have sex with them in the first place. It doesn't make much sense, does it?
Now I'm just plain confused. Either way, Obama is the problem. Encouraging volunteerism is bad, but not allowing it is bad, too. Maybe he should do nothing and visit with nobody. Perhaps we will be happy then. I hope so, I'm getting sick and tired of being sick and tired of Obama and his confusing rhetoric.
even if there is no difference false positives are much more acceptable then false negatives.
Exactly. The only time this would be a bad thing is if it actually discourages people from taking the real positives sincerely since there would be such a multitude of false positives.
On a side note, I wish people could stop dismissing new technologies because there's a road block in the way of it being viable. Although there are problems, progress can still be made. Even if the technology at hand is not 100% viable and never ends up working, it can lead to future discoveries that benefit everyone.
Well, there are plenty of states who allow single parent adoption but disallow gay adoption. That's how Rose O'Donnell got her kids before she came out of the closet. The only reason for circumstances like this is homophobia.
Regardless, I cannot see any reasonable argument that says that children are better off bouncing from foster home to foster home than with two parents who want to raise them. There is nothing that I have seen that says the first situation is better, outside of homophobic paranoia.
This could be a setback, but my guess is that there would be a "glowing bacterial density" that you could look at. If everything's faintly glowing green in an area, then there's a spot where it's bright green, you'd take special care around that spot.
I'm not 100% sure how it would work, but this could save lives.
So you would like to ban single parent families then? Me too. Let's get to work. We should be able to get plenty of your friends who agree with the necessity of having both male and female parents to join us. Legislation should be quick and easy.
How is giving "scoops" to every network other than FOX News any different from giving them to ONLY FOX? If you want to bedevil Obama's White House for his treatment of FOX, you have to do the same thing to Bush's for his preference for FOX.
Actually, you presume that our current state is better than the state they were originally in. You assume that the Native Americans are better off now because we live in a "civilized" country. Maybe they were, and we would be, better off living in nomadic societies. By your standards, sure, we're better off, but that doesn't mean that they are in other sets of standards.
Actually, within context, a fart can send a message and be interpreted as "speech." For instance, intentionally passing gas in someone's presence is considered to be an offensive gesture.
You're right, it's a lame joke taken out of context. Hell, taken within context, it's a lame joke. Even so, it definitely was NOT flamebait.
Let's take a look at what flamebait is, shall we? As defined by some random guy on the internet, flamebait is a message deliberately crafted in order to provoke an angry flame as a response.
Clearly, that's not the case. I was following the down the line of jokes that were made based on "misunderstanding" words to have definitions of similar sounding words, not to attack a guy for being so stupid that he thought girls liking girls was relevant. Even if you disagree with me being modded funny, I should NOT have been modded down as flamebait.
I think that by the time consumption exceeds production in the way you are inferring, oil stock will be complete crap. It will be well known that oil reserves will be drying up and the life cycle of the oil industry is on the downslide.
Just because prices are going up, doesn't mean you should invest in those companies. Perhaps you should consider speculating on crude instead. There was a boatload to be made that way in '08. And then a boatload that was lost doing that, but whatever.
I think that you're the one who is mistaken. Let's take a look at the second part the phrase "law enforcement." To enforce means to ensure observance of laws and rules.
So the job of the police is to make sure that the law is followed. To me this seems like a prevention issue. What most people think is the job of the police, catching bad guys, is actually only in service to prevention of future crime. Catching and punishing criminals helps to ensure that they don't repeat their crimes, and also helps to ensure that other people know the consequences of breaking the law. Whether this is actually the case in the US is not important; just because we do it badly, doesn't mean that we have a different goal.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the police aren't there to prevent crime. If prevention isn't their job, I can't think of even one good reason why they would be necessary.
We should be presuming innocence. Just because you have a knife in your hand, or child images on your PC, or $2000 suddenly appeared in your Bing Cash account, doe snot mean you committed the crime.
Do you realize how difficult that would have made proving someone guilty in court, even just 20 years ago? With today's technology, it is becoming a lot easier to mesh "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "certainty," but that hasn't always been the case. Many of the tools that we have now, video surveillance, DNA analysis, cell phone records, etc. were not in existence, or at least not widely used just 20 years ago.
"Yes, I had the knife in my hand, and yes your witness saw someone wear similar clothing to me commit the murder, however it wasn't me. I heard a scream and felt the need to run over to the murder victim and pull the knife out of her chest. I then decided that I had to chase down the suspect. Unfortunately, running with the knife in my hand was slowing me down, so I decided to throw it in a nearby dumpster, so as to avoid having someone else hurt themselves on the knife. Unfortunately, all of my actions happened after the eyewitness went inside to call the police. I never did find the murderer, though, and I'm sorry for that."
How would you have "proven" this case before the advent of DNA evidence or video surveillance? You really couldn't. That's why the standard is set at "beyond a REASONABLE doubt." If a reasonable person hears that story and says "hogwash," it's likely that it is completely made up. Does this have the unfortunate effect of causing innocent people who did stupid things to be put in prison? Yes. But it also had the effect of stopping criminals from escaping prison time because there was no "proof" that they did it, only evidence that suggested it which could be explained away.
As I said earlier, we are fortunately moving in a direction where "certainty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" are meshing together and becoming the same thing, but until that point, there will be cases where judgment calls have to be made. Unfortunately that means innocent people will go to prison.
Does it matter what grades they got? Either the information that they provided was accurate or it wasn't. It should be easily verifiable if the students were able to come up with it. This is nothing but a witch hunt, regardless of what Ms. Susan Daly claims.
There's no market for video games for the blind. The very definition of the word "video" is the construction of still images into motion. Note the "image" part. The blind can't see.
Maybe there's a market for audio games for the blind. Maybe there's a market for video games for the visually impaired. But there is definitely NO market for video games for the blind.
Glad to see that you haven't even read what people are saying but rather making broad assumptions based on a very slim amount of "evidence."
If Microsoft did steal the code, then they should be punished. However, there really is no good evidence that they did indeed steal. Just because things are similar doesn't mean that one was stolen from another.
Actually, it wasn't that long ago that the scroll wheel was added. I thought that was pretty cool. Also, the side buttons on my mouse are pretty useful while browsing the internet or gaming.
But if you're still attached to your same old mechanical ball-style mouse with only two buttons and no scroll wheel, I guess that's your prerogative.
I love posts like this, and must admit that I've been guilty of the same thing.
"In it's current state, this technology is clearly outclassed by other technologies on the market. They're wasting their time. I'm not buying it."
Yeah, in it's current state, it looks retarded. But what will it develop into?
A lot of people thought the Eyetoy was stupid and motion control video games would only be a passing fad. Further development of motion sensing technology pointed to using a controller rather than a camera, which was then masterfully executed by Nintendo. Did the tech suck when it first came out? Absolutely. Was it worth forging ahead into the arena of motion control? Indeed.
Actually, now, there's a renewed interest in using cameras to control what's going on in the game.
In review: Yes, new technology is often outclassed by other alternatives before it matures. If you give it time, though, it can develop into something really cool.
Honestly, I think going about it in this manner is fantastic. You make the user pick and choose which parts of their fantastico plan that they want to keep (or get back), and they do so by actually examining price points. This way you don't screw a customer with a surprise bill that they forgot was coming for twice what they were expecting and because they are idiot 20 somethings who just graduated they are still living from paycheck to paycheck and suddenly they have no money for food.
Yes, this run on sentence is me. At least you still got to eat without your parents' help.
I've had a similar experience to yours. I really enjoyed conceptual mathematics, so I decided to take it as my major. However I got bogged down in all the minutiae of the equations and junk. Eventually I graduated, but while I scored high marks in all of my non-major courses, my mathematics courses tended to only be slightly above average.
One thing that I've found is that I tend to forget things rather quickly if I know that I can access the information when I need it. Things that I do not have ready access to on a regular basis stick in my head a lot longer.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is - you don't have to wade into the shallow end of the gene pool?
I shop at Wal-mart because I'm a cheap bastard. I worked their for 2 years (Really. And I have no problems with the way they treat their workers. Crazy, huh?) and, outside of some of the people who work/shop there, I have no problems with them. If you use common sense, you can get quality product at a good price.
don't forget Amazon Prime. $80/yr for free 2-day shipping? That's a guaranteed money-loser for them.
Most businesses do not have consciences, especially those with over a billion dollars in revenues, so stop trying to pretend that they do. There is no way that they put out a "guaranteed money-loser." Period. Either it makes them money or they stop doing it. My best guess - Amazon Prime encourages users to use Amazon more consistently which allows a greater amount of profit to be gleaned from them than if they had not signed up for Amazon Prime. My employer offers free 3-day shipping for $30 a year. Some online retailers offer free shipping all year with no requirement of membership to a "special club." Most retailers offer free shipping offers so regularly that it might as well be 100% free all the time.
If you don't believe me, check out this trade magazine for more than 3 seconds. Amazon Prime is not some amazingly special gift from God to Amazon's customers. It is a money making tool, plain and simple.
First, he DID cause the mob to gather. He was hosting a concert. He did not, however, ask the mob to become unruly.
Second, asking someone to refrain from committing a crime is not akin to admitting that you caused them to start committing a crime. If that were the case, then asking someone to stop raping you would be an admission that you wanted to have sex with them in the first place. It doesn't make much sense, does it?
The president of this organization that's trying to intimidate this Scout is the top visitor to the Obama White House.
Yes, clearly Obama is trying to abolish volunteerism in the US. He must be stopped. Wait. I thought he was supposed to be a communist who was in favor of volunteerism.
Now I'm just plain confused. Either way, Obama is the problem. Encouraging volunteerism is bad, but not allowing it is bad, too. Maybe he should do nothing and visit with nobody. Perhaps we will be happy then. I hope so, I'm getting sick and tired of being sick and tired of Obama and his confusing rhetoric.
even if there is no difference false positives are much more acceptable then false negatives.
Exactly. The only time this would be a bad thing is if it actually discourages people from taking the real positives sincerely since there would be such a multitude of false positives.
On a side note, I wish people could stop dismissing new technologies because there's a road block in the way of it being viable. Although there are problems, progress can still be made. Even if the technology at hand is not 100% viable and never ends up working, it can lead to future discoveries that benefit everyone.
Well, there are plenty of states who allow single parent adoption but disallow gay adoption. That's how Rose O'Donnell got her kids before she came out of the closet. The only reason for circumstances like this is homophobia.
Regardless, I cannot see any reasonable argument that says that children are better off bouncing from foster home to foster home than with two parents who want to raise them. There is nothing that I have seen that says the first situation is better, outside of homophobic paranoia.
This could be a setback, but my guess is that there would be a "glowing bacterial density" that you could look at. If everything's faintly glowing green in an area, then there's a spot where it's bright green, you'd take special care around that spot.
I'm not 100% sure how it would work, but this could save lives.
So you would like to ban single parent families then? Me too. Let's get to work. We should be able to get plenty of your friends who agree with the necessity of having both male and female parents to join us. Legislation should be quick and easy.
How is giving "scoops" to every network other than FOX News any different from giving them to ONLY FOX? If you want to bedevil Obama's White House for his treatment of FOX, you have to do the same thing to Bush's for his preference for FOX.
Actually, you presume that our current state is better than the state they were originally in. You assume that the Native Americans are better off now because we live in a "civilized" country. Maybe they were, and we would be, better off living in nomadic societies. By your standards, sure, we're better off, but that doesn't mean that they are in other sets of standards.
Actually, within context, a fart can send a message and be interpreted as "speech." For instance, intentionally passing gas in someone's presence is considered to be an offensive gesture.
You're right, it's a lame joke taken out of context. Hell, taken within context, it's a lame joke. Even so, it definitely was NOT flamebait.
Let's take a look at what flamebait is, shall we? As defined by some random guy on the internet, flamebait is a message deliberately crafted in order to provoke an angry flame as a response.
Clearly, that's not the case. I was following the down the line of jokes that were made based on "misunderstanding" words to have definitions of similar sounding words, not to attack a guy for being so stupid that he thought girls liking girls was relevant. Even if you disagree with me being modded funny, I should NOT have been modded down as flamebait.
Rather, it just seems like two security researchers are doing their job to keep the defensive actions one step ahead of offensive actions...
Weird..
Hey, now, that's unfair. I know Angina, she's a talented thespian with a very fine epidermis.
What does her sexual orientation have to do with anything? You homophobic or something?
If you've got money to spare, buy oil stock NOW.
I think that by the time consumption exceeds production in the way you are inferring, oil stock will be complete crap. It will be well known that oil reserves will be drying up and the life cycle of the oil industry is on the downslide.
Just because prices are going up, doesn't mean you should invest in those companies. Perhaps you should consider speculating on crude instead. There was a boatload to be made that way in '08. And then a boatload that was lost doing that, but whatever.
I think that you're the one who is mistaken. Let's take a look at the second part the phrase "law enforcement." To enforce means to ensure observance of laws and rules.
So the job of the police is to make sure that the law is followed. To me this seems like a prevention issue. What most people think is the job of the police, catching bad guys, is actually only in service to prevention of future crime. Catching and punishing criminals helps to ensure that they don't repeat their crimes, and also helps to ensure that other people know the consequences of breaking the law. Whether this is actually the case in the US is not important; just because we do it badly, doesn't mean that we have a different goal.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the police aren't there to prevent crime. If prevention isn't their job, I can't think of even one good reason why they would be necessary.
We should be presuming innocence. Just because you have a knife in your hand, or child images on your PC, or $2000 suddenly appeared in your Bing Cash account, doe snot mean you committed the crime.
Do you realize how difficult that would have made proving someone guilty in court, even just 20 years ago? With today's technology, it is becoming a lot easier to mesh "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "certainty," but that hasn't always been the case. Many of the tools that we have now, video surveillance, DNA analysis, cell phone records, etc. were not in existence, or at least not widely used just 20 years ago.
"Yes, I had the knife in my hand, and yes your witness saw someone wear similar clothing to me commit the murder, however it wasn't me. I heard a scream and felt the need to run over to the murder victim and pull the knife out of her chest. I then decided that I had to chase down the suspect. Unfortunately, running with the knife in my hand was slowing me down, so I decided to throw it in a nearby dumpster, so as to avoid having someone else hurt themselves on the knife. Unfortunately, all of my actions happened after the eyewitness went inside to call the police. I never did find the murderer, though, and I'm sorry for that."
How would you have "proven" this case before the advent of DNA evidence or video surveillance? You really couldn't. That's why the standard is set at "beyond a REASONABLE doubt." If a reasonable person hears that story and says "hogwash," it's likely that it is completely made up. Does this have the unfortunate effect of causing innocent people who did stupid things to be put in prison? Yes. But it also had the effect of stopping criminals from escaping prison time because there was no "proof" that they did it, only evidence that suggested it which could be explained away.
As I said earlier, we are fortunately moving in a direction where "certainty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" are meshing together and becoming the same thing, but until that point, there will be cases where judgment calls have to be made. Unfortunately that means innocent people will go to prison.
Does it matter what grades they got? Either the information that they provided was accurate or it wasn't. It should be easily verifiable if the students were able to come up with it. This is nothing but a witch hunt, regardless of what Ms. Susan Daly claims.
There's no market for video games for the blind. The very definition of the word "video" is the construction of still images into motion. Note the "image" part. The blind can't see.
Maybe there's a market for audio games for the blind. Maybe there's a market for video games for the visually impaired. But there is definitely NO market for video games for the blind.
Glad to see that you haven't even read what people are saying but rather making broad assumptions based on a very slim amount of "evidence."
If Microsoft did steal the code, then they should be punished. However, there really is no good evidence that they did indeed steal. Just because things are similar doesn't mean that one was stolen from another.
Goatbert engages in anal stretching. My evidence: the names are very similar.
Wait, you mean similarities DON'T mean that they are the same thing? Damn. I thought I was on to something.
Actually, it wasn't that long ago that the scroll wheel was added. I thought that was pretty cool. Also, the side buttons on my mouse are pretty useful while browsing the internet or gaming.
But if you're still attached to your same old mechanical ball-style mouse with only two buttons and no scroll wheel, I guess that's your prerogative.
I love posts like this, and must admit that I've been guilty of the same thing.
"In it's current state, this technology is clearly outclassed by other technologies on the market. They're wasting their time. I'm not buying it."
Yeah, in it's current state, it looks retarded. But what will it develop into?
A lot of people thought the Eyetoy was stupid and motion control video games would only be a passing fad. Further development of motion sensing technology pointed to using a controller rather than a camera, which was then masterfully executed by Nintendo. Did the tech suck when it first came out? Absolutely. Was it worth forging ahead into the arena of motion control? Indeed.
Actually, now, there's a renewed interest in using cameras to control what's going on in the game.
In review: Yes, new technology is often outclassed by other alternatives before it matures. If you give it time, though, it can develop into something really cool.
Honestly, I think going about it in this manner is fantastic. You make the user pick and choose which parts of their fantastico plan that they want to keep (or get back), and they do so by actually examining price points. This way you don't screw a customer with a surprise bill that they forgot was coming for twice what they were expecting and because they are idiot 20 somethings who just graduated they are still living from paycheck to paycheck and suddenly they have no money for food.
Yes, this run on sentence is me. At least you still got to eat without your parents' help.
I've had a similar experience to yours. I really enjoyed conceptual mathematics, so I decided to take it as my major. However I got bogged down in all the minutiae of the equations and junk. Eventually I graduated, but while I scored high marks in all of my non-major courses, my mathematics courses tended to only be slightly above average.
One thing that I've found is that I tend to forget things rather quickly if I know that I can access the information when I need it. Things that I do not have ready access to on a regular basis stick in my head a lot longer.