Nope, the person actually using the dirty syringe is the fucking idiot. Whether or not you agree with the government policy, if you make a stupid decision that can kill you, that's your own fault. And for those who choose to kill themselves -- it's nice that they're cleaning the gene pools.
Re:And this differs exactly how
on
Gaming On Demand
·
· Score: 2
(Someone's already posted this, but it's only at score 1 and I have no mod points. So I'm going to shout at score 2.)
If the company negotiates a contract with the game companies, then it's all in the clear -- the reason why you can't do that is because you haven't made such an agreement with the software developers. (And that's because money's involved.) Not insightful... simply an excuse to cash off a standard slashdot line.
I don't think anyone seriously believes that anything posted on
Slashdot is automatically true.
It would be a little more accurate to say that nobody important believes a slashdot posting to be automatically true. (As someone else pointed out, there's plenty of stupid people who will believe anything here, especially if it's some kind of silly rant.)
Um... you are aware, aren't you, that Slashdot is primarily a discussion forum, and not a news site, right? They may bill themselves as "news for nerds", but look around at the endless stream of Katz articles and such and you'll see that actual news is only part of what goes on.
They pick whatever people might want to discuss. Apparently this is one of them. So stop yer whining!
Well, you, obviously. Somebody read it one too many times.
Typical slashdot attitude. Any time new technology is mentioned (and it's not on store shelves right now, waiting to go into your computer), the immediate reaction is to say, "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" In this instance, it means that every piece of new technology will be bad, because (though the descriptions don't support it) everything with a way-nifty feature will automatically report to the government.
A TV that automatically picks the programs you enjoy == A TV that automatically censors and reports to the FBI? Those sound like two different ideas to me. Ditto for the rest of the things mentioned.
Now, if you're really worried that the entire world is conspiring against you, you might (surprise) start thinking by yourself. For instance, it's true that a single smart-card is a vulnerable target for a thief. Perhaps the place to start is by suggesting ways to make it less vulnerable.
There's no reason to bitch and moan and live in general terror over something that nobody said, nobody meant, and that doesn't exist yet anyway. As you asked, "Who will guide [the changes]?" Why not make it us, instead of playing victim and then being put out if anything bad happens?
Actually, I think that public schools ought to, for the most part, subsist off old, donated computers. Before you think I'm trying to kill our children, here's why:
90% of the computers in public schools are just used as big, expensive typewriters. I keep on seeing things about how such-and-such school got another million dollars to upgrade all their old 400 MHz typewriters to new 800 MHz ones. Even an 8088 is perfectly sufficient for most of what they do; why do we keep spending money that could be put to a good use on keeping up with the pointless upgrade treadmill? Same goes for computer science classes and so forth. A 486 is plenty for such stuff.
I agree that that they can't make use of everything, and it's a good point that ancient hardware might be more trouble than it's worth, but old computers are everywhere if you ask around. I sure a good deal of them would fit the requirements necessary.
Dubbing is an atrocity, a crime against nature, not to mention filmmaker's intent
First off, subtitling changes a film as well -- so it's not exactly the filmmaker's intent. So does viewing it on a TV screen, or watching a bad 4th-generation VHS copy, because that's all you can get.
But more importantly, why does it matter what the filmmaker's intent was? What matters is how you enjoy it, and what you get out of it. If a dub corrected some stilted dialogue, or errors made in the original filming, it could be an improvement. Besides, at times it's easier to listen to a dub, rather than read subtitles, especially for some people. (Don't tell me you've never got confused in a sub when multiple people are talking at once.)
I'm personally of the opinion that subs are generally better, but there's no reason to be elitist just because of that. Dubs have their place too, and they're not necessarily evil.
Wow. Typed in the address, or read one of the other 109 posts saying the same thing. Insightful work, that.
(No personal offense intended, of course... no problem with the comment. Just wondering at the lack of intelligence shown by the moderators at times, when they're in 'moderate up my side' mode. Insightful?)
But I suspect since sourceforge hosts MANY CVS based projects, that open-source
software could be injected with outside code...
Hm... maybe this was done by someone who couldn't get people to apply their patches...
The driving age is 16 in most places and I haven't heard of any push to have that changed in any state.
Just FYI, there's been a rash of new laws of late that place additional restrictions on drivers under the age of 18, and I've heard of people in more than one place screaming to get the driving age raised to 18. I don't think it'll ever happen, and the original poster probably didn't even know this (he was just posting in the typical slashdot help-help-i'm-being-oppressed mode), but just to be a bit anal about things...
Well, I see about 12 +n, Insightful posts saying, "Well, even though it tries to do good, it's not a good idea/it's a bad precedent/I wouldn't let it on my system/etc." This thing doesn't need your approval or disapproval any more than a malicious worm. Of course you don't trust someone else to anonymously fix your system. Only a complete idiot would infect themselves on purpose. But saying "I don't think it's good" on Slashdot doesn't secure your computer.
The real good I see in it: if this shows up on your computer, you know that you haven't been taking appropriate safety precautions. Count yourself lucky that nothing bad happened, and fix it.
Try The Language Instinct by Stephen Pinker. (Great book; should be on everybody's reading list. However, I can't give you an exact page because my friend stole it.) If you do some reasearch, you'll find that although she did seem to learn some things, many of their more impressive "results" were the result of wishful thinking rather than actually learning things.
Yes, the chimps learned to tell them that they were hungry. However, a dog can do that just as well, and nobody claims that they're actually using language. Communicating a concept such as "I'm hungry," "I want that toy," or "Tickle me" is a long way from actual language or conversation.
Just out of curiosity: Are you actively working on either project?
If you are, good for you, but if not... If everyone on slashdot who insists on posting "Linux needs such-and-such" would actually start coding (or doing whatever else their skills permit), we'd have all the problems ironed out in no time.
It seems to me that people who spend their time whining about open-source projects are missing the point. The programmers wrote this for themselves (in some manner, whether it's that they want the functionality, or just the prestige.) If you like what they've done, you're welcome to it, but if not, you're the one that should be doing the work.
If you're so dead set against "intellectual property", then what does the perversion of copyright law have to do with anything?
We see this often -- people will use any arguments they can against their favorite enemy, whether or not those arguments can rationally go together. If you don't believe in intellectual property, then you should be against copyrights of any kind, limited or not.
Either side is arguable; I tend to agree with those who push for limited copyright protection, but can see that the "anti-intellectual-property" argument has some logic to it as well. But you destroy your credibility if you try to argue both.
Heh... now what would be useful would be if weapons manufacturers started using something like this... "Sure, Saddam, we'll sell you any missiles you want." Then, as soon as the weapons are fired...
The way I see it, a lot of people here seem to think that content controls on devices (this, or encryption, or whatever), is somehow infringing on their rights. How so?
When the industry does something like this, you have two choices. If the equipment, along with its restrictions, is worth the price to you, then you go buy it. If not, then you don't. Simple as that. I've never heard anywhere that anyone somehow has a god-given right to equipment without content controls.
If this poses a problem to enough people, (which companies will notice by people not buying their products), then somebody will get the bright idea to manufacture the machines without the controls. It's obvious that hardware manufacturers don't particularily care about maintaining control; they just want the money. Maybe they'll charge more for equipment without content controls; it will be up to you consumers to decide whether it's worth the price or not.
The biggest argument I see here is that, "But soon, I won't be able to buy [insert topic of slashdot article here] without [insert control being discussed here]." So what? Even if that's true (and I tend to doubt it, as for the most part companies haven't had much luck convincing consumers that they need to be controlled more), that shouldn't effect you. If the reduced utility or infringement on your 'rights' makes it not worth having, don't buy it.
The problem is that most of the posters here won't follow up on what they say. Not only will they not make their thoughts known to the hardware manufacturers, but when the newest toy shows up, who will be first in line? Businesses exist to make money, and the people here provide a substantial amount of what goes to any sort of tech industry.
Sorry for the long and probably senseless ramble... but I think it has to be said once, so you'll all have something to jeer at.
First off, as many people have said, this is what you were hired to do. No, it's not exciting, but if you do it you'll have that much of a headstart when you join them as a "real" employee.
However, I did the co-op thing last year, and had a pretty good experience. The one who was in before me did grunt work -- the few times when he did anything at all. They weren't too inclined to give anything that could be important to someone who didn't want to work. Although I did my share of the dull stuff, after a few months I was doing quite a bit of programming and system administration... the things that didn't require a whole lot of experience, but still needed to get done.
Another thing which helped out... I sort of went in the back door. (I was lucky, my father works for this company... but check around with any friends you have with engineering positions; they very well may be able to steer you into something interesting.) HR people generally have their own ideas about where they want the co-ops, and if you do some of the legwork yourself, you may be able to get more choices as to where you end up.
The primary thing I took from my job was that I never want to work in a corporate environment, if I can possibly avoid it... but the six months of experience waas many times more valuable than a semester of school. Think for a second... what would you rather be doing, reading a textbook (generally badly-written confusing trash by a faculty member) and doing pointless homework and tests, or doing and watching the same work that you hope to be doing some day? It may not be fun, but there are lots of advantages.
Why does Slashdot feel the need to announce unstable projects and *patchlevels* of the Linux kernel to the world?
"News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." 2.4.2 is something that matters to a lot of nerds. It seems that slashdot is just keeping with the program.
If cnn & company want to use slashdot as their source, and get stories that don't matter to their readership... well, that's just shoddy journalism. You can't blame slashdot for that.
If you feel so strongly that a source of "real Open Source News" is needed, what's stopping you from creating it? The trick is... if nobody else cares, then you're the one who has to do it. (Please see the nature of Open Source for an example of this in action.)
According to Courtney Love, Toni Braxton declared bankruptcy in 1998. She sold $188 million worth of CDs, but she was broke because of
a terrible recording contract that paid her less than 35 cents per album.
$0.35 per $15 album is 2.33%. 2.33% of $188 million is $4.39 million. That's not to say that artists aren't ripped off, but I somehow don't feel sorry for someone who blew well over four million dollars (Who knows how much more she made besides those CDs...) and then had to declare bankruptcy.
Um... yes. Many people do, actually. (Right here.) Netscape, far from being an essential tool, is a slow, unstable program that I generally don't use if I can avoid it. In fact, it seems like overkill to me to run X just because you want a web browser. Just because you don't find that non-GUI tools don't meet your needs, doesn't mean that other people feel the same way.
Free speech means that you can say whatever you want, not that you can say it however you want.
Ah, right. The 'fire in crowded theatre' approach. As long as we can restrict methods of free speech, perhaps we should only allow free speech from prison cells. Say whatever you want (not that anyone will hear you.)
Faces are not
fingerprints, people! Is a similarity of face probable cause to stop someone?
Gee, you're absolutely correct. Police should be required to get a fingerprint or DNA sample of a suspect, and compare it to their database, before they stop him. No, wait... that probably wouldn't work too well.
The 'racial profiling' thing doesn't have anything to do with this. It's a problem because it involves harassing people without any evidence. On the other hand, having a face that looks just like a criminal is evidence enough to warrant stopping someone.
I'm sure that the positive matches are run by a human, to check that they really do look very similar. Therefore, the number of false identifications should really be no higher than it is without this technology. Don't just assume that, because it has the potential to be powerful, that it will necessarily be evil.
Re:Been done here for ages, and it works.
on
The Unblinking Eye
·
· Score: 4
You have to
be incurably paranoid to have a problem
But this is slashdot. 99% of the posters here are incurably paranoid; it's part of the enterance requirements.
To those who are whining about it: would it be wrong for police to look at pictures of known criminals, and then keep a lookout for them? Of course not; that's essentially what they do all the time. So what's so wrong about having them use technology to do their job better and more effectively? It sometimes seems like slashdotters can't realize that law enforcement is a good thing. We should try to fix its problems rather than try to destroy it at every turn.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, the person actually using the dirty syringe is the fucking idiot. Whether or not you agree with the government policy, if you make a stupid decision that can kill you, that's your own fault. And for those who choose to kill themselves -- it's nice that they're cleaning the gene pools.
If the company negotiates a contract with the game companies, then it's all in the clear -- the reason why you can't do that is because you haven't made such an agreement with the software developers. (And that's because money's involved.) Not insightful ... simply an excuse to cash off a standard slashdot line.
It would be a little more accurate to say that nobody important believes a slashdot posting to be automatically true. (As someone else pointed out, there's plenty of stupid people who will believe anything here, especially if it's some kind of silly rant.)
They pick whatever people might want to discuss. Apparently this is one of them. So stop yer whining!
Well, you, obviously. Somebody read it one too many times.
Typical slashdot attitude. Any time new technology is mentioned (and it's not on store shelves right now, waiting to go into your computer), the immediate reaction is to say, "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" In this instance, it means that every piece of new technology will be bad, because (though the descriptions don't support it) everything with a way-nifty feature will automatically report to the government.
A TV that automatically picks the programs you enjoy == A TV that automatically censors and reports to the FBI? Those sound like two different ideas to me. Ditto for the rest of the things mentioned.
Now, if you're really worried that the entire world is conspiring against you, you might (surprise) start thinking by yourself. For instance, it's true that a single smart-card is a vulnerable target for a thief. Perhaps the place to start is by suggesting ways to make it less vulnerable.
There's no reason to bitch and moan and live in general terror over something that nobody said, nobody meant, and that doesn't exist yet anyway. As you asked, "Who will guide [the changes]?" Why not make it us, instead of playing victim and then being put out if anything bad happens?
90% of the computers in public schools are just used as big, expensive typewriters. I keep on seeing things about how such-and-such school got another million dollars to upgrade all their old 400 MHz typewriters to new 800 MHz ones. Even an 8088 is perfectly sufficient for most of what they do; why do we keep spending money that could be put to a good use on keeping up with the pointless upgrade treadmill? Same goes for computer science classes and so forth. A 486 is plenty for such stuff.
I agree that that they can't make use of everything, and it's a good point that ancient hardware might be more trouble than it's worth, but old computers are everywhere if you ask around. I sure a good deal of them would fit the requirements necessary.
First off, subtitling changes a film as well -- so it's not exactly the filmmaker's intent. So does viewing it on a TV screen, or watching a bad 4th-generation VHS copy, because that's all you can get.
But more importantly, why does it matter what the filmmaker's intent was? What matters is how you enjoy it, and what you get out of it. If a dub corrected some stilted dialogue, or errors made in the original filming, it could be an improvement. Besides, at times it's easier to listen to a dub, rather than read subtitles, especially for some people. (Don't tell me you've never got confused in a sub when multiple people are talking at once.)
I'm personally of the opinion that subs are generally better, but there's no reason to be elitist just because of that. Dubs have their place too, and they're not necessarily evil.
(No personal offense intended, of course ... no problem with the comment. Just wondering at the lack of intelligence shown by the moderators at times, when they're in 'moderate up my side' mode. Insightful?)
But I suspect since sourceforge hosts MANY CVS based projects, that open-source software could be injected with outside code... Hm ... maybe this was done by someone who couldn't get people to apply their patches...
Just FYI, there's been a rash of new laws of late that place additional restrictions on drivers under the age of 18, and I've heard of people in more than one place screaming to get the driving age raised to 18. I don't think it'll ever happen, and the original poster probably didn't even know this (he was just posting in the typical slashdot help-help-i'm-being-oppressed mode), but just to be a bit anal about things...
Nothing at all, of course. His comment was directed towards the residents of Georgia, not toward the state itself.
The real good I see in it: if this shows up on your computer, you know that you haven't been taking appropriate safety precautions. Count yourself lucky that nothing bad happened, and fix it.
Actually, in this case, it's more along the lines of "Open Source: Stupid People." How embarrassing.
Yes, the chimps learned to tell them that they were hungry. However, a dog can do that just as well, and nobody claims that they're actually using language. Communicating a concept such as "I'm hungry," "I want that toy," or "Tickle me" is a long way from actual language or conversation.
If you are, good for you, but if not ... If everyone on slashdot who insists on posting "Linux needs such-and-such" would actually start coding (or doing whatever else their skills permit), we'd have all the problems ironed out in no time.
It seems to me that people who spend their time whining about open-source projects are missing the point. The programmers wrote this for themselves (in some manner, whether it's that they want the functionality, or just the prestige.) If you like what they've done, you're welcome to it, but if not, you're the one that should be doing the work.
We see this often -- people will use any arguments they can against their favorite enemy, whether or not those arguments can rationally go together. If you don't believe in intellectual property, then you should be against copyrights of any kind, limited or not.
Either side is arguable; I tend to agree with those who push for limited copyright protection, but can see that the "anti-intellectual-property" argument has some logic to it as well. But you destroy your credibility if you try to argue both.
Heh ... now what would be useful would be if weapons manufacturers started using something like this... "Sure, Saddam, we'll sell you any missiles you want." Then, as soon as the weapons are fired...
When the industry does something like this, you have two choices. If the equipment, along with its restrictions, is worth the price to you, then you go buy it. If not, then you don't. Simple as that. I've never heard anywhere that anyone somehow has a god-given right to equipment without content controls.
If this poses a problem to enough people, (which companies will notice by people not buying their products), then somebody will get the bright idea to manufacture the machines without the controls. It's obvious that hardware manufacturers don't particularily care about maintaining control; they just want the money. Maybe they'll charge more for equipment without content controls; it will be up to you consumers to decide whether it's worth the price or not.
The biggest argument I see here is that, "But soon, I won't be able to buy [insert topic of slashdot article here] without [insert control being discussed here]." So what? Even if that's true (and I tend to doubt it, as for the most part companies haven't had much luck convincing consumers that they need to be controlled more), that shouldn't effect you. If the reduced utility or infringement on your 'rights' makes it not worth having, don't buy it.
The problem is that most of the posters here won't follow up on what they say. Not only will they not make their thoughts known to the hardware manufacturers, but when the newest toy shows up, who will be first in line? Businesses exist to make money, and the people here provide a substantial amount of what goes to any sort of tech industry.
Sorry for the long and probably senseless ramble ... but I think it has to be said once, so you'll all have something to jeer at.
However, I did the co-op thing last year, and had a pretty good experience. The one who was in before me did grunt work -- the few times when he did anything at all. They weren't too inclined to give anything that could be important to someone who didn't want to work. Although I did my share of the dull stuff, after a few months I was doing quite a bit of programming and system administration ... the things that didn't require a whole lot of experience, but still needed to get done.
Another thing which helped out ... I sort of went in the back door. (I was lucky, my father works for this company ... but check around with any friends you have with engineering positions; they very well may be able to steer you into something interesting.) HR people generally have their own ideas about where they want the co-ops, and if you do some of the legwork yourself, you may be able to get more choices as to where you end up.
The primary thing I took from my job was that I never want to work in a corporate environment, if I can possibly avoid it ... but the six months of experience waas many times more valuable than a semester of school. Think for a second ... what would you rather be doing, reading a textbook (generally badly-written confusing trash by a faculty member) and doing pointless homework and tests, or doing and watching the same work that you hope to be doing some day? It may not be fun, but there are lots of advantages.
"News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." 2.4.2 is something that matters to a lot of nerds. It seems that slashdot is just keeping with the program.
If cnn & company want to use slashdot as their source, and get stories that don't matter to their readership ... well, that's just shoddy journalism. You can't blame slashdot for that.
If you feel so strongly that a source of "real Open Source News" is needed, what's stopping you from creating it? The trick is ... if nobody else cares, then you're the one who has to do it. (Please see the nature of Open Source for an example of this in action.)
$0.35 per $15 album is 2.33%. 2.33% of $188 million is $4.39 million. That's not to say that artists aren't ripped off, but I somehow don't feel sorry for someone who blew well over four million dollars (Who knows how much more she made besides those CDs...) and then had to declare bankruptcy.
Um ... yes. Many people do, actually. (Right here.) Netscape, far from being an essential tool, is a slow, unstable program that I generally don't use if I can avoid it. In fact, it seems like overkill to me to run X just because you want a web browser. Just because you don't find that non-GUI tools don't meet your needs, doesn't mean that other people feel the same way.
Ah, right. The 'fire in crowded theatre' approach. As long as we can restrict methods of free speech, perhaps we should only allow free speech from prison cells. Say whatever you want (not that anyone will hear you.)
Gee, you're absolutely correct. Police should be required to get a fingerprint or DNA sample of a suspect, and compare it to their database, before they stop him. No, wait ... that probably wouldn't work too well.
The 'racial profiling' thing doesn't have anything to do with this. It's a problem because it involves harassing people without any evidence. On the other hand, having a face that looks just like a criminal is evidence enough to warrant stopping someone.
I'm sure that the positive matches are run by a human, to check that they really do look very similar. Therefore, the number of false identifications should really be no higher than it is without this technology. Don't just assume that, because it has the potential to be powerful, that it will necessarily be evil.
But this is slashdot. 99% of the posters here are incurably paranoid; it's part of the enterance requirements.
To those who are whining about it: would it be wrong for police to look at pictures of known criminals, and then keep a lookout for them? Of course not; that's essentially what they do all the time. So what's so wrong about having them use technology to do their job better and more effectively? It sometimes seems like slashdotters can't realize that law enforcement is a good thing. We should try to fix its problems rather than try to destroy it at every turn.