Every once in a while there were pretty bad spelling mistakes in the stories and there was the occasional dupe, but never like this.
This is a definite case of rose-colored glasses. CmdrTaco posted dupes so often that it became a running joke. A common request was to add a feature to stop the editors from posting a story containing the same link as a previous story.
They have pushed extremism at us for so long, the only possible response is equally extreme. So much energy has been spent protecting them its going to take a huge amount of counter-force to put an end to it.
Calling for a complete end to copyright is not more forceful than calling for reasonable limits to copyright. If anything, it's less powerful, because complete abolition of copyright is a complete non-starter, and is going to go nowhere.
You can find nuts who will take just about any position on any debate that you can come up with. Taking up an equally nutty position in response is not productive.
What do we do with all the kids that have been expelled? Would they be roaming the streets during school hours? Shoplifting / mugging seniors? (Most of the expelled kids wouldn't be from the maths / chess clubs.)
Well, we could throw them all in prison. Maybe we should hire a few people to babysit them and maybe help them with a rudimentary education. And let them go home to their families at night.
True... but this is like software optimization, you can spend your time fixing 1000 things that have a 0.00126% impact and you're still fucked.
The reason why software developers will tackle the biggest performance bottlenecks first is because a developer can only work on one thing at a time, and so should attempt to get the largest return on their investment in time.
The government, however, is not a single person, and employs millions of people. The people that are able to address the waste in area A are probably not the same people that can address the waste in area B.
It would be foolish for a large software development team to assign every developer to work on the same performance problem. Similarly, it would be stupid to tell those who aren't working on the top problem to sit on their thumbs until the top problem is resolved. If a source of government waste is identified, then the appropriate thing to do is address it, not come up with excuses why it's not important.
So after skimming that presentation, I wondered: would it also be accurate (by the same logic) to say that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun; it orbits the galactic center (and is perturbed by the Sun)? Serious question; I'm curious as to whether there's a qualitative difference between the two that astrophysicists would identify, or if it's just a matter of scale.
Saying that something is "good, but not for the masses," is elitism; even if you take the rather odd tack that you consider yourself in the group of the masses when you make that pronouncement.
Well, although I don't believe in the whole "24/7 connectivity is required" mindset (somehow society survived for thousands of years before it became an option), if you insist on being connected at all times, a theatre that implements this wouldn't be an option for you. Your options would be to patronize a different theatre, or choose a different form of entertainment.
But then the FCC would probably have a problem with this.
The FCC gets no say in what building materials you use. They can (and do) prohibit jammers, but they don't have anything to say about building a faraday cage.
I've always liked the notion of enclosing the theatres in a faraday cage. In any new construction, it should be relatively cheap to include a mesh around the theatre itself -- and then you don't have to worry about people's manners. At least not as far as cell phones are concerned.
I do the same thing and they keep calling. I figure it's worthwhile, though. If everyone just wasted 5 minutes of the real person's time, the scam would be so unprofitable that they'd have to stop.
If a year from now you are still having problems.... THEN you can start complaining.
Wait.. so you think that he ought to wait a full year before insisting that a company (that he gave his money to) make good on their promises? That's taking patience to a rather unwarranted level.
I guess I was wrong in that he did "say something about putting homosexuals to death." So you get a point for that. However, your original claim was that many of them "would have [homosexuals] put to death if they could," which was really what I was trying to get at. If it wasn't obvious to the reader of his statement, he did later issue a statement clarifying that he does not call for putting homosexuals to death, so he still doesn't qualify.
Moving on to the second implication, which is that courts cannot weigh your silence in determining the likelihood of your guilt. This goes against the common sense that you would use in your everyday life. If you had two roommates, you knew one of them stole your laptop, you asked both where they were at the time, and one of them immediately told you where they were (giving a story that their friends could corroborate), and other refused even to answer "Yes" or "No" to the question of whether they stole it, what would you think? I'm not saying that a person's silence should ever be considered proof of guilt, but the likelihood of guilt is a probability question, which can be assessed using multiple factors, each of which individually might not be enough to prove guilt by itself. Is the second roommate's silence relevant to your estimation of their guilt? Of course it is. If you would use that factor in your own reasoning, why shouldn't a court? (And in fact, your silence can be considered relevant in a civil lawsuit, just not in a criminal case.)
Although his argument is interesting (worth at least thinking about more, although I'm not sure I agree with it), this scenario really doesn't prove his point. In his scenario, he knows that either Roommate #1 or Roommate #2 stole his laptop, and that Roommate #1 has presented evidence that he did not do it. Therefore, it is simply the process of elimination to determine that it was stolen by #2 (based on the probability of #1's evidence is solid). I can't see that #2's refusal to answer changes anything.
I'm having trouble coming up with a situation where refusal to answer a question would actually constitute legitimate evidence of someone's guilt or innocence. They all seem to come down to "innocent men have nothing to hide."
If you are a homosexual and voting for republicans I can only say "I am Disappoint". Many of them believe you are sort of evil creature and would have you put to death if they could.
Really? Name me one elected Republican who has ever said anything about putting homosexuals to death. Just one.
You post a lot of stupid crap, but this comment has to take the cake for full-on idiotic.
While it sounds kind of interesting, neither the article nor the website for the project has more than a fairly vague description that is barely more informative than the slashdot blurb. Considering that it's been under construction for more than 30 years, you would think that they might be able to come up with a little more information.
I live just a few hours away, and could see myself making the trip to see something like that.. but only if I had a better idea of what to expect.
It scares me that anyone would think there would or should be any economic viability in 'disaster recovery sites.'
Providing disaster recovery services is already a big business.
I certainly wouldn't want to do business with a financial institution that has no capability to recover from a disaster that affects their data center.
Slashdot Mirror
Every once in a while there were pretty bad spelling mistakes in the stories and there was the occasional dupe, but never like this.
This is a definite case of rose-colored glasses. CmdrTaco posted dupes so often that it became a running joke. A common request was to add a feature to stop the editors from posting a story containing the same link as a previous story.
They have pushed extremism at us for so long, the only possible response is equally extreme. So much energy has been spent protecting them its going to take a huge amount of counter-force to put an end to it.
Calling for a complete end to copyright is not more forceful than calling for reasonable limits to copyright. If anything, it's less powerful, because complete abolition of copyright is a complete non-starter, and is going to go nowhere.
You can find nuts who will take just about any position on any debate that you can come up with. Taking up an equally nutty position in response is not productive.
What do we do with all the kids that have been expelled? Would they be roaming the streets during school hours? Shoplifting / mugging seniors? (Most of the expelled kids wouldn't be from the maths / chess clubs.)
Well, we could throw them all in prison. Maybe we should hire a few people to babysit them and maybe help them with a rudimentary education. And let them go home to their families at night.
Oh, wait, I guess we already have that.
Shoot the users that submit bad bug reports. Within a few generations, only users that submit good bug reports will remain.
What are all these developers doing?
In my experience, they're ensuring that U.S. developers have poorly-designed software to fix.
True... but this is like software optimization, you can spend your time fixing 1000 things that have a 0.00126% impact and you're still fucked.
The reason why software developers will tackle the biggest performance bottlenecks first is because a developer can only work on one thing at a time, and so should attempt to get the largest return on their investment in time.
The government, however, is not a single person, and employs millions of people. The people that are able to address the waste in area A are probably not the same people that can address the waste in area B.
It would be foolish for a large software development team to assign every developer to work on the same performance problem. Similarly, it would be stupid to tell those who aren't working on the top problem to sit on their thumbs until the top problem is resolved. If a source of government waste is identified, then the appropriate thing to do is address it, not come up with excuses why it's not important.
There's no reason why you can't reduce waste in both categories. Which is what most of us who oppose government waste want to do.
Immigration laws? This president has deported more people than ANY other. The deportation numbers are an 'all time high', so I don't understand where you're getting the idea that the president isn't enforcing immigration laws: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/13/immigration-advocates-ask-obama-to-suspend-some-deportations/
All that is is evidence that previous presidents haven't enforced immigration laws either.
So after skimming that presentation, I wondered: would it also be accurate (by the same logic) to say that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun; it orbits the galactic center (and is perturbed by the Sun)? Serious question; I'm curious as to whether there's a qualitative difference between the two that astrophysicists would identify, or if it's just a matter of scale.
Saying that something is "good, but not for the masses," is elitism; even if you take the rather odd tack that you consider yourself in the group of the masses when you make that pronouncement.
Well, although I don't believe in the whole "24/7 connectivity is required" mindset (somehow society survived for thousands of years before it became an option), if you insist on being connected at all times, a theatre that implements this wouldn't be an option for you. Your options would be to patronize a different theatre, or choose a different form of entertainment.
But then the FCC would probably have a problem with this.
The FCC gets no say in what building materials you use. They can (and do) prohibit jammers, but they don't have anything to say about building a faraday cage.
I've always liked the notion of enclosing the theatres in a faraday cage. In any new construction, it should be relatively cheap to include a mesh around the theatre itself -- and then you don't have to worry about people's manners. At least not as far as cell phones are concerned.
...it's definitely not good for the masses.
Well, that's about as elitist as you can get.
I do the same thing and they keep calling. I figure it's worthwhile, though. If everyone just wasted 5 minutes of the real person's time, the scam would be so unprofitable that they'd have to stop.
If a year from now you are still having problems.... THEN you can start complaining.
Wait .. so you think that he ought to wait a full year before insisting that a company (that he gave his money to) make good on their promises? That's taking patience to a rather unwarranted level.
aardvark's law: In any group of people, the majority are idiots.
Newsflash: stupid people use facebook. That doesn't make Facebook responsible for what they do.
If there's a lot of documentation, interpret it like your favorite religious text.
So it's got some pretty good ideas, but nobody really pays attention to what it says?
Describes the documentation for most projects I've worked on.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/
I guess I was wrong in that he did "say something about putting homosexuals to death." So you get a point for that. However, your original claim was that many of them "would have [homosexuals] put to death if they could," which was really what I was trying to get at. If it wasn't obvious to the reader of his statement, he did later issue a statement clarifying that he does not call for putting homosexuals to death, so he still doesn't qualify.
Moving on to the second implication, which is that courts cannot weigh your silence in determining the likelihood of your guilt. This goes against the common sense that you would use in your everyday life. If you had two roommates, you knew one of them stole your laptop, you asked both where they were at the time, and one of them immediately told you where they were (giving a story that their friends could corroborate), and other refused even to answer "Yes" or "No" to the question of whether they stole it, what would you think? I'm not saying that a person's silence should ever be considered proof of guilt, but the likelihood of guilt is a probability question, which can be assessed using multiple factors, each of which individually might not be enough to prove guilt by itself. Is the second roommate's silence relevant to your estimation of their guilt? Of course it is. If you would use that factor in your own reasoning, why shouldn't a court? (And in fact, your silence can be considered relevant in a civil lawsuit, just not in a criminal case.)
Although his argument is interesting (worth at least thinking about more, although I'm not sure I agree with it), this scenario really doesn't prove his point. In his scenario, he knows that either Roommate #1 or Roommate #2 stole his laptop, and that Roommate #1 has presented evidence that he did not do it. Therefore, it is simply the process of elimination to determine that it was stolen by #2 (based on the probability of #1's evidence is solid). I can't see that #2's refusal to answer changes anything.
I'm having trouble coming up with a situation where refusal to answer a question would actually constitute legitimate evidence of someone's guilt or innocence. They all seem to come down to "innocent men have nothing to hide."
If you are a homosexual and voting for republicans I can only say "I am Disappoint". Many of them believe you are sort of evil creature and would have you put to death if they could.
Really? Name me one elected Republican who has ever said anything about putting homosexuals to death. Just one.
You post a lot of stupid crap, but this comment has to take the cake for full-on idiotic.
While it sounds kind of interesting, neither the article nor the website for the project has more than a fairly vague description that is barely more informative than the slashdot blurb. Considering that it's been under construction for more than 30 years, you would think that they might be able to come up with a little more information.
I live just a few hours away, and could see myself making the trip to see something like that .. but only if I had a better idea of what to expect.
It scares me that anyone would think there would or should be any economic viability in 'disaster recovery sites.'
Providing disaster recovery services is already a big business.
I certainly wouldn't want to do business with a financial institution that has no capability to recover from a disaster that affects their data center.
exactly! that distinction *totally* justifies putting their [human] life at risk!
Congratulations on completely failing to read the post you were responding to.
I can assure you, on a real road, people tend to stay a bit more alert after consuming a few drinks.
Well, I'm certainly glad that we've got the accurate scientific evidence of the assurances of an Anonymous Coward to set us straight!