I am sorry you had those experiences but you are generalizing a bit too much here. I am finishing up my masters in computer science right now and have also had very bad experiences with Indians. I've done projects where half our group was Indian and not one of them did anything. Often we didn't even get an answer to e-mails and then later very odd ones about a status check a week before the turn in. One year later i was in another group with an Indian (this time a girl, the others were all guys) and it was nothing at all like before. We were all working hard for it and if anything she did more than i did. That semester-long project was fun, we learned quite a bit and the group interaction was great. I've also been teamed up with Chinese people and they didn't stick out at all. They weren't lazy and they weren't superman, they were just like everybody else. The only issue i consistently had so far with people from South Asia is the smell of their meals (their spice mix i guess). I just can't stand it, especially in the morning (why do you cook at 9 am, why?). But hey, that's my problem.
so whenever you buy something it is right after the first time you looked at it? i don't know how you shop but that's not how it works for me. if i see something i like i might bookmark it and check it out again a week after to see if i was just weird that day or if i really want it. maybe i don't feel like i have the money right now and wait another month until i finally buy it. other times i might see something but think it's not quite right and not even bookmark it. if i now stumble upon it via an ad (not gonna happen since they're all blocked) i might reconsider my earlier decision or at least take another look at the site, because who knows.
neither a product nor an ad has to convince you in the first look. if it does it's amazing marketing, but people don't buy many things after a single look.
only in the context of her answer. she is arguing against the assignment as you can clearly see (shocked, offended, blabla). the over and over quoted phrase from her point of view means that there is a difference between learning about terrorism (your teacher tells you what it's all about, why it happens, where it happened, etc) and being a terrorist (planning a terrorist attack). she equates the planning of a terrorist attack (thinking like a terrorist) with being a terrorist. now if you don't agree you're quite welcome to explain how she means with the last sentence, in context of her previous outrage of course.
"I was shocked and quite offended," she said. "I'm offended that it's Australia but I'm disgusted because it doesn't matter where it is, it's still not something you ask someone to do or think about.... There is a difference between being a terrorist and learning about terrorism."
that is the original quote from the student. the problem is that she actually implies that thinking like a terrorist makes you a terrorist which is why this sentence is actually against the assignment. of course if this sentence were just standing there alone, any reasonable person would be thinking otherwise because clearly thinking like a terrorist does in no way make you one and this student did miss most of the lesson. just like everyone else who is outraged.
exactly, because as we all know if two variables correlate, one has to be the cause of the other. anything else would be far too complicated for our tiny human minds!
yes, exactly! don't we all know this scenario where the management talks to the it head and is all like:
we need a system to save customer data. what data is really no concern to us, you decide and we see that our customers provide it! you just go ahead and implement whatever kind of sophisticated system you see fit, we'll pay for everything, tell us when it's done and we'll launch it! there's no need to check back with anyone here, we're sure you're gonna find the most profitable solution to this! we love you it guys!"
well they pulled out in the sense that they are no longer censoring things. i don't think they ever announced that the will fully pull out, their hope always (well, after they stopped complying with censorship at least) was to continue the full service without censoring. weirdly enough they now seem to have a deal that accomplishes exactly what they want. i say weirdly because you can practically click any where on the google.cn page and you will be sent to the hong kong one, where you can actually search. this makes chinas censorship look like a joke, providing that the com.hk address isn't blocked by them (but i guess it isn't).
it's not like germany is buying footballers from all over the world for their team, that's what wealthy football clubs are for. all of those players of polish/turkish/nigerian/tunisian descent were either born in germany or immigrated at a very early age. they have been living their whole lives in germany, they learned to play football there and were cultivated by german teams. of course wealthy first world countries have a lot of players from other poorer countries, there simply aren't many people migrating from rich countries to poorer ones. the french team has a lot of players of north african descent, our swiss team has lots of different descents as well (but we still suck at football).
“Fetal stem cells? Aren’t those controversial?” – Fry
“In your time, yes. But nowadays, shut up! Besides, these are adult stem cells, harvested from perfectly healthy adults, whom I killed for their stem cells.” – Professor
majority, age of majority. and it's 18 in china, so not really sure what's going on here, maybe it's treated as a mental disorder and they have a legal guardian?
Military Taps Social Networking To Hunt Insurgents
first off: no, not even the article suggests this. the article is about tapping social networking skills. yes there's a difference... like an enormously huge one.
and as other people already pointed out, this has nothing to do with social networking skills either. they are typing information into (military) chat rooms, my god, how difficult! clearly i need my leet social networking skillz for this, come fucking on!
facebook generation, pleeeeease... internet generation maybe.
it's not the same with an insurance, your analogy would be the equivalent to someone having an open wifi and shared directories open to everyone and trying to get insurance money if those get deleted. having an open wifi does not mean you open up a private area it means you give access to publicly available communication and everyone else is able to get the exact same access, just from a different point of entry. you are in principle getting fined because you make it more difficult for them to identify the person acting from ip w.x.y.z at time a.
hey this has been some impressive trolling, but since you didn't even pick up on the freudian projection that i already wrote about in my last reply (but instead felt like you have to now point me to him), i will stop here.
since the first post you have been generalizing that other countries do not do this and wish that and blah. now you tell me that you just meant those countries with a corrupt or apathetic police. and of course i will agree to that, it's not even a question whether that is the case in some countries. but you did not make this point, not even close. you generalized it to just any other country like the sentiment did that you didn't agree with.
then you linked to riots in france somehow implying that it shows how the french don't incarcerate enough people and wish they would be as "tough on crime" as the us. so you wanna tell me that the french police forces are corrupt etc etc? come on.
you could have argued your "thesis" like in the last reply from the beginning but you chose not to. you chose to ridiculously imply that the population of all the other countries look up to how tough the us is and silent wished that they would incarcerate as many people as them. that you're projecting the superiority complex and defensive pride that you displayed in your first post on to me is quite funny. i don't have a reason to defend anything of mine here, i live in switzerland, we really don't give a shit about the rest of europe. you will have a hard time finding any riots or unrests in the past years and believe me, even though we have some discussions on handling immigrants, swiss people do not wish to have the overfilled american prisons.
ah yes, because you broadly refer to just any "other country" you can now tell me that i don't live in the only other country, ah how smart. but no matter where i live you could tell me that, so clearly it's not an argument. you on the other don't even live in a single one of those other countries and the upper middle class enclave hits you right back. you think the neighbourhoods around here are in any way worse than your slums? don't be ridiculous.
i am surprised that you didn't list the greek protests, they're so current! but you know, those unrests that you list, are a tiny percentile of what is considered crimes, they really don't tell anything at all. especially since americans can't even get out of their apartments to cause unrest because they're too fat. even the army is desperately looking for halfway fit people nowadays. but enough with my prejudice. we still think you americans are bonkers over here and since politicians are middle and upper class, you'll have a hard time finding the voices of a country tell you about those neighbourhoods i never go to.
the reason i'm sick of this line is that other countries aren't going "oh my gosh, what is wrong with the usa! so many people are in prison there!"
yes we are.
what those other people in other countries are saying is "man i'm thick of these thieves and murderers running around free. we need to crack down in these elements ruining our society"
no we're not.
in other words, other countries aren't bemoaning our high prison rates, they're bemoaning the thieves getting away scott free in their own country.
no we're not.
other people in other countries are actually envying the usa's high incarceration rate
your analogy is just so way out there, it's about someone hurting himself because of a dangerous situation that you have created. the case on the other hand is nothing like that, it's about someone using an open communication system for a very specific illegal thing which is not the common use of the communication in question.
and you would only open yourself up to legal troubles if there are absurd precedents like this one. which is not a given and there is still some actual evidence needed on your computer for them to be able to link those downloads to you.
how is that more level-headed? you're just defining the adequate security part from the summary with "turn on encryption and change the default password". your car analogy doesn't work either, if i have an open wifi spot it doesn't just go on a frenzy and download stuff, which is what you are suggesting.
the judgment here clearly means to say that an internet connections main purpose is to help you infringe on copyright. you won't get fined for sharing a fork with someone if that someone then goes to kill his wife with it. a city also won't get fined just because they provided a thief with a street to walk on to reach his target. the judgment is utterly absurd.
that comment is from the fda, who has no say in the matter. in an earlier response someone already listed the terms of agreement which tell you not to go crazy because of test results and obviously that you can't blame pathway genomics for anything you do. that their target demographic are people that will base choices on the results (there might be a people who do it for fun, but $100 is quite a bit of money for that) doesn't matter since they are covered by the toa. it's essentially like a psychic, just a little more sciency and probably with a higher probability of being right.
Slashdot Mirror
I am sorry you had those experiences but you are generalizing a bit too much here. I am finishing up my masters in computer science right now and have also had very bad experiences with Indians. I've done projects where half our group was Indian and not one of them did anything. Often we didn't even get an answer to e-mails and then later very odd ones about a status check a week before the turn in. One year later i was in another group with an Indian (this time a girl, the others were all guys) and it was nothing at all like before. We were all working hard for it and if anything she did more than i did. That semester-long project was fun, we learned quite a bit and the group interaction was great. I've also been teamed up with Chinese people and they didn't stick out at all. They weren't lazy and they weren't superman, they were just like everybody else. The only issue i consistently had so far with people from South Asia is the smell of their meals (their spice mix i guess). I just can't stand it, especially in the morning (why do you cook at 9 am, why?). But hey, that's my problem.
you might as well, it certainly won't change its chance of being answered.
please provide a credible citation stating that no one has been killed due to you writing above comment.
so whenever you buy something it is right after the first time you looked at it? i don't know how you shop but that's not how it works for me. if i see something i like i might bookmark it and check it out again a week after to see if i was just weird that day or if i really want it. maybe i don't feel like i have the money right now and wait another month until i finally buy it. other times i might see something but think it's not quite right and not even bookmark it. if i now stumble upon it via an ad (not gonna happen since they're all blocked) i might reconsider my earlier decision or at least take another look at the site, because who knows.
neither a product nor an ad has to convince you in the first look. if it does it's amazing marketing, but people don't buy many things after a single look.
only in the context of her answer. she is arguing against the assignment as you can clearly see (shocked, offended, blabla). the over and over quoted phrase from her point of view means that there is a difference between learning about terrorism (your teacher tells you what it's all about, why it happens, where it happened, etc) and being a terrorist (planning a terrorist attack). she equates the planning of a terrorist attack (thinking like a terrorist) with being a terrorist. now if you don't agree you're quite welcome to explain how she means with the last sentence, in context of her previous outrage of course.
"I was shocked and quite offended," she said. "I'm offended that it's Australia but I'm disgusted because it doesn't matter where it is, it's still not something you ask someone to do or think about. ... There is a difference between being a terrorist and learning about terrorism."
that is the original quote from the student. the problem is that she actually implies that thinking like a terrorist makes you a terrorist which is why this sentence is actually against the assignment. of course if this sentence were just standing there alone, any reasonable person would be thinking otherwise because clearly thinking like a terrorist does in no way make you one and this student did miss most of the lesson. just like everyone else who is outraged.
exactly, because as we all know if two variables correlate, one has to be the cause of the other. anything else would be far too complicated for our tiny human minds!
they thought of flying cars... and we still don't have them.
no.
we need a system to save customer data. what data is really no concern to us, you decide and we see that our customers provide it! you just go ahead and implement whatever kind of sophisticated system you see fit, we'll pay for everything, tell us when it's done and we'll launch it! there's no need to check back with anyone here, we're sure you're gonna find the most profitable solution to this! we love you it guys!"
well they pulled out in the sense that they are no longer censoring things. i don't think they ever announced that the will fully pull out, their hope always (well, after they stopped complying with censorship at least) was to continue the full service without censoring. weirdly enough they now seem to have a deal that accomplishes exactly what they want. i say weirdly because you can practically click any where on the google.cn page and you will be sent to the hong kong one, where you can actually search. this makes chinas censorship look like a joke, providing that the com.hk address isn't blocked by them (but i guess it isn't).
it's not like germany is buying footballers from all over the world for their team, that's what wealthy football clubs are for. all of those players of polish/turkish/nigerian/tunisian descent were either born in germany or immigrated at a very early age. they have been living their whole lives in germany, they learned to play football there and were cultivated by german teams. of course wealthy first world countries have a lot of players from other poorer countries, there simply aren't many people migrating from rich countries to poorer ones. the french team has a lot of players of north african descent, our swiss team has lots of different descents as well (but we still suck at football).
“Fetal stem cells? Aren’t those controversial?” – Fry
“In your time, yes. But nowadays, shut up! Besides, these are adult stem cells, harvested from perfectly healthy adults, whom I killed for their stem cells.” – Professor
majority, age of majority. and it's 18 in china, so not really sure what's going on here, maybe it's treated as a mental disorder and they have a legal guardian?
Military Taps Social Networking To Hunt Insurgents
first off: no, not even the article suggests this. the article is about tapping social networking skills. yes there's a difference... like an enormously huge one.
and as other people already pointed out, this has nothing to do with social networking skills either. they are typing information into (military) chat rooms, my god, how difficult! clearly i need my leet social networking skillz for this, come fucking on!
facebook generation, pleeeeease... internet generation maybe.
it's not the same with an insurance, your analogy would be the equivalent to someone having an open wifi and shared directories open to everyone and trying to get insurance money if those get deleted. having an open wifi does not mean you open up a private area it means you give access to publicly available communication and everyone else is able to get the exact same access, just from a different point of entry. you are in principle getting fined because you make it more difficult for them to identify the person acting from ip w.x.y.z at time a.
hey this has been some impressive trolling, but since you didn't even pick up on the freudian projection that i already wrote about in my last reply (but instead felt like you have to now point me to him), i will stop here.
since the first post you have been generalizing that other countries do not do this and wish that and blah. now you tell me that you just meant those countries with a corrupt or apathetic police. and of course i will agree to that, it's not even a question whether that is the case in some countries. but you did not make this point, not even close. you generalized it to just any other country like the sentiment did that you didn't agree with.
then you linked to riots in france somehow implying that it shows how the french don't incarcerate enough people and wish they would be as "tough on crime" as the us. so you wanna tell me that the french police forces are corrupt etc etc? come on.
you could have argued your "thesis" like in the last reply from the beginning but you chose not to. you chose to ridiculously imply that the population of all the other countries look up to how tough the us is and silent wished that they would incarcerate as many people as them. that you're projecting the superiority complex and defensive pride that you displayed in your first post on to me is quite funny. i don't have a reason to defend anything of mine here, i live in switzerland, we really don't give a shit about the rest of europe. you will have a hard time finding any riots or unrests in the past years and believe me, even though we have some discussions on handling immigrants, swiss people do not wish to have the overfilled american prisons.
have a good one
ah yes, because you broadly refer to just any "other country" you can now tell me that i don't live in the only other country, ah how smart. but no matter where i live you could tell me that, so clearly it's not an argument. you on the other don't even live in a single one of those other countries and the upper middle class enclave hits you right back. you think the neighbourhoods around here are in any way worse than your slums? don't be ridiculous.
i am surprised that you didn't list the greek protests, they're so current! but you know, those unrests that you list, are a tiny percentile of what is considered crimes, they really don't tell anything at all. especially since americans can't even get out of their apartments to cause unrest because they're too fat. even the army is desperately looking for halfway fit people nowadays. but enough with my prejudice. we still think you americans are bonkers over here and since politicians are middle and upper class, you'll have a hard time finding the voices of a country tell you about those neighbourhoods i never go to.
the reason i'm sick of this line is that other countries aren't going "oh my gosh, what is wrong with the usa! so many people are in prison there!"
yes we are.
what those other people in other countries are saying is "man i'm thick of these thieves and murderers running around free. we need to crack down in these elements ruining our society"
no we're not.
in other words, other countries aren't bemoaning our high prison rates, they're bemoaning the thieves getting away scott free in their own country.
no we're not.
other people in other countries are actually envying the usa's high incarceration rate
no we're not.
cheers from europe.
your analogy is just so way out there, it's about someone hurting himself because of a dangerous situation that you have created. the case on the other hand is nothing like that, it's about someone using an open communication system for a very specific illegal thing which is not the common use of the communication in question.
and you would only open yourself up to legal troubles if there are absurd precedents like this one. which is not a given and there is still some actual evidence needed on your computer for them to be able to link those downloads to you.
how is that more level-headed? you're just defining the adequate security part from the summary with "turn on encryption and change the default password". your car analogy doesn't work either, if i have an open wifi spot it doesn't just go on a frenzy and download stuff, which is what you are suggesting.
the judgment here clearly means to say that an internet connections main purpose is to help you infringe on copyright. you won't get fined for sharing a fork with someone if that someone then goes to kill his wife with it. a city also won't get fined just because they provided a thief with a street to walk on to reach his target. the judgment is utterly absurd.
(...) unless you plan on them becoming your father or mother.
your ideas intrigue me. i'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
because steve will have a hard time convincing obama to go to round two with vietnam?
that comment is from the fda, who has no say in the matter. in an earlier response someone already listed the terms of agreement which tell you not to go crazy because of test results and obviously that you can't blame pathway genomics for anything you do. that their target demographic are people that will base choices on the results (there might be a people who do it for fun, but $100 is quite a bit of money for that) doesn't matter since they are covered by the toa. it's essentially like a psychic, just a little more sciency and probably with a higher probability of being right.