Email services had been including the previous emails below the reply, indented, for ages. With Gmail, when non-Gmail people email you, you now have that pointlessly duplicated across the conversation view still, don't you? Although they fold it or something. I don't know; I disabled it awhile back.
It was also the 2nd example of the single-text-box-searched-all-meta-data paradigm that treats the the backing store as a blackbox db type affair.
A paradigm that has reached its inevitable irritating conclusion in the Chrome Unified All Things Box that you type an URL slightly wrong in and it searches instead.
Firefox: Because if I want to search, I'll use the search bar, god damn it! (although I had to figure out how to disable it when FF turned on the same exact thing in *their* address bar for some weird reason)
I'm not sure whether to interpret that selfie thing as an April Fools joke or not...if not, it's one of the most narcissistic and completely pointless things I've heard of in a long time.
I was under the impression that DMCA only required you to accede to takedown requests. It's the big content owners that are leaning on everybody to do their job for them, of finding infringing materials and remove them preemptively.
Find out who the corporate officers were when the part changed, assuming that it was changed after the first documented incident. Sue them for knowingly making a change to future vehicles to remove the possibility of future models having incidents that led to more deaths due to a consumer products safety issue.
Umm...this sounds like it would have the effect that the person in charge just leaves WITHOUT fixing the problem so that he can't be sued, leaving it for the next guy to discover and fix on his own (and get subsequently sued for it); i.e. "assuming that it was changed after the first documented incident" would be a fallacious assumption if they were halfway smart.
Sue them for knowingly making a change to future vehicles to remove the possibility of future models having incidents that led to more deaths due to a consumer products safety issue.
I really hope that I'm misreading this, as it appears you're proposing suing people for making a product safer.
Not to mention that "Blood Alcohol Level" isn't actually a measurement of the alcohol in your blood at all, but rather in YOUR BREATH. Which there is a lot of handwaving to claim is strictly correlated.
I once rode with a person who had had like 9 drinks in the last couple hours, on the commuter highway afterwards. Steady as a rock...although I'll admit my own perceptions were significantly altered at the time;-)
I don't think you can really use "Q.E.D." after a single statement....Proofs generally require more than 1 step: at least an initial condition, 1 (or almost always more) transformations, and a conclusion.
If you have no problem denying evolution, geology, and cosmology, I shouldn't be surprised if you also have no issues denying known history.
And you had such a reasonable and non-confrontational post up until that last sentence...
We have a lot of people saying that science leaves no room for doubt, when the science is extremely theoretical (I'm still straining myself to understand how some of the scientific models for the beginning of the universe can be called scientifically rigorous) or the historical record is not nearly as clear-cut as advertised. But I'm not really in the mood for a slap-fight, eh.
Indeed, how do you know that Frodo never really existed? He's just in a different history book. The fact that it's a fictional one rather than a factual one doesn't automatically mean it's 100% lies and fabrication.
LOTR never claims to be anything but fiction as far as I'm aware. It's a completely different and non-analogous case--I would hope there aren't any people living their lives by the "teachings" of the Lord of the Rings. It was kind of meant as a parable, according to J.R.R., but I don't remember much of any preachy bits in it. That's very subjective though, I suppose.
I didn't mean to suggest that Nimrod, Cush, Ham, and Noah didn't really exist. I did mean to say that the biblical characters bearing those names are just that: characters. We have no evidence of their existence beyond what is written of them in a book
Yeah, okay; that's fair. It sounded like you were saying there was no way they could have existed due to your terse wording.
If one can claim that, for example, the biblican creation story is not meant to be interpreted literally, how are we to know that Noah wasn't also a metaphor? In any case, the historicity of these characters is not established, unlike the historicity of, say, Hammurabi.
You raise a good point that I don't have an answer for. Either A) we take the Bible as literal truth...which is very problematic and will generally get you shouted at by all of Slashdot:-), or B) we decide which parts we're going to take literally (if any), and then, well...the conservative arguments for why we should believe the book in the first place are kind of out the window if we can only trust parts of it.
If people want to be areligious, that's fine by me; I just get rubbed the wrong way when they flippantly mock it. Even if it's a load of crap, at least religion has the ability to comfort/make some people functional day-to-day. In which case we pull out the "they're a bunch of intellectual weaklings" or "look at all the horrible things religion has caused" (because we have such a shortage of reasons for people to do horrible things to each other) arguments. But I'm digressing...
That being said, the earliest evidence of these characters' existence dates from several centuries after the well-documented reign of Hammurabi. "Eye for an eye" is not a concept introduced by the Abrahamic faiths, as even according to the Abrahamic mythology, Moses is predated by Hammurabi.
To be fair, I don't think even the Bible itself claims it was. IIRC the language is something like, "It is a generally-accepted saying, 'an eye for an eye'...but I say to you,... etc." I see a pretty decent number of people making religious arguments based on fallacious foundations around here.
It's unsettling to me that so many people are offended by this statement. It's not exactly a radical claim, as I'm only repeating common historical knowledge. I fear that this claim, combined with the indoctrination that often accompanies religious belief, causes an uncomfortable amount of cognitive dissonance in some people, which they resolve by discounting what I'm saying.
I at least still have knee-jerk reactions to a lot of things (well, some of them I've developed after reading Slashdot for the last few years...), and I presume that that's a big problem in the way of intelligent debate, yeah. One has to stop and think where the other person is coming from rather than just saying, "Well, he's a moron."
And I expect that it's also "we were the best, the first, and we're the only ones telling the truth!" in play. Society in the U.S. seems to be way too competitive to me. It's always Us vs. Them. Are They winning, or are We? And admitting you might be wrong is admitting defeat, which They will often jump on.
Question everything. Question what you're told. Question your own assumptions and beliefs. And listen to others. Try to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a hell of a lot more likely that it has some sub/conscious effect than that it's totally impossible for it to have any effect whatsoever.
Do you honestly believe that makes American sociopaths "more corrupt"
Not more corrupt--more numerous.
He was a Buddhists
What, he had multiple personality disorder?
Email services had been including the previous emails below the reply, indented, for ages. With Gmail, when non-Gmail people email you, you now have that pointlessly duplicated across the conversation view still, don't you? Although they fold it or something. I don't know; I disabled it awhile back.
It was also the 2nd example of the single-text-box-searched-all-meta-data paradigm that treats the the backing store as a blackbox db type affair.
A paradigm that has reached its inevitable irritating conclusion in the Chrome Unified All Things Box that you type an URL slightly wrong in and it searches instead.
Firefox: Because if I want to search, I'll use the search bar, god damn it! (although I had to figure out how to disable it when FF turned on the same exact thing in *their* address bar for some weird reason)
I'm not sure whether to interpret that selfie thing as an April Fools joke or not...if not, it's one of the most narcissistic and completely pointless things I've heard of in a long time.
Hmm. Yeah, I suppose that's a good point.
Drop Box is nothing more than a gussied up repackaging of a SFTP or FTPS and a nice fancy ol' GUI.
The same thing could be said for early Ubuntu. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.
A) Hosting an FTP server is "nice and friendly"? *cough cough cough*
B) Since when has SFTP/FTPS been considered more than minimally secure?
Someone (GP)'s been drinking the Kool-Aid...
I was under the impression that DMCA only required you to accede to takedown requests. It's the big content owners that are leaning on everybody to do their job for them, of finding infringing materials and remove them preemptively.
There is no "your" data or "there" data
Or "their" data, even.
If you're not distributing copyrighted material I fail to see how this article is relevant at all. They wouldn't care.
What if I access it from 4 locations myself? e.g. home, work, friend's house, public library.
Boom. "Infringement."
Find out who the corporate officers were when the part changed, assuming that it was changed after the first documented incident. Sue them for knowingly making a change to future vehicles to remove the possibility of future models having incidents that led to more deaths due to a consumer products safety issue.
Umm...this sounds like it would have the effect that the person in charge just leaves WITHOUT fixing the problem so that he can't be sued, leaving it for the next guy to discover and fix on his own (and get subsequently sued for it); i.e. "assuming that it was changed after the first documented incident" would be a fallacious assumption if they were halfway smart.
Sue them for knowingly making a change to future vehicles to remove the possibility of future models having incidents that led to more deaths due to a consumer products safety issue.
I really hope that I'm misreading this, as it appears you're proposing suing people for making a product safer.
Why?
Not to mention that "Blood Alcohol Level" isn't actually a measurement of the alcohol in your blood at all, but rather in YOUR BREATH. Which there is a lot of handwaving to claim is strictly correlated.
I once rode with a person who had had like 9 drinks in the last couple hours, on the commuter highway afterwards. Steady as a rock...although I'll admit my own perceptions were significantly altered at the time ;-)
*sputum
Except for the part where almost no one drives stick anymore...
I don't think you can really use "Q.E.D." after a single statement....Proofs generally require more than 1 step: at least an initial condition, 1 (or almost always more) transformations, and a conclusion.
1) Your argument
2) No
3) Q.E.D.
doesn't really count.
Race != Species. Just because we're way too obsessed about the latter doesn't mean we should confuse the conversation further by denying the term.
Imagine if the new NASA chief thought the earth was flat. Well, he's in the perfect environment to change his mind on that issue.
What the fuck does one's views on homosexuality have to do with designing a web browser?!
Geli_Raubal
Unfortunately, she (probably?) shot herself as well. (Noticing a pattern here?)
Why would you *want* to run a Christian college as an atheist?
Or you can be naive
FTFY
If you have no problem denying evolution, geology, and cosmology, I shouldn't be surprised if you also have no issues denying known history.
And you had such a reasonable and non-confrontational post up until that last sentence...
We have a lot of people saying that science leaves no room for doubt, when the science is extremely theoretical (I'm still straining myself to understand how some of the scientific models for the beginning of the universe can be called scientifically rigorous) or the historical record is not nearly as clear-cut as advertised. But I'm not really in the mood for a slap-fight, eh.
Indeed, how do you know that Frodo never really existed? He's just in a different history book. The fact that it's a fictional one rather than a factual one doesn't automatically mean it's 100% lies and fabrication.
LOTR never claims to be anything but fiction as far as I'm aware. It's a completely different and non-analogous case--I would hope there aren't any people living their lives by the "teachings" of the Lord of the Rings. It was kind of meant as a parable, according to J.R.R., but I don't remember much of any preachy bits in it. That's very subjective though, I suppose.
I didn't mean to suggest that Nimrod, Cush, Ham, and Noah didn't really exist. I did mean to say that the biblical characters bearing those names are just that: characters. We have no evidence of their existence beyond what is written of them in a book
Yeah, okay; that's fair. It sounded like you were saying there was no way they could have existed due to your terse wording.
If one can claim that, for example, the biblican creation story is not meant to be interpreted literally, how are we to know that Noah wasn't also a metaphor? In any case, the historicity of these characters is not established, unlike the historicity of, say, Hammurabi.
You raise a good point that I don't have an answer for. Either A) we take the Bible as literal truth...which is very problematic and will generally get you shouted at by all of Slashdot :-), or B) we decide which parts we're going to take literally (if any), and then, well...the conservative arguments for why we should believe the book in the first place are kind of out the window if we can only trust parts of it.
If people want to be areligious, that's fine by me; I just get rubbed the wrong way when they flippantly mock it. Even if it's a load of crap, at least religion has the ability to comfort/make some people functional day-to-day. In which case we pull out the "they're a bunch of intellectual weaklings" or "look at all the horrible things religion has caused" (because we have such a shortage of reasons for people to do horrible things to each other) arguments. But I'm digressing...
That being said, the earliest evidence of these characters' existence dates from several centuries after the well-documented reign of Hammurabi. "Eye for an eye" is not a concept introduced by the Abrahamic faiths, as even according to the Abrahamic mythology, Moses is predated by Hammurabi.
To be fair, I don't think even the Bible itself claims it was. IIRC the language is something like, "It is a generally-accepted saying, 'an eye for an eye'...but I say to you, ... etc." I see a pretty decent number of people making religious arguments based on fallacious foundations around here.
It's unsettling to me that so many people are offended by this statement. It's not exactly a radical claim, as I'm only repeating common historical knowledge. I fear that this claim, combined with the indoctrination that often accompanies religious belief, causes an uncomfortable amount of cognitive dissonance in some people, which they resolve by discounting what I'm saying.
I at least still have knee-jerk reactions to a lot of things (well, some of them I've developed after reading Slashdot for the last few years...), and I presume that that's a big problem in the way of intelligent debate, yeah. One has to stop and think where the other person is coming from rather than just saying, "Well, he's a moron."
And I expect that it's also "we were the best, the first, and we're the only ones telling the truth!" in play. Society in the U.S. seems to be way too competitive to me. It's always Us vs. Them. Are They winning, or are We? And admitting you might be wrong is admitting defeat, which They will often jump on.
Question everything. Question what you're told. Question your own assumptions and beliefs. And listen to others. Try to give them the benefit of the doubt.