That's not just college, it's true for life in America in general. The basic principle is that you pay for something because you want more of it. Also, tax breaks are just another type of subsidy. It seems that the government wants more unsuccessful black people, more broken families, more poverty, more women working outside of the home, and more artificially large businesses. I would have thought Harvard would be more accepting of white middle-class males than the rest of our society.
I would also hate to see Solaris die. I remember looking at it a while back, and thinking that it had promise. However, with all the talk about copyright issues and incompatibilities, I thought it best not to get too familiar with it. I think that at the time, one reason that I liked it was ZFS. The other reason is that it was one more OS out there for my list of "Other OS's that are not Windows or Mac". It comes in handy in conversation sometimes.
This seems to me as a straw man argument to imply that "conservatives are paranoid". There are two links listed. As far as I can tell, the one doesn't say anything about a conspiracy. The other link seems to be the craziest anti-leftest they could find, so he at least is depicted correctly. However, to say that Glenn Beck supporters are all conservative or that conservatives are paranoid is a bit of a stretch. I don't think many Beck supporters will even notice the Google map, as they probably all have a paper map somewhere.
Many of Beck's supporters wouldn't vote for a conservative or a Republican to save their lives. If you recall, before Fox picked him up, he was on CNN's Headline News which could in no way be thought of as conservative. The liberal station loved him then while he was bashing George Bush and Republicans. Now, the liberals are in power and he's countering environmentalism and socialism. This time, it's Fox who likes him and CNN that hates him, but his basic message is the same.
His detractors use ad-hominem attacks and straw man arguments to refute him. They say things like "He cries on TV!" and "His supporters are rednecks!", but very rarely have I heard any arguments against his message. I think that many people have trouble agreeing on what part of his message they don't like. For instance if they say they don't like him because he didn't support Bush or McCain, their friend might have liked that, but dislike that he doesn't support global warming legislation. It's so much easier to just attack the man and people who like him.
Government funded roads are a communist conspiracy.
Specifically, they are part of plank 6 of the 10 point program of Communism in the Communist Manifesto. Although, it also states "These measures will of course be different in different countries.", and without assuming the reasons why we make these decisions, you must agree that we are on a road of which Marx would have approved.
Why does MS insist on lax security? Autorun should be off by default, not on. This is just plain stupid. It's not a bug, it's a design error.
It's not a bug, it's a MS-feature. There is a trade-off to be made when it comes to security and usability. The two share an inverse relationship. Windows chooses usability even at the cost of security. Sure, they could turn off autorun by default. They don't so that any user can put in a disk or USB drive and expect something to happen specific to the content on that device. Would users still be able to figure out that they can click on that CD icon-thingy? probably. However, MS can sell it as a feature boasting about how easy it is to use. It's more of that mentality which gives you "I can just put a picture in that folder and it's instantly available to everybody on the block! Windows 7 was my idea!"
Personally, I think of this sort of thing as a huge mis-feature. However, this has also given them the largest part of the computer market and makes people believe that Linux is just for hackers. They've done a great job of making people think that viruses are just a natural part of computing anyway, and then they can sell more software to clean up those viruses. It baffles me how such a decision works, but the cold hard truth is that it has worked quite well.
That's more of that pro MS propaganda that the only reason that Windows is prone to viruses is because of it's large user base. While that is a significant factor, it is far from the only reason that Linux gets less malware. Also putting aside for the moment the fact that most Linux users are more technically capable, here are some other reasons
More eyes and coders capable of fixing bugs and reporting them
Better, more fine grained firewall
Software that is harder to exploit by default
Repositories full of truly Free (FOSS) software so users don't have to gamble by downloading "freeware" and other potentially infected files
Better tools to analyse the network to detect botnets, etc.
Various distributions and constantly updated packages making it harder to distribute software without source code
This in no way means that Linux systems can't be infected. Of course there are rootkits and other nasties, and when Linux computers are infected, they can do a lot of damage. Also, the same design philosophy that makes it harder to infect may make it harder to use as a trade-off. There are plenty of reasons why if Windows computers died, Linux would not be the new source of spam.
It's not just the OS, it's also the tools. Look at IE and Outlook. IMHO, a world without MS would mean an internet that is much friendlier and more powerful. I don't see that happening, though, and other companies would probably take their place, if they did. So, it's just wishful thinking.
The extra level of detail that this provides potentially indicates who the user is, where they are looking and how they are feeling. The face tracker was developed as part of a face- and voice-verification system for controlling access to mobile internet applications such as e-mail, social networking and on-line banking.
We're sorry, but we do not recognise the sad face with which you view your bank account. Please try again when you are more happy.
Any fangirl that is dense enough to believe that vampires sparkle probably has a chance to think that guy really is an undead. Also, if she finds any of he Twilight story to be interesting, imagine what she might think about your latest nerd stories that actually have a plot. On the other hand, I don't know why you would want such a girl.
They did. The article said that it was open to homosexuals. I would say that socially accepting the union of people who can't figure out the most basic principle is a great way to cut down on breeding.
I'm not at all worried about somebody talking loudly. The thing that I want to avoid is mind altering chemicals involuntarily entering my body or those of others. As for the cigarette smoke that children have to endure on a daily basis from their parents and other people, there really is no recourse. I can't do anything about that, but I can try to keep the pot away from them.
If a grown adult wants to harm themselves, that I would allow. I don't think you should ever be able to legally harm innocent people.
I haven't had time to read the whole thing, a Google search gives this link: http://www.lassensharpshooters.com/article-nazilaw.pdf. While I don't have the time at the moment to read the whole thing, it seems like it might provide the citations which you ask for. The whole thing could be bogus, but it seems to reference it's position well. I intend to look into it further myself. Even if Hitler did rearm some of it's (at that point were they Nazi?) citizens, he certainly had no intentions of letting the captured countries have that right. Regardless, banning individual arms has throughout history been with the intention of subjugating the populace.
I agree with you on the one hand. Drug abuse is a social/moral problem which the government has no right controlling. That is, at least to the point where it doesn't hurt a second party. In other words, as much as I think that recreational drug use is foolishness, if there were laws heavily criminalising any unwelcome drug exposure (second hand smoke, drugs being slipped to people, etc.), then I would gladly support legalizing all drugs. It is only that very lack of such laws that convince me to support anti-drug legislation. As it stands, if somebody exposes me to their pot cloud, I can have them arrested for drug use. However if it were legal, then I would have no recourse. Of course, trying to convince dope addicts to support common sense legislation is a lost cause. Therefore, I will continue to support anti-drug laws.
That's very true. Terrorists, as any group of people, have many ways of communicating with each other. Some forms of communication are more convenient, but for an evil crime organisation, convenience is not the top priority. As you mentioned with box cutters, banning them didn't make it one bit harder for terrorists to make attempts on planes, but just made it much more troublesome for the many honest airline passengers.
The governments know this won't do anything for security. Either they are trying to trick the people into thinking that they are doing good (for the votes), or they are actively attempting to limit freedom. Either way, it isn't a good thing.
I never said that people don't know what is right. While people may not fully grasp all the implications, they do know what is right... and then intentionally do the opposite. That's human nature.
There are really only two laws: 1. Love God, and 2. Love thy neighbour as thyself. If people would do that, then they would be fine. The fact that they don't is the reason for all the crime and corruption in the world.
That being the case, religion won't help matters either. That's simply adding more rules for people to disobey.
I don't expect those things to actually happen because people have morality,
People are not by nature moral. What most people call "morals" is really just a bunch of self serving excuses for doing bad things. The only influences, secularly speaking, that will keep this technology from being used in the most hideous ways are laziness, lack of sufficient resources, and greedy bickering between scientists, corporations, and bureaucrats.
On the matter of the Bible and "critical thinking" I must point out that, at least for the unbeliever, the two will contradict. It is not with the mind that a person believes, but with the heart. In fact, it is to them foolishness:
I Chorinthians 1:21-23 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
Yes, homosexuals are wrong, as well as everybody else until they accept God's free gift. God loves them. While the church should draw a straight line to show wrong from right, it should only be confrontational against those claiming to be Christians and perverting the Bible. There will be more condemnation toward so-called Christians like these. If more Christians would live what they belive, then perhaps people would be more apt to listen.
Besides, this "persicution" is nothing. When people speak a weak gospel of hate they get laughed at. When people preach the true gospel of Love, they get murdered.
I was thinking the same thing when I posted. However, once you think about it, it makes about as much sense as TFA. I guess that I would have modded that funny too.
I've probably spent most of my gaming time playing nethack. I wonder if that counts for anything. I've learned not to steal from shopkeepers, you should always know where the stairs are, and that eating cats is a bad idea. Sadly, writing "Elbereth" on your desk won't keep you from getting fired. It does seem to keep the giant ants away, though.
Even though I wasn't around in the 50's, the world that my parents describe growing up in was a much safer place. There were criminals, but society didn't just give them a slap on the wrist when they were found. As you have pointed out, there was always somebody there who knew who should and should not be around.
Another factor that I think is important and have seen take a sharp decline even in my lifetime is the general morality. These days, I would be more concerned of the other children and the influences of society than the actual criminals. If I were forced to choose between wantoness and Halo, I think video games are the better alternative.
I just want to point out that in your post, the actions which you say will make them take notice boil down to free market capitalism fueled by a court case. You mention "bad publicity" and the six o'clock news. I see your point that the courts are a great way to raise awareness. My point is that it is a sad thing that we can't find a better way to get people's attention.
Obviously, they don't care about customer service because we don't care. Maybe I'm too skeptical, but I don't think that this court case will change anything. In the end, a few/. readers get upset enough while most of the world never hears of it. It's just my opinion, but time will tell.
The problem is that too many people see suing as the only option. It is far more efficient to boycott or find other free market solutions to encourage them to be more user friendly. The fact that people look to the courts shows the sad state of things.
Companies, particularly large ones, have more money than you do, and so they are likely to do better in court. Then, if you do manage a small victory, it will hurt future vendors, and therefore harm competition. We should use the market against them. Their power comes from your cash.
I'm surprised that with so many potentially capable parties in the tech community and here on/. that we don't have any phones yet that are more functional. All that I can figure is that the majority of people really are happy with these contracts and defective by design phones.
Many of the games that come out these days look appealing. However, when you play them, their gimmicks get old pretty quickly. Even when a game is genuinely good, it doesn't seem to be worth the price tag. Money is hard to come by, playable games are not.
When looking at the expensive games of today, I can't find many that would be more enjoyable and challenging than nethack, or perphaps Zork. Sure, some might be more entertaining, but not for the price when there are such great free alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not just college, it's true for life in America in general. The basic principle is that you pay for something because you want more of it. Also, tax breaks are just another type of subsidy. It seems that the government wants more unsuccessful black people, more broken families, more poverty, more women working outside of the home, and more artificially large businesses. I would have thought Harvard would be more accepting of white middle-class males than the rest of our society.
I would also hate to see Solaris die. I remember looking at it a while back, and thinking that it had promise. However, with all the talk about copyright issues and incompatibilities, I thought it best not to get too familiar with it. I think that at the time, one reason that I liked it was ZFS. The other reason is that it was one more OS out there for my list of "Other OS's that are not Windows or Mac". It comes in handy in conversation sometimes.
This seems to me as a straw man argument to imply that "conservatives are paranoid". There are two links listed. As far as I can tell, the one doesn't say anything about a conspiracy. The other link seems to be the craziest anti-leftest they could find, so he at least is depicted correctly. However, to say that Glenn Beck supporters are all conservative or that conservatives are paranoid is a bit of a stretch. I don't think many Beck supporters will even notice the Google map, as they probably all have a paper map somewhere.
Many of Beck's supporters wouldn't vote for a conservative or a Republican to save their lives. If you recall, before Fox picked him up, he was on CNN's Headline News which could in no way be thought of as conservative. The liberal station loved him then while he was bashing George Bush and Republicans. Now, the liberals are in power and he's countering environmentalism and socialism. This time, it's Fox who likes him and CNN that hates him, but his basic message is the same.
His detractors use ad-hominem attacks and straw man arguments to refute him. They say things like "He cries on TV!" and "His supporters are rednecks!", but very rarely have I heard any arguments against his message. I think that many people have trouble agreeing on what part of his message they don't like. For instance if they say they don't like him because he didn't support Bush or McCain, their friend might have liked that, but dislike that he doesn't support global warming legislation. It's so much easier to just attack the man and people who like him.
Government funded roads are a communist conspiracy.
Specifically, they are part of plank 6 of the 10 point program of Communism in the Communist Manifesto. Although, it also states "These measures will of course be different in different countries.", and without assuming the reasons why we make these decisions, you must agree that we are on a road of which Marx would have approved.
Why does MS insist on lax security? Autorun should be off by default, not on. This is just plain stupid. It's not a bug, it's a design error.
It's not a bug, it's a MS-feature. There is a trade-off to be made when it comes to security and usability. The two share an inverse relationship. Windows chooses usability even at the cost of security. Sure, they could turn off autorun by default. They don't so that any user can put in a disk or USB drive and expect something to happen specific to the content on that device. Would users still be able to figure out that they can click on that CD icon-thingy? probably. However, MS can sell it as a feature boasting about how easy it is to use. It's more of that mentality which gives you "I can just put a picture in that folder and it's instantly available to everybody on the block! Windows 7 was my idea!"
Personally, I think of this sort of thing as a huge mis-feature. However, this has also given them the largest part of the computer market and makes people believe that Linux is just for hackers. They've done a great job of making people think that viruses are just a natural part of computing anyway, and then they can sell more software to clean up those viruses. It baffles me how such a decision works, but the cold hard truth is that it has worked quite well.
</anti_windows_rant>
That's more of that pro MS propaganda that the only reason that Windows is prone to viruses is because of it's large user base. While that is a significant factor, it is far from the only reason that Linux gets less malware. Also putting aside for the moment the fact that most Linux users are more technically capable, here are some other reasons
This in no way means that Linux systems can't be infected. Of course there are rootkits and other nasties, and when Linux computers are infected, they can do a lot of damage. Also, the same design philosophy that makes it harder to infect may make it harder to use as a trade-off. There are plenty of reasons why if Windows computers died, Linux would not be the new source of spam.
It's not just the OS, it's also the tools. Look at IE and Outlook. IMHO, a world without MS would mean an internet that is much friendlier and more powerful. I don't see that happening, though, and other companies would probably take their place, if they did. So, it's just wishful thinking.
It seems to me that /. folks have quite a lot of knowledge about anti-depressants and drugs in general. I'm not sure what that means, exactly.
The extra level of detail that this provides potentially indicates who the user is, where they are looking and how they are feeling. The face tracker was developed as part of a face- and voice-verification system for controlling access to mobile internet applications such as e-mail, social networking and on-line banking.
We're sorry, but we do not recognise the sad face with which you view your bank account. Please try again when you are more happy.
Any fangirl that is dense enough to believe that vampires sparkle probably has a chance to think that guy really is an undead. Also, if she finds any of he Twilight story to be interesting, imagine what she might think about your latest nerd stories that actually have a plot. On the other hand, I don't know why you would want such a girl.
They did. The article said that it was open to homosexuals. I would say that socially accepting the union of people who can't figure out the most basic principle is a great way to cut down on breeding.
I'm not at all worried about somebody talking loudly. The thing that I want to avoid is mind altering chemicals involuntarily entering my body or those of others. As for the cigarette smoke that children have to endure on a daily basis from their parents and other people, there really is no recourse. I can't do anything about that, but I can try to keep the pot away from them.
If a grown adult wants to harm themselves, that I would allow. I don't think you should ever be able to legally harm innocent people.
I haven't had time to read the whole thing, a Google search gives this link: http://www.lassensharpshooters.com/article-nazilaw.pdf. While I don't have the time at the moment to read the whole thing, it seems like it might provide the citations which you ask for. The whole thing could be bogus, but it seems to reference it's position well. I intend to look into it further myself. Even if Hitler did rearm some of it's (at that point were they Nazi?) citizens, he certainly had no intentions of letting the captured countries have that right. Regardless, banning individual arms has throughout history been with the intention of subjugating the populace.
I agree with you on the one hand. Drug abuse is a social/moral problem which the government has no right controlling. That is, at least to the point where it doesn't hurt a second party. In other words, as much as I think that recreational drug use is foolishness, if there were laws heavily criminalising any unwelcome drug exposure (second hand smoke, drugs being slipped to people, etc.), then I would gladly support legalizing all drugs. It is only that very lack of such laws that convince me to support anti-drug legislation. As it stands, if somebody exposes me to their pot cloud, I can have them arrested for drug use. However if it were legal, then I would have no recourse. Of course, trying to convince dope addicts to support common sense legislation is a lost cause. Therefore, I will continue to support anti-drug laws.
That's very true. Terrorists, as any group of people, have many ways of communicating with each other. Some forms of communication are more convenient, but for an evil crime organisation, convenience is not the top priority. As you mentioned with box cutters, banning them didn't make it one bit harder for terrorists to make attempts on planes, but just made it much more troublesome for the many honest airline passengers.
The governments know this won't do anything for security. Either they are trying to trick the people into thinking that they are doing good (for the votes), or they are actively attempting to limit freedom. Either way, it isn't a good thing.
I never said that people don't know what is right. While people may not fully grasp all the implications, they do know what is right... and then intentionally do the opposite. That's human nature.
There are really only two laws: 1. Love God, and 2. Love thy neighbour as thyself. If people would do that, then they would be fine. The fact that they don't is the reason for all the crime and corruption in the world.
That being the case, religion won't help matters either. That's simply adding more rules for people to disobey.
Oh no! Now the government will start to sign disarmament treaties!
I don't expect those things to actually happen because people have morality,
People are not by nature moral. What most people call "morals" is really just a bunch of self serving excuses for doing bad things. The only influences, secularly speaking, that will keep this technology from being used in the most hideous ways are laziness, lack of sufficient resources, and greedy bickering between scientists, corporations, and bureaucrats.
pointing a magnifying glass at an ant? I call prior art!
On the matter of the Bible and "critical thinking" I must point out that, at least for the unbeliever, the two will contradict. It is not with the mind that a person believes, but with the heart. In fact, it is to them foolishness:
I Chorinthians 1:21-23 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
Yes, homosexuals are wrong, as well as everybody else until they accept God's free gift. God loves them. While the church should draw a straight line to show wrong from right, it should only be confrontational against those claiming to be Christians and perverting the Bible. There will be more condemnation toward so-called Christians like these. If more Christians would live what they belive, then perhaps people would be more apt to listen.
Besides, this "persicution" is nothing. When people speak a weak gospel of hate they get laughed at. When people preach the true gospel of Love, they get murdered.
Only on Slashdot can this be modded "Insightful".
I was thinking the same thing when I posted. However, once you think about it, it makes about as much sense as TFA. I guess that I would have modded that funny too.
I've probably spent most of my gaming time playing nethack. I wonder if that counts for anything. I've learned not to steal from shopkeepers, you should always know where the stairs are, and that eating cats is a bad idea. Sadly, writing "Elbereth" on your desk won't keep you from getting fired. It does seem to keep the giant ants away, though.
Even though I wasn't around in the 50's, the world that my parents describe growing up in was a much safer place. There were criminals, but society didn't just give them a slap on the wrist when they were found. As you have pointed out, there was always somebody there who knew who should and should not be around.
Another factor that I think is important and have seen take a sharp decline even in my lifetime is the general morality. These days, I would be more concerned of the other children and the influences of society than the actual criminals. If I were forced to choose between wantoness and Halo, I think video games are the better alternative.
I just want to point out that in your post, the actions which you say will make them take notice boil down to free market capitalism fueled by a court case. You mention "bad publicity" and the six o'clock news. I see your point that the courts are a great way to raise awareness. My point is that it is a sad thing that we can't find a better way to get people's attention.
Obviously, they don't care about customer service because we don't care. Maybe I'm too skeptical, but I don't think that this court case will change anything. In the end, a few /. readers get upset enough while most of the world never hears of it. It's just my opinion, but time will tell.
The problem is that too many people see suing as the only option. It is far more efficient to boycott or find other free market solutions to encourage them to be more user friendly. The fact that people look to the courts shows the sad state of things.
Companies, particularly large ones, have more money than you do, and so they are likely to do better in court. Then, if you do manage a small victory, it will hurt future vendors, and therefore harm competition. We should use the market against them. Their power comes from your cash.
I'm surprised that with so many potentially capable parties in the tech community and here on /. that we don't have any phones yet that are more functional. All that I can figure is that the majority of people really are happy with these contracts and defective by design phones.
Many of the games that come out these days look appealing. However, when you play them, their gimmicks get old pretty quickly. Even when a game is genuinely good, it doesn't seem to be worth the price tag. Money is hard to come by, playable games are not.
When looking at the expensive games of today, I can't find many that would be more enjoyable and challenging than nethack, or perphaps Zork. Sure, some might be more entertaining, but not for the price when there are such great free alternatives.