People buy iPhones and iPads and iApps because they fulfill some sort of criteria.
People find Apple products easy to use and reliable, so they buy them. The reason slashdotters get upset is that there are much more important issues at work - we bite the bullet and use and test free software even when it's not the best option, because it's important to many of us to own and control our own computers. The common Apple user doesn't care about the big issues, they only like how smooth and shiny the device is, so Apple becomes successful despite being evil. Especially frustrating is that their users are so outspoken, and Apple fanboys are outspoken about ignoring philosophical issues and focusing on it "just working."
I don't care for the idea either, but not because I'm too lazy. It's because it's a terrible idea. It seems like lately Nintendo's formula for a great game is the degree to which motion control is forced on you. The wiimote is such a gimmick.. I own a Wii and let me tell you, motion gestures do not make a game any more fun.
But I thought (think) that a touch screen is a ridiculous choice for a handheld game console, so what do I know.
Is that supposed to be a valid defense? A test which has apparently been universally decried as enormously inaccurate is being used to deny people employment. And like the guy said in the video, if you fail for applying to the NSA then you might not be able to gain employment for other government agencies because they keep the result on file.
Man I would totally fail a polygraph test. Look at this, it happens all the time. I bet if I were put into a one on one interrogation for an hour I would say whatever they wanted even though I was innocent. In the video when the interviewer was watching the lady closely and asked "Have you ever participated in espionage against the United States" a chill went down my spine. False positive!
if they refuse|agree to take a polygraph they're probably guilty|innocent
I would refuse to take a polygraph test under any circumstances. Therefore, my cooperation has no correlation with my guilt or innocence.
By the way, why would I refuse to take such a test? Simple. It cannot help you in any way. They can take the things you say in the test and use them against you in court, but no matter how flawlessly you pass the test, as a defendant you cannot call on any of that testimony in the court room. Only the prosecution can call testimony from police interviews. So basically, it can hurt you, but it legally cannot help you at all.
I don't understand why people think that their personal experience and the experience of their friends is representative of the entire job market. "How good the job market is" (how do you even measure that anyway?) probably varies so much across a single state that individual data points are useless.
On the other hand a LOT of the sick people I've known were sick due to their OWN actions, such as overeating, overdrinking, shooting drugs, or living wreckless lives (driving 100mph down the interstate). WHY should I have to repair their self destruction? THEY made the decision to live high-risk behaviors - it's not my fault. Not my responsibility.
You're right, we shouldn't have to pay for care for people who don't take care of their health. But we already do (partially), with insurance and also any grants or donation money going into the hospital. And one reason that they could be unhealthy is because preventative medical care is too expensive. Give them free preventative care, get fewer hospital visits, save money.
Okay. And what about death? At what point does a person stop having a right to receive medical attention. Or do we just keep the almost-dead tied to heart/lung machines indefinitely, even if it's costing $10,000 a day? Are taxpayers expected to cover the cost?
Interesting! I guess it would be like it is right now: the health insurance cuts you off and if you want to keep living then you finance it yourself (worst credit in the world:P) Same goes for cosmetic surgeries.
Oh please, have some perspective. The FOIA works on a national scale, with thousands of requests and sometimes millions of pages released. It's succeeded in transforming government transparency for more than 40 years. Don't let the the fumes of burning reporters get to your head.
I don't know anything about that case but remember that there will always be unsatisfying answers given when something remains classified. You have to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to keep certain things classified. The problem is that in a case where it should stay classified they can't tell us what the good reason is, and they're forced to awkwardly say "Trust us we have a SUPER good reason" to little effect.
Also keep in mind that nobody's stealing anything; this stuff was voted through by a majority of duly elected representatives of each state. Unless you want to make a claim that the US government is illegitimate, there's no stealing going on here.
Also it seems to me that "raid your neighbors' wallets" is perfectly in line with American principles if those neighbors are in the voting minority. If they're in the superminority, the majority can even set aside constitutional protection if they get a constitutional amendment through.
You do pay your own bills, through taxes. Everyone shares the cost.
Consider the alternative that you're suggesting. You suggest that people who get sick should have to pay for their care, as if it's a good/service that they're consuming. But the sick are in a situation where declining to visit the doctor can put a human life at risk!
The thing that must be avoided at all cost is a financial disincentive to receive medical attention. That's the human rights part- a person in need of care should never have to balance their life against the needs of their family, and recovering people in a hospital should never have the additional burden of worrying about bills. The easiest way to accomplish this is to simply make medical care free, and to bill everyone. Sick people (who have enough to worry about anyway) aren't penalized for things out of their control, which I would think that Free Marketers would understand is pretty sensible from an economic perspective.
Welcome to every developed country without anything remotely resembling a single exception. Universal health care is widely considered (in the actual world, not the US) a fundamental human right.
If you use an OpenSearch compatible browser (Firefox and IE7 are two I know) then you can just open the xml file for Google search and change it to https. It's in your.mozilla/firefox
Or when you use a browser less than 10 years old. Honestly, who ever actually visits the google homepage to do a search? It's a shame too, cause my google background is awesome.
It scares me how scared people are that they think this is rational behavior. The "reasonable suspicion" that the border agent had at the scene was:
Hanson appeared nervous, the discovery of the condoms and the male-enhancement pills, and Hanson's statement that he had been working with children
Then they searched his laptop 3 times and found a single image of what appeared to be an adolescent girl naked on a beach, so they arrested him for possessing and transporting child pornography, and since it's federal, he's going to PMITA prison.
Your analogy is ludicrously flawed. I could maybe stretch the analogy to its breaking point to be more accurate: Instead of being on the lawn, "Free x" signs are distributed as fliers. Each flier has a different x, so one flier says "Free 1" and another says "Free 2" etc. The directions on the flier say to approach your garage and speak your flier number into the intercom, and their Free x will emerge from a conveyor belt. These guys gathered up a bunch of fliers and went to your garage to collect the Xes. They noticed an obvious pattern, so instead of counting "1, 2, 3, 4." they keep going: "5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10..." and the garage keeps giving them free xes. They're just speaking numbers into the air.
Slashdot Mirror
People find Apple products easy to use and reliable, so they buy them. The reason slashdotters get upset is that there are much more important issues at work - we bite the bullet and use and test free software even when it's not the best option, because it's important to many of us to own and control our own computers. The common Apple user doesn't care about the big issues, they only like how smooth and shiny the device is, so Apple becomes successful despite being evil. Especially frustrating is that their users are so outspoken, and Apple fanboys are outspoken about ignoring philosophical issues and focusing on it "just working."
I don't care for the idea either, but not because I'm too lazy. It's because it's a terrible idea. It seems like lately Nintendo's formula for a great game is the degree to which motion control is forced on you. The wiimote is such a gimmick.. I own a Wii and let me tell you, motion gestures do not make a game any more fun.
But I thought (think) that a touch screen is a ridiculous choice for a handheld game console, so what do I know.
What a bewildering summary. I await with great anticipation the comments that slashdot is able to generate without reading the article.
Oh, I don't know any actual legal source, but I heard it in this highly regarded lecture.
Is that supposed to be a valid defense? A test which has apparently been universally decried as enormously inaccurate is being used to deny people employment. And like the guy said in the video, if you fail for applying to the NSA then you might not be able to gain employment for other government agencies because they keep the result on file.
Man I would totally fail a polygraph test. Look at this, it happens all the time. I bet if I were put into a one on one interrogation for an hour I would say whatever they wanted even though I was innocent. In the video when the interviewer was watching the lady closely and asked "Have you ever participated in espionage against the United States" a chill went down my spine. False positive!
I would refuse to take a polygraph test under any circumstances. Therefore, my cooperation has no correlation with my guilt or innocence.
By the way, why would I refuse to take such a test? Simple. It cannot help you in any way. They can take the things you say in the test and use them against you in court, but no matter how flawlessly you pass the test, as a defendant you cannot call on any of that testimony in the court room. Only the prosecution can call testimony from police interviews. So basically, it can hurt you, but it legally cannot help you at all.
Who's the director, the kidnapped guy or Kim Jong-il?
Haha, nobody ever checks hashcodes. It's only a matter of time before like 10 million users install something and NONE of them checked the hash code !
I don't understand why people think that their personal experience and the experience of their friends is representative of the entire job market. "How good the job market is" (how do you even measure that anyway?) probably varies so much across a single state that individual data points are useless.
*horror*
I liked this quote from TFA:
One billion users? There aren't even 2 billion people with internet access at all.
You have a really bad memory. There were at least 6 stories about it..
You're right, we shouldn't have to pay for care for people who don't take care of their health. But we already do (partially), with insurance and also any grants or donation money going into the hospital. And one reason that they could be unhealthy is because preventative medical care is too expensive. Give them free preventative care, get fewer hospital visits, save money.
Interesting! I guess it would be like it is right now: the health insurance cuts you off and if you want to keep living then you finance it yourself (worst credit in the world :P) Same goes for cosmetic surgeries.
Oh please, have some perspective. The FOIA works on a national scale, with thousands of requests and sometimes millions of pages released. It's succeeded in transforming government transparency for more than 40 years. Don't let the the fumes of burning reporters get to your head.
Do you mean this FBI?
I don't know anything about that case but remember that there will always be unsatisfying answers given when something remains classified. You have to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to keep certain things classified. The problem is that in a case where it should stay classified they can't tell us what the good reason is, and they're forced to awkwardly say "Trust us we have a SUPER good reason" to little effect.
Also keep in mind that nobody's stealing anything; this stuff was voted through by a majority of duly elected representatives of each state. Unless you want to make a claim that the US government is illegitimate, there's no stealing going on here.
Also it seems to me that "raid your neighbors' wallets" is perfectly in line with American principles if those neighbors are in the voting minority. If they're in the superminority, the majority can even set aside constitutional protection if they get a constitutional amendment through.
You do pay your own bills, through taxes. Everyone shares the cost.
Consider the alternative that you're suggesting. You suggest that people who get sick should have to pay for their care, as if it's a good/service that they're consuming. But the sick are in a situation where declining to visit the doctor can put a human life at risk!
The thing that must be avoided at all cost is a financial disincentive to receive medical attention. That's the human rights part- a person in need of care should never have to balance their life against the needs of their family, and recovering people in a hospital should never have the additional burden of worrying about bills. The easiest way to accomplish this is to simply make medical care free, and to bill everyone. Sick people (who have enough to worry about anyway) aren't penalized for things out of their control, which I would think that Free Marketers would understand is pretty sensible from an economic perspective.
Welcome to every developed country without anything remotely resembling a single exception. Universal health care is widely considered (in the actual world, not the US) a fundamental human right.
If you use an OpenSearch compatible browser (Firefox and IE7 are two I know) then you can just open the xml file for Google search and change it to https. It's in your .mozilla/firefox
The Freedom of Information Act seems to be working pretty well despite resulting in mass humiliation for countless officials.
Or when you use a browser less than 10 years old. Honestly, who ever actually visits the google homepage to do a search?
It's a shame too, cause my google background is awesome.
It scares me how scared people are that they think this is rational behavior. The "reasonable suspicion" that the border agent had at the scene was:
Then they searched his laptop 3 times and found a single image of what appeared to be an adolescent girl naked on a beach, so they arrested him for possessing and transporting child pornography, and since it's federal, he's going to PMITA prison.
Your analogy is ludicrously flawed. I could maybe stretch the analogy to its breaking point to be more accurate:
Instead of being on the lawn, "Free x" signs are distributed as fliers. Each flier has a different x, so one flier says "Free 1" and another says "Free 2" etc. The directions on the flier say to approach your garage and speak your flier number into the intercom, and their Free x will emerge from a conveyor belt. These guys gathered up a bunch of fliers and went to your garage to collect the Xes. They noticed an obvious pattern, so instead of counting "1, 2, 3, 4." they keep going: "5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10..." and the garage keeps giving them free xes. They're just speaking numbers into the air.