My interpretation is that Christianity never really made its peace with sexuality, like more natural religions, from the strange inheretence path of the greek cult of virginity into what was originally a Jewish sect.
There are many scaremongering documentaries and news articles being spewed out about the dangers of porn to teenagers such as this. While I cant argue if there is truth to their claims or not, the real issue seems to be a lack of sex education at school, I certainly don't remember any. Perhaps there is something to your theory about religion, over the years, continually interfering with this process.
Thanks to the incomprehensible network of laws, chances are the victims of a false positive are already guilty of something else, so they deserve it.
And I guess America deserves it for continuing to vote Republocrat.
False positives are likely to be acceptable as they will be mining masses of date for juicy bits to pass onto human operators who spend all day reading through terrible filth and slowly going insane (I had a similar job to this). Missing key details is far more worrying than passing a bit of extra work onto the human operators.
If that's true, then why did Adobe create Flash for Linux in the first place?
Sometimes people make thing for Linux without need for large profit. It's good PR and helps the community; However, for most people, when you do something for free and find the recipients to be largely rude and ungrateful, you stop doing it.
Remember Rome. They used accents from all over the place (mostly UK variants it has to be said) to give a feeling of being different, but still understandable. It worked really well.
In the Eagle [2011], I found that the Romans with American accents was an instant immersion killer. I cannot explain why considering giving them English accents should be just as wrong. I guess its something we have grown used to and now expect. Perhaps Romans should have regional Italian accents. Would Italian accents make for better or worse Romans? On a side note it was nice to hear Gaelic in a film even if it was largely Irish Gaelic used.
Certain accents go well with certain types of films. Unleased [2005] was set in Glasgow but featured not a single Scottish accent. Instead the villains all had strong London accents because it suits gangsters and I guess Jet Lee or Morgan Freeman didn't feel up to the task of putting on a kilted accent.
The other side of that argument is that science is telling folks that no, you can't use more than we've got forever, and yes, what you do is impacting other people. And some folks want any excuse to say, "So what. I only live once, screw the next generation, I want it all. Now!"
"41 per cent [of Americans] say Jesus Christ will return within the next 40 years..."
To be fair if I genuinely believed in the rapture and that it was coming very soon, I would probably also question what the point of protecting the world from future events that can never happen because Jesus is coming (or some other supernatural being).
I see no difference. He can yell at people all day on a street corner here in the US to take up arms and kill all Chinese babies. You really think that's going to incite people to actually do that?
To clarify my point which is purely about the UK. I was implying in my previous post and now clearly stating that I personally find it highly unlikely this would have gone to court if the victim of the slander was not from an ethnic minority. I have heard similar things said about the reduced protection Christians are granted vs Muslims over similar such slander or violent cases many times but I must stress the wide scale anecdotal slant on that statement.
I must also stress that I believe hate crime, purely by its selective nature in the UK is somewhat of a paradox, given that it treats specific groups disproportionately in order to attempt to force people to treat them equally.
The counter augment rests upon choice. ie they say that you can choose not to dress like a goth or whatever, but you cannot choose your ethnicity, sexual preference or (apparently) what religion you follow. Personally I find this a weak counter argument, but I am curious as to what other people think.
Slashdot-specific analogy: If a jock beats up another jock, it's just a fight. But if a jock beats up a nerd because he's a nerd then that will tend to intimidate not just the person he beat up, but all nerds.
This however is not really true. Hate crimes offer extra protection against specific ethnic or religious groups. Consider http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7291985.stm This girl was stamped to death by a crowed purely because she dressed as a goth. In the UK (with the notable exception of Scotland) this is not considered a hate crime despite repeated campaigns after the Miss Lancaster case to change this ruling.
Just tell them that Linux is only for people who are really good with computers and every idiot will want it.
Then sell them support contracts.
I and a number of others I know have all tried linux and not stayed with it. It's not a marketing issue perhaps more than the fact that its just not as good as windows or mac os for typical users because things just don't simply work without weeks of learning and dicking around. If you have a problem the solutions online are aimed almost purely at power users compared to the step by step graphical tutorials available for the majority of problems faced by MS and Apple users. For me being a typical dumb user it took me days to get my graphics card working and I never got my sound to work beyond the ubuntu start up noise. Twice I have tried linux and twice I've cleaned it off in frustrated ''aww fuck this'' rages. No point in selling a product that cannot retain its customers.
And also worth considering is that a typical mac product costs an awful lot more. It makes simple business sense. Ever seen data entry staff sitting in rows on iPads? No of course not.
The main thing college and university provide are motivation for people to learn and guidance / direction on what you should learn, but the majority of this is done in your own time. If you have the capacity to motivate yourself to learning these things then you may find university to be an expensive waste of time teaching you things you already know or are very capable of teaching yourself. The one advantage university provides is the certificate that many jobs in the field do not even require any more and tutors who are sometimes capable of showing you what you did wrong. It's also quite possible that the things you spend time learning in University may be obsolete by the time you graduate.
There are many great, free resources out there. Learning does not need to be expensive. Such as: http://www.khanacademy.org/::maths is always handy for computer science) http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses.php?disciplineId=106::complete degree level courses for free as long as you don't mind lecturers with Indian accents.
A part of the ruling government housed and aided an attack on the United States.
They helped train the attackers and provided material support.
Consider that in 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were being given fed to a political group in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, who would later become the Taliban (fact) along with CIA training (unconfirmed). Should NATO now invade the CIA? Actually the more I think about it......
This is all about banks and what not, things that people don't quite understand.
Trust me, when the power goes out for good and access to food and medicine is taken away, people understand why their children are no longer alive. Children are the main source of casualties during sanctions. Unicef estimated the Iraq sanctions caused the death of around half a million children alone. Maybe you do not understand the effects of what sanctions actually do to people, which is understandable as the media never explain it and that is why they are currently socially acceptable methods of warfare but some would argue the very worst kind.
I must stress that my post does not intentionally imply that suicide bombers are in any way acceptable, I just believe we need to have a long hard look at ourselves if we are so ready to judge the actions of others. Perhaps we should instead try to rationalise why they are doing this and what we have and continue to do to these people instead of just writing it off as evil and religious fanaticism.
You do realise that's exactly the same rationale that the Islamic extremist groups use to justify their attacks on civilian targets, right?
Perhaps you do not realise how naive you are being, but please understand that economic sanctions are a war against civilian targets that in the past have typically caused far more civilian casualties than the physical warfare does. It's just a measurable flaw in our evolved sense of morality that allows us to far more readily accept collateral death but call out direct violence as immeasurably more evil. Arguably our governments are massively more evil than the terrorist regimes who blow themselves up in crowded places as the death toll against civilians caused by sanctions alone is exponentially larger.
technically they were never your Neopets. The Eula on typical online games state ownership of all virtual goods reside with the publishers. Thats how they can make things like gold farming illegal as technically you are selling someone elses 'property'.
The speaker can simply block their ears. The gun works by sending the speaker's audio back to them with a delay.
True but for silencing people who love the sound of their own voice this may be a godsend. Imagine staggering home at 4am to find the angry wife waiting up to give you hell and you pull this beast out and silence her. So far I have not found one on ebay yet..... I'll check again tomorrow.
The effect can throw someone and confuse them. Most people are already nervous enough about public speaking, I can see how this would shut up disruptive people (or silence honest opinions) in a televised debate. It's not too dissimilar to tricks sound engineers can use to screw up live performances. either putting a delay on the feedback monitors or silencing them altogether is a way to really make even a very talented signer into a laughing stock. This is a cheap technique very readily used to humiliate over-confident people on televised talent shows to prop up ratings.
On a side note the linked article seems more like a tabloid driven, sensationalist, speculative rant than being in any way informative, accurate or scientific.
Suffice to say that science insists on verification.
Except in the case of Global Warming. Where the overwhelming majority of the worlds science community is contradicted by a few rogues being funded by energy companies. It indicates that being insanely rich is a great way to get most of republican Americans to believe a world wide scientific conspiracy is more likely than the concept that energy firms may just be falsifying research to protect their profit margins.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing there is an iPhone app for posting on /. as Anonymous Coward now....
My interpretation is that Christianity never really made its peace with sexuality, like more natural religions, from the strange inheretence path of the greek cult of virginity into what was originally a Jewish sect.
There are many scaremongering documentaries and news articles being spewed out about the dangers of porn to teenagers such as this. While I cant argue if there is truth to their claims or not, the real issue seems to be a lack of sex education at school, I certainly don't remember any. Perhaps there is something to your theory about religion, over the years, continually interfering with this process.
Thanks to the incomprehensible network of laws, chances are the victims of a false positive are already guilty of something else, so they deserve it.
And I guess America deserves it for continuing to vote Republocrat.
False positives are likely to be acceptable as they will be mining masses of date for juicy bits to pass onto human operators who spend all day reading through terrible filth and slowly going insane (I had a similar job to this). Missing key details is far more worrying than passing a bit of extra work onto the human operators.
If that's true, then why did Adobe create Flash for Linux in the first place?
Sometimes people make thing for Linux without need for large profit. It's good PR and helps the community; However, for most people, when you do something for free and find the recipients to be largely rude and ungrateful, you stop doing it.
We don't need a stinky user base!
Fixed it for you.
Remember Rome. They used accents from all over the place (mostly UK variants it has to be said) to give a feeling of being different, but still understandable. It worked really well.
In the Eagle [2011], I found that the Romans with American accents was an instant immersion killer. I cannot explain why considering giving them English accents should be just as wrong. I guess its something we have grown used to and now expect. Perhaps Romans should have regional Italian accents. Would Italian accents make for better or worse Romans? On a side note it was nice to hear Gaelic in a film even if it was largely Irish Gaelic used.
Certain accents go well with certain types of films. Unleased [2005] was set in Glasgow but featured not a single Scottish accent. Instead the villains all had strong London accents because it suits gangsters and I guess Jet Lee or Morgan Freeman didn't feel up to the task of putting on a kilted accent.
ooohhh nice quote. I'm going to pinch that one for later use.
The other side of that argument is that science is telling folks that no, you can't use more than we've got forever, and yes, what you do is impacting other people. And some folks want any excuse to say, "So what. I only live once, screw the next generation, I want it all. Now!"
"41 per cent [of Americans] say Jesus Christ will return within the next 40 years..."
To be fair if I genuinely believed in the rapture and that it was coming very soon, I would probably also question what the point of protecting the world from future events that can never happen because Jesus is coming (or some other supernatural being).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7847625/Jesus-will-return-by-2050-say-40pc-of-Americans.html
Though I feel the need to potentially destroy my own argument by adding this link shows only 11% believe the rapture will happen in their lifetimes
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/05/few-expecting-rapture-most-expect-to-be-raptured.html
I guess its hard to know who to trust these days. Maybe the research from the original linked article is similarly flawed, biased or just plan untrue.
I see no difference. He can yell at people all day on a street corner here in the US to take up arms and kill all Chinese babies. You really think that's going to incite people to actually do that?
Actually yes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11701269
I must also stress that I believe hate crime, purely by its selective nature in the UK is somewhat of a paradox, given that it treats specific groups disproportionately in order to attempt to force people to treat them equally.
The counter augment rests upon choice. ie they say that you can choose not to dress like a goth or whatever, but you cannot choose your ethnicity, sexual preference or (apparently) what religion you follow. Personally I find this a weak counter argument, but I am curious as to what other people think.
Slashdot-specific analogy: If a jock beats up another jock, it's just a fight. But if a jock beats up a nerd because he's a nerd then that will tend to intimidate not just the person he beat up, but all nerds.
This however is not really true. Hate crimes offer extra protection against specific ethnic or religious groups. Consider http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7291985.stm This girl was stamped to death by a crowed purely because she dressed as a goth. In the UK (with the notable exception of Scotland) this is not considered a hate crime despite repeated campaigns after the Miss Lancaster case to change this ruling.
Now we can have the blue cube of death!
Yes to go with some very terrible repetitive strain injuries.
It's speculation that US intelligence was involved, not confirmed fact.
Yep, just like the main article is nothing but speculation with no confirmed fact.
Just tell them that Linux is only for people who are really good with computers and every idiot will want it. Then sell them support contracts.
I and a number of others I know have all tried linux and not stayed with it. It's not a marketing issue perhaps more than the fact that its just not as good as windows or mac os for typical users because things just don't simply work without weeks of learning and dicking around. If you have a problem the solutions online are aimed almost purely at power users compared to the step by step graphical tutorials available for the majority of problems faced by MS and Apple users. For me being a typical dumb user it took me days to get my graphics card working and I never got my sound to work beyond the ubuntu start up noise. Twice I have tried linux and twice I've cleaned it off in frustrated ''aww fuck this'' rages. No point in selling a product that cannot retain its customers.
And also worth considering is that a typical mac product costs an awful lot more. It makes simple business sense. Ever seen data entry staff sitting in rows on iPads? No of course not.
The main thing college and university provide are motivation for people to learn and guidance / direction on what you should learn, but the majority of this is done in your own time. If you have the capacity to motivate yourself to learning these things then you may find university to be an expensive waste of time teaching you things you already know or are very capable of teaching yourself. The one advantage university provides is the certificate that many jobs in the field do not even require any more and tutors who are sometimes capable of showing you what you did wrong. It's also quite possible that the things you spend time learning in University may be obsolete by the time you graduate.
There are many great, free resources out there. Learning does not need to be expensive. Such as: ::maths is always handy for computer science) ::complete degree level courses for free as long as you don't mind lecturers with Indian accents.
http://www.khanacademy.org/
http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses.php?disciplineId=106
A part of the ruling government housed and aided an attack on the United States.
They helped train the attackers and provided material support.
Consider that in 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were being given fed to a political group in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, who would later become the Taliban (fact) along with CIA training (unconfirmed). Should NATO now invade the CIA? Actually the more I think about it......
This is all about banks and what not, things that people don't quite understand.
Trust me, when the power goes out for good and access to food and medicine is taken away, people understand why their children are no longer alive. Children are the main source of casualties during sanctions. Unicef estimated the Iraq sanctions caused the death of around half a million children alone. Maybe you do not understand the effects of what sanctions actually do to people, which is understandable as the media never explain it and that is why they are currently socially acceptable methods of warfare but some would argue the very worst kind.
I must stress that my post does not intentionally imply that suicide bombers are in any way acceptable, I just believe we need to have a long hard look at ourselves if we are so ready to judge the actions of others. Perhaps we should instead try to rationalise why they are doing this and what we have and continue to do to these people instead of just writing it off as evil and religious fanaticism.
You do realise that's exactly the same rationale that the Islamic extremist groups use to justify their attacks on civilian targets, right?
Perhaps you do not realise how naive you are being, but please understand that economic sanctions are a war against civilian targets that in the past have typically caused far more civilian casualties than the physical warfare does. It's just a measurable flaw in our evolved sense of morality that allows us to far more readily accept collateral death but call out direct violence as immeasurably more evil. Arguably our governments are massively more evil than the terrorist regimes who blow themselves up in crowded places as the death toll against civilians caused by sanctions alone is exponentially larger.
wiki article about Iraq sanctions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq
paper on A Dissociation Between Moral Judgments and Justication: http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/Hauser_MindLang.pdf
.
Not if his name is Bilbo. I know people that have been named after characters in the book.
Unless Hollywood decide to sue their parents and force them to change their children's names due to breach of copyright.
...when you take them from my cold, dead hands!
technically they were never your Neopets. The Eula on typical online games state ownership of all virtual goods reside with the publishers. Thats how they can make things like gold farming illegal as technically you are selling someone elses 'property'.
The speaker can simply block their ears. The gun works by sending the speaker's audio back to them with a delay.
True but for silencing people who love the sound of their own voice this may be a godsend. Imagine staggering home at 4am to find the angry wife waiting up to give you hell and you pull this beast out and silence her.
So far I have not found one on ebay yet..... I'll check again tomorrow.
The effect can throw someone and confuse them. Most people are already nervous enough about public speaking, I can see how this would shut up disruptive people (or silence honest opinions) in a televised debate. It's not too dissimilar to tricks sound engineers can use to screw up live performances. either putting a delay on the feedback monitors or silencing them altogether is a way to really make even a very talented signer into a laughing stock. This is a cheap technique very readily used to humiliate over-confident people on televised talent shows to prop up ratings.
On a side note the linked article seems more like a tabloid driven, sensationalist, speculative rant than being in any way informative, accurate or scientific.
Suffice to say that science insists on verification.
Except in the case of Global Warming. Where the overwhelming majority of the worlds science community is contradicted by a few rogues being funded by energy companies. It indicates that being insanely rich is a great way to get most of republican Americans to believe a world wide scientific conspiracy is more likely than the concept that energy firms may just be falsifying research to protect their profit margins.
There I fixed it for you.