well, not EVERY bottle of beer at the duff plant has a nose or hitler's head in it, but i'm glad the inspector is tasked to look at every single bottle.
just because government abuse isn't guaranteed doesn't mean we shouldn't vigilantly examine the possibilities when we see them.
it's all boils down to balancing powers of government and freedom of individuals, and this country (USA) was founded upon principles intended to favor the rights of individuals. i'll go out on a limb and make a value statement - that's the way to go. power to the people, man!
but i think the training only applies to a system for translating between the languages of the datasets used.
so "training" it using parallel texts of japanese and english would produce routines for translating between japanese and english, but not french and english.
In much the same way reading the article is better than trolling.
1) you can get more out of the box. (near-endless possibilities for customization) - similarly, the article probably contains more than your average slashbot response (like this one, for instance:))
2) it's fun and rewarding to do things for yourself. much like actually reading the article and drawing your own conclusions is fulfilling, while buying off-the-shelf solutions leaves you feeling empty and purposeless - the same way you should feel after posting trollish first posts.
I actually calculated this one night a few months ago whenever I was really boarded
after you were boarded, did you enable the self-destruct so those klingon bastards wouldn't pervert your findings into an incredibly destructive super-weapon?
Re:is it a belt? (I can't tell from the picture)
on
High Speed Travelator
·
· Score: 1
there is a limit to the usefulness of this strategy because of failure rates/cost.
the more belts/motors (i.e. components) you have, the more likely the system will fail, as in:
Seems like there's no businesses -- certainly not incorporated ones -- want to hire experts in free software like Linux, Apache, PostgreSQL and Mozilla when 2kServer, IIS, SQL Server and IE are what all the other big companies are using first. Mozilla's got an uphill battle, and it knows it.
I agree - it seems like corporate sentiment against OSS is stronger than ever. Standards compliance is not a big business phenomenon - products compliance fills the vacuum. I don't see this getting any better.
> Are you saying that since they get some type of > aid, then they ought to be given a pass by the US?
Nope; I said that aid is no predictor of future hostility. That should be fairly obvious anyway.
> In fact, doesn't US support of Iraq demand that > we make amends
By forcefully conquering the country? No, I would say not. As I stated earlier in the thread, I don't buy utilitarianism, so therefore I don't see overt, "preemptive" aggression as a solution to such a problem.
Therefore, I vote against my tax dollars being spent on a long-range delivery platform for weapons of mass destruction, such as a hypersonic jet bomber.
I agree 100%. That's my whole point - the original poster was trying to say that our aggression is overshadowed by or otherwise connected to our benevolence. I was trying to say that the two are not related.
Indeed, the apprehension we cause by our military aggression is to the point - I really doubt that our good deeds do anything to assuage this. And it shouldn't, logically - both of the recent military actions were against countries that we previously supported financially and politically.
Since I'm obviously espousing a form of pacifism, I wouldn't reach such a conclusion. But the assumption that force is a primary response to atrocities is illustrative - characteristic of the mindset I'm arguing against, and, not coincidentally, those who disagreed with my original post.
Since I mentioned Nazis in my post, you should be able to answer your own facetious question.
The logic IS simple, as in difficult not to see, if not annoying for the proud American individual. O.P.'s point is that we do good as well as bad. My point is that the good is irrelevant when evaluating the bad.
You can disagree with that on utilitarian grounds, I suppose. Though that might backfire when U.S. global hegemony doesn't generate the most happiness for the most people. (hint - it probably doesn't now).
Some of us are tired of the US bashing nearly defensless enemies in the name of my safety.
I don't know how this simple logic got modded up. Americas sins are not forgiven because we also provide aid. By that logic, you should be tired of all of the bashing of National Socialism because hey, they were art and history patrons, and their war machine revolutionized aerospace.
god forbid we put locks on our doors or watch our kids. we can just wait for the crimes to occur and throw the robbers and pedophiles in prison after the fact. once we're all inside the prison, we can recurse into a new level of societal self-discipline.
hey, that would be a great ending to the matrix - if it were a self-imposed, recursively-layered prison.
I think it's sufficient to cancel the scammer's account. Then they lose feedback. Subsequently, if you buy from the same scammer (who now has no feedback), then you assume a risk. Even that risk can be mitigated further by escrow.
In this way, the system preserves privacy and somewhat lessens the problem of scams. That said, there is no point to the feedback system if seller anonymity doesn't have good-faith protection - and this piss-poor fax-and-go system described in the article doesn't make the cut.
> eBay's chief of security Joseph Sullivan brags > up eBay's "flexible" privacy policy to LEOs,
If this means he intends to use recent amateur rocket technology to launch the policies into Low Earth Orbits, then I concur wholeheartedly.
Too bad ebay didn't buy ecash instead of fscking paypal. Oh well... see you in alt.anonymous.messages!
talking out of two sides of his mouth.
on
Gates and Security
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> "Orwell was an alarmist"
and
> Gates applauded increased information sharing > between government agencies.
Regardless of the technology involved: if inter-agency information sharing continues unabated, then U.S. lovers of the democratic republic are screwed out of it officially. This is simple to see, and Gates is not stupid. Clearly, he loves the promise of federal $ more than he fears totalitarianism. That's probably went without saying before the sales pitch to HomeSec.
Re:Please be respectful on this topic
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
> Instead, I see ADHD, and most every other > contmporary psychiatric diagnosis, as being a > sham... an unfortunate error of our time, much > like bleeding with leeches was in the medival > era.
They actually didn't use leeches to bleed people in medieval times. They used a type of worm. That's a common misconception.
Bloodletting doesn't have to be seen as a mistake, but rather the best practice possible based on the available medical knowledge of the time. Bloodletting is still used today, though it is employed with more discretion as to what it is used to treat.
I agree that current psychological and neurological sciences are far from providing perfect models, but that is the nature of science. Most of the psychologists I know, including my father and sister, don't purport to have all of the answers. So it's difficult for me to accept the blanket characteristic of the sciences as vehicles for a sham.
> People who are depressed have a real reason to > be depressed.
A chemical imbalance, if it were the cause, would be a "real" reason, yes?
> In other words, it's not a hardware problem > instead, it's a matter of the structure of a > person and their psychological relation to > interaction with the necisities of the world > around and outside of them.
Regardless of how it is affected by environment, isn't the structure you refer to chemical in nature?
> And her parents, seeing her difficulties in > life, got her the treatment she needed. She > ended up on a lot of prozac, and when would > visit her, she would sit on the couch and play > super nintendo for hours on end, eating cheeze-> wiz out of the can. But she was doing her > homework...
The implication is that the drugs had a major negative causal effect - that it facilitated the shoe-horning of an unorthodox brilliance into norm-constrained drudgery, thus stifling the brilliance. Right?
While I suspect that there can at times be links between high intelligence/creativity and brain disorders, I think your implication is misplacing blame. SSRIs can not make you into a cheez-wiz eating, video game playing zombie. There are other factors of which you are either unaware or are neglecting to mention like therapy, support network, environmental factors, genetic factors, other medical issues, etc.
> My guidance councelor wanted to have me > diagnosed with ADD [before the extra 'H'] when > I was in middle school
There is still a difference in criteria between ADD and ADHD - they are different diagnoses.
Did your guidance counselor want to have you TESTED or did he/she want you DIAGNOSED? Sounds unusually cruel to me to wish a disorder upon someone:)
You seem to be confused about a couple of things. A diagnosis and subsequent treatment indication do not expressly guarantee improvement. A competent, ethical medical professional doesn't claim omniscience or perfect foresight. But they are doing the best they can with the available knowledge, just like your medieval bloodletters. The diagnostic criteria and treatments will evolve. It helps some people, while some people get inappropriate or otherwise incorrect treatment and diagnoses because the diagnostic model was imperfect. Such is the nature of a scientific medical system.
You are indicating that the professionals are at fault, when I think you really want to be lamenting the limitations of science, causality and the arrow of time; like: "If we knew then what we know now, things would have been different. Furthermore, it will be the same way in the future." This really goes without saying. If you have a solution for how
1) your theory can be applied in a way that will make life better for people (in terms of the sentiment that cheeze-wiz/snes/stifled genius thing is what you want to avoid on behalf of others)
2) to see into the future
then by all means, plea
inverse can also be true
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
As an admin, I've experienced prejudice against the younger.
Upon seeing my age (early twenties at the time), some of my new co-workers demanded another copy of my resume (presumably, to actually read it the second time around).
I've gone through many, um, exercises where my ideas were ferverently doubted and/or ignored because of my age, and I've had to put in extra time to provide proof-of-concept where it normally shouldn't have been necessary to demonstrate. In general, I've had to be very persistent in proving my ideas and backing my claims to a much greater degree than my older colleagues, even if it's clear that I have seniority in the position.
...and advocate laws (or enforcement of existing laws) that prohibit violations of privacy. then you could take advantage of the benefits at your risk and discretion e.g. like a cell phone... you can turn it off or drive out of range if you don't want to be reached.
Captain Picard: Computer, where is Commander Data? Computer: Lieutenant Commander Data is no longer aboard the Enterprise.
Our (US) teachers can't be smarter because we (the people of the US) do not pay them enough.
Most "smart" people are attracted by high-paying jobs. Everyone else are teachers because they are not as smart, or because they are philanthropists-at-heart, passionate about teaching, or because their parents pay for everything so getting paid less doesn't matter.
Go to town meetings a vote for better education funding. Old people with no kids in school and nothing better to do are there whether you are or not! Get on your local school board and pay teachers more. Then teaching jobs will be sought-after, education degrees will become more challenging, and the quality of education professionals in general will eventually rise.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks!
well, not EVERY bottle of beer at the duff plant has a nose or hitler's head in it, but i'm glad the inspector is tasked to look at every single bottle.
just because government abuse isn't guaranteed doesn't mean we shouldn't vigilantly examine the possibilities when we see them.
it's all boils down to balancing powers of government and freedom of individuals, and this country (USA) was founded upon principles intended to favor the rights of individuals. i'll go out on a limb and make a value statement - that's the way to go. power to the people, man!
but i think the training only applies to a system for translating between the languages of the datasets used.
so "training" it using parallel texts of japanese and english would produce routines for translating between japanese and english, but not french and english.
prepare for the universal translator joke onslaught :)
the life of CF is limited by writes - for something like this, which should be fairly static (if you keep the boot device RO), it is acceptable.
In much the same way reading the article is better than trolling.
1) you can get more out of the box. (near-endless possibilities for customization) - similarly, the article probably contains more than your average slashbot response (like this one, for instance:))
2) it's fun and rewarding to do things for yourself. much like actually reading the article and drawing your own conclusions is fulfilling, while buying off-the-shelf solutions leaves you feeling empty and purposeless - the same way you should feel after posting trollish first posts.
I actually calculated this one night a few months ago whenever I was really boarded
after you were boarded, did you enable the self-destruct so those klingon bastards wouldn't pervert your findings into an incredibly destructive super-weapon?
there is a limit to the usefulness of this strategy because of failure rates/cost.
the more belts/motors (i.e. components) you have, the more likely the system will fail, as in:
(1/MTBF(A)) * (1/MTBF(B)) * (1/MTBF(C)) etc.
Seems like there's no businesses -- certainly not incorporated ones -- want to hire experts in free software like Linux, Apache, PostgreSQL and Mozilla when 2kServer, IIS, SQL Server and IE are what all the other big companies are using first. Mozilla's got an uphill battle, and it knows it.
I agree - it seems like corporate sentiment against OSS is stronger than ever. Standards compliance is not a big business phenomenon - products compliance fills the vacuum. I don't see this getting any better.
isn't that from last month's forum?
> Are you saying that since they get some type of
> aid, then they ought to be given a pass by the US?
Nope; I said that aid is no predictor of future hostility. That should be fairly obvious anyway.
> In fact, doesn't US support of Iraq demand that
> we make amends
By forcefully conquering the country? No, I would say not. As I stated earlier in the thread, I don't buy utilitarianism, so therefore I don't see overt, "preemptive" aggression as a solution to such a problem.
Therefore, I vote against my tax dollars being spent on a long-range delivery platform for weapons of mass destruction, such as a hypersonic jet bomber.
I agree 100%. That's my whole point - the original poster was trying to say that our aggression is overshadowed by or otherwise connected to our benevolence. I was trying to say that the two are not related.
Indeed, the apprehension we cause by our military aggression is to the point - I really doubt that our good deeds do anything to assuage this. And it shouldn't, logically - both of the recent military actions were against countries that we previously supported financially and politically.
> wipe Europeans off the planet
Since I'm obviously espousing a form of pacifism, I wouldn't reach such a conclusion. But the assumption that force is a primary response to atrocities is illustrative - characteristic of the mindset I'm arguing against, and, not coincidentally, those who disagreed with my original post.
Since I mentioned Nazis in my post, you should be able to answer your own facetious question.
The logic IS simple, as in difficult not to see, if not annoying for the proud American individual. O.P.'s point is that we do good as well as bad. My point is that the good is irrelevant when evaluating the bad.
You can disagree with that on utilitarian grounds, I suppose. Though that might backfire when U.S. global hegemony doesn't generate the most happiness for the most people. (hint - it probably doesn't now).
Some of us are tired of the US bashing nearly defensless enemies in the name of my safety.
I don't know how this simple logic got modded up. Americas sins are not forgiven because we also provide aid. By that logic, you should be tired of all of the bashing of National Socialism because hey, they were art and history patrons, and their war machine revolutionized aerospace.
Atrocities are not canceled out by good deeds.
god forbid we put locks on our doors or watch our kids. we can just wait for the crimes to occur and throw the robbers and pedophiles in prison after the fact. once we're all inside the prison, we can recurse into a new level of societal self-discipline.
hey, that would be a great ending to the matrix - if it were a self-imposed, recursively-layered prison.
see you in cell block B!
Generalizations aside...
I think it's sufficient to cancel the scammer's account. Then they lose feedback. Subsequently, if you buy from the same scammer (who now has no feedback), then you assume a risk. Even that risk can be mitigated further by escrow.
In this way, the system preserves privacy and somewhat lessens the problem of scams. That said, there is no point to the feedback system if seller anonymity doesn't have good-faith protection - and this piss-poor fax-and-go system described in the article doesn't make the cut.
> eBay's chief of security Joseph Sullivan brags
> up eBay's "flexible" privacy policy to LEOs,
If this means he intends to use recent amateur rocket technology to launch the policies into Low Earth Orbits, then I concur wholeheartedly.
Too bad ebay didn't buy ecash instead of fscking paypal. Oh well... see you in alt.anonymous.messages!
> "Orwell was an alarmist"
and
> Gates applauded increased information sharing
> between government agencies.
Regardless of the technology involved: if inter-agency information sharing continues unabated, then U.S. lovers of the democratic republic are screwed out of it officially. This is simple to see, and Gates is not stupid. Clearly, he loves the promise of federal $ more than he fears totalitarianism. That's probably went without saying before the sales pitch to HomeSec.
> Instead, I see ADHD, and most every other
:)
> contmporary psychiatric diagnosis, as being a
> sham... an unfortunate error of our time, much
> like bleeding with leeches was in the medival
> era.
They actually didn't use leeches to bleed people in medieval times. They used a type of worm. That's a common misconception.
Bloodletting doesn't have to be seen as a mistake, but rather the best practice possible based on the available medical knowledge of the time. Bloodletting is still used today, though it is employed with more discretion as to what it is used to treat.
I agree that current psychological and neurological sciences are far from providing perfect models, but that is the nature of science. Most of the psychologists I know, including my father and sister, don't purport to have all of the answers. So it's difficult for me to accept the blanket characteristic of the sciences as vehicles for a sham.
> People who are depressed have a real reason to
> be depressed.
A chemical imbalance, if it were the cause, would be a "real" reason, yes?
> In other words, it's not a hardware problem
> instead, it's a matter of the structure of a
> person and their psychological relation to
> interaction with the necisities of the world
> around and outside of them.
Regardless of how it is affected by environment, isn't the structure you refer to chemical in nature?
> And her parents, seeing her difficulties in
> life, got her the treatment she needed. She
> ended up on a lot of prozac, and when would
> visit her, she would sit on the couch and play > super nintendo for hours on end, eating cheeze-> wiz out of the can. But she was doing her
> homework...
The implication is that the drugs had a major negative causal effect - that it facilitated the shoe-horning of an unorthodox brilliance into norm-constrained drudgery, thus stifling the brilliance. Right?
While I suspect that there can at times be links between high intelligence/creativity and brain disorders, I think your implication is misplacing blame. SSRIs can not make you into a cheez-wiz eating, video game playing zombie. There are other factors of which you are either unaware or are neglecting to mention like therapy, support network, environmental factors, genetic factors, other medical issues, etc.
> My guidance councelor wanted to have me
> diagnosed with ADD [before the extra 'H'] when > I was in middle school
There is still a difference in criteria between ADD and ADHD - they are different diagnoses.
Did your guidance counselor want to have you TESTED or did he/she want you DIAGNOSED? Sounds unusually cruel to me to wish a disorder upon someone
You seem to be confused about a couple of things. A diagnosis and subsequent treatment indication do not expressly guarantee improvement. A competent, ethical medical professional doesn't claim omniscience or perfect foresight. But they are doing the best they can with the available knowledge, just like your medieval bloodletters. The diagnostic criteria and treatments will evolve. It helps some people, while some people get inappropriate or otherwise incorrect treatment and diagnoses because the diagnostic model was imperfect. Such is the nature of a scientific medical system.
You are indicating that the professionals are at fault, when I think you really want to be lamenting the limitations of science, causality and the arrow of time; like: "If we knew then what we know now, things would have been different. Furthermore, it will be the same way in the future." This really goes without saying. If you have a solution for how
1) your theory can be applied in a way that will make life better for people (in terms of the sentiment that cheeze-wiz/snes/stifled genius thing is what you want to avoid on behalf of others)
2) to see into the future
then by all means, plea
Upon seeing my age (early twenties at the time), some of my new co-workers demanded another copy of my resume (presumably, to actually read it the second time around).
I've gone through many, um, exercises where my ideas were ferverently doubted and/or ignored because of my age, and I've had to put in extra time to provide proof-of-concept where it normally shouldn't have been necessary to demonstrate. In general, I've had to be very persistent in proving my ideas and backing my claims to a much greater degree than my older colleagues, even if it's clear that I have seniority in the position.
So it goes both ways :)
add 6 hours -> 2AM your time.
Captain Picard: Computer, where is Commander Data?
Computer: Lieutenant Commander Data is no longer aboard the Enterprise.
i think that's george h.w., not george w.
blah blah blah posting delay.... done!
doh... not everyone else is a teacher, but you know what i mean.
Somewhat off-topic...
Our (US) teachers can't be smarter because we (the people of the US) do not pay them enough.
Most "smart" people are attracted by high-paying jobs. Everyone else are teachers because they are not as smart, or because they are philanthropists-at-heart, passionate about teaching, or because their parents pay for everything so getting paid less doesn't matter.
Go to town meetings a vote for better education funding. Old people with no kids in school and nothing better to do are there whether you are or not! Get on your local school board and pay teachers more. Then teaching jobs will be sought-after, education degrees will become more challenging, and the quality of education professionals in general will eventually rise.
It will not happen by itself.