Microsoft's relationship to its users is that of the blue whale to krill. Our only purpose is to breed, feed and get squeezed against its giant tongue until every last drop of money is released.
Has anyone seen any program that can use the Mindstorms IR transmitter in a PC-based universal remote? I did some research into making my own, but it is currently beyond my ability. I'll keep playing with it, but if one exists, it would be cool. (Windows, if possible. I've been putting off the Linux switch until my next PC)
I realise the question was rhetorical, but here's a possible answer. Maybe he doesn't like to get hit with stuff, but if he doesn't stop the bullets they could hit someone else. The worst a thrown gun could do is give someone a lump...
I'm not at all sure that I understand the mindset. If the commercials are included, why would you not want more viewers?
The same reason satellite TV is not allowed to carry the networks in most areas. The local channels want to be able to put their commercials into the broadcast, which they can't do if everyone is watching an internet recording of one particular broadcast. Any one local channel would love to offer thir channel over the internet, but none of them want any other channel to do it. So they made it law that nobody could.
Plus, they'd have to pay the union members from both the show and the commercials more money for each additional "broadcast" of the show.
Is this just a sci fi thing? I can think of several non-sci fi tv shows that killed off main characters. Successful, well-liked main characters. People were upset, but got over it.
Only sci fi and fantasy shows have the ability to buckle under to fan pressure and resurrect a dead character. Other shows have to go into horribly convoluted and unlikely plot twists to bring a dead character back, like "long-lost twin" or "the last few episodes were all a dream," which the fans may dislike more than the death of the character. A sci fi or fantasy show can just bring in the resurrection device, and *poof* the character is back, better than ever!
I don't know where you went to school, but my university cancelled classes in very bad weather and disasters.
My alma mater has only cancelled classes once (as of my last info; I don't know about Sep.11). The mayor of Pittsburgh ordered them to shut off power to the academic buildings during one particularily cold winter.
You may need another draft. First, even if your proof shows that moral relativism is a weak idea, your final clause is the first place where you even mention 'wrong,' and you seem to be adding another postulate that a weak idea is by definition wrong.
Second, your two 'givens' (Good is the set of all actions that enhance other peoples lives and evil is the set of all actions that detracts or degrades other peoples lives) presuppose your conclusion. Many, perhaps most, actions that enhance a person's life will also detract from or degrade the lives of one or more people (perhaps even that same person). If you say that an action is good if the plusses outweigh the minuses, then I would ask you what scale you are measuring against, and also say that you are begging the question. Saying that there is some absolute life enhancement quotient assumes that good and evil are absolute. It's easy to prove something if your assumptions are a restatement of your conclusion.
I think the difference is that an aircraft is designed to transport passengers and cargo through the air, and in this case was transformed into a destructive tool.
The airplanes transported passengers and cargo as they were designed, but the destinations were chosen by an evil group.
If you already owe money, you can use cash (though cash payments over $10000 must be registered with the government). However, a merchant can refuse to do the sale in cash in the first place. Thus those furniture stores with the "no cash" stickers in the windows.
A person's hands are one of the best shock absorbers available. If you jog with a portable CD player in your hands, it will hardly skip, even with ith anti-skip turned off. (This won't work if you strap it to your belt. That's why anti-skip was invented.) He should be fine.
Agreed. But in any case, if any terrorist group is indiscreet enough to attempt to recruit in a public forum, it would be idiotic to cut off that source of evidence.
I'm not sure i feel comfortable with you comparing Islam to pedophile rings.
Another poster already replied to you, but I feel I should also clarify. The 'groups' I meant to refer to were the terrorism groups that were doing the recruiting, rather than the Islamic discussion groups on which they were doing the recruiting.
...weblog that solicited for volunteers to join Ossama bin Laden.... B'nai Brith Canada is stepping up its efforts to get legislation passed to ban such Web activity.
Don't ban such activity! Encourage it, and then let the Feds also participate and infiltrate the groups, as they currently do with pedophile rings. A free and open society does not always have to hamper the abilities of the police. Sometimes it fosters an environment where it's easier for the authorities to check things out.
They are "Christian" in the same way that those flying the suicide planes were "Muslim"; i.e., only in that they happen to use that term to describe themselves.
Urgh... You don't want to have ANY weapons on the damn plane, NONE, NADA, ZILCH. Sure, you can fashion almost anything into a weapon, but it's far easier to defend against a knife than it is a gun.
Defense isn't the issue. If terrorists are taking over a plane, defense against a knife may save you from getting cut. But you are going to need to take their weapon away - that is an OFFFENSIVE act. In order to disarm someone with minimal risk to your life, a gun is necessary. Somebody needs to take the plane back from the terrorists.
What there needs to be is better ways for looking for weapons as people board planes, so we don't have these issues of knives on board.
A magic device to detect any possible weapon would be nice, but it is a pipe dream. Just off the top of my head: A strategically perforated plastic clipboard, where the edge breaks off sharp, and some tape for the handle.
Slashdot Mirror
The best quote from that article:
Microsoft's relationship to its users is that of the blue whale to krill. Our only purpose is to breed, feed and get squeezed against its giant tongue until every last drop of money is released.
Has anyone seen any program that can use the Mindstorms IR transmitter in a PC-based universal remote? I did some research into making my own, but it is currently beyond my ability. I'll keep playing with it, but if one exists, it would be cool. (Windows, if possible. I've been putting off the Linux switch until my next PC)
Low? How many things would you continue to do if you had a 1 in 1000 chance of being detained for several hours each time you did it?
Flashbacks to Archer's childhood were cool. Anyone get a load of the antigrav remote control plane he built? Cool eh?
Anyone see Titan A.E.? (Anyone? Anyone?)
Corn doesn't need to fight back. It survives being eaten just fine.
Okay, sorry. Potty humor. Couldn't resist...
I realise the question was rhetorical, but here's a possible answer. Maybe he doesn't like to get hit with stuff, but if he doesn't stop the bullets they could hit someone else. The worst a thrown gun could do is give someone a lump...
Just a thought..
I'm not at all sure that I understand the mindset. If the commercials are included, why would you not want more viewers?
The same reason satellite TV is not allowed to carry the networks in most areas. The local channels want to be able to put their commercials into the broadcast, which they can't do if everyone is watching an internet recording of one particular broadcast. Any one local channel would love to offer thir channel over the internet, but none of them want any other channel to do it. So they made it law that nobody could.
Plus, they'd have to pay the union members from both the show and the commercials more money for each additional "broadcast" of the show.
Plus, they hate their customers.
I mean, unless UPN dissed you at some point.
Which they have, if you've ever watched one of their shows.
Is this just a sci fi thing? I can think of several non-sci fi tv shows that killed off main characters. Successful, well-liked main characters. People were upset, but got over it.
Only sci fi and fantasy shows have the ability to buckle under to fan pressure and resurrect a dead character. Other shows have to go into horribly convoluted and unlikely plot twists to bring a dead character back, like "long-lost twin" or "the last few episodes were all a dream," which the fans may dislike more than the death of the character. A sci fi or fantasy show can just bring in the resurrection device, and *poof* the character is back, better than ever!
I don't know where you went to school, but my university cancelled classes in very bad weather and disasters.
My alma mater has only cancelled classes once (as of my last info; I don't know about Sep.11). The mayor of Pittsburgh ordered them to shut off power to the academic buildings during one particularily cold winter.
You may need another draft. First, even if your proof shows that moral relativism is a weak idea, your final clause is the first place where you even mention 'wrong,' and you seem to be adding another postulate that a weak idea is by definition wrong.
Second, your two 'givens' (Good is the set of all actions that enhance other peoples lives and evil is the set of all actions that detracts or degrades other peoples lives) presuppose your conclusion. Many, perhaps most, actions that enhance a person's life will also detract from or degrade the lives of one or more people (perhaps even that same person). If you say that an action is good if the plusses outweigh the minuses, then I would ask you what scale you are measuring against, and also say that you are begging the question. Saying that there is some absolute life enhancement quotient assumes that good and evil are absolute. It's easy to prove something if your assumptions are a restatement of your conclusion.
I think the difference is that an aircraft is designed to transport passengers and cargo through the air, and in this case was transformed into a destructive tool.
The airplanes transported passengers and cargo as they were designed, but the destinations were chosen by an evil group.
Perhaps we should all head to Redmond with torches in hand proclaiming that Microsoft enabled these terrorists to attack America?
Talk about picking a bad example to arouse much sympathy...
I think that to get "editorial balance" in DC, you would have to interleave the pages of both the Post and the Times.
Good and evil are not relative. Moral relativism is a weak and wrong idea.
:)
Prove it. If you can't, then this is just a philosophical point of view which may or may not be true.
The Only Good Weather... is Bad Weather
So good is bad?
If you already owe money, you can use cash (though cash payments over $10000 must be registered with the government). However, a merchant can refuse to do the sale in cash in the first place. Thus those furniture stores with the "no cash" stickers in the windows.
If it was so obvious, then all the more reason for people to have acted on it, either from Stallman's warning or from their own common sense.
But they didn't.
A person's hands are one of the best shock absorbers available. If you jog with a portable CD player in your hands, it will hardly skip, even with ith anti-skip turned off. (This won't work if you strap it to your belt. That's why anti-skip was invented.) He should be fine.
For Drazi school lunchrooms during student council elections.
There are more people in the USA than there are Slashdot participants.
Agreed. But in any case, if any terrorist group is indiscreet enough to attempt to recruit in a public forum, it would be idiotic to cut off that source of evidence.
Another poster already replied to you, but I feel I should also clarify. The 'groups' I meant to refer to were the terrorism groups that were doing the recruiting, rather than the Islamic discussion groups on which they were doing the recruiting.
Don't ban such activity! Encourage it, and then let the Feds also participate and infiltrate the groups, as they currently do with pedophile rings. A free and open society does not always have to hamper the abilities of the police. Sometimes it fosters an environment where it's easier for the authorities to check things out.
Here are some such people.
Defense isn't the issue. If terrorists are taking over a plane, defense against a knife may save you from getting cut. But you are going to need to take their weapon away - that is an OFFFENSIVE act. In order to disarm someone with minimal risk to your life, a gun is necessary. Somebody needs to take the plane back from the terrorists.
What there needs to be is better ways for looking for weapons as people board planes, so we don't have these issues of knives on board.
A magic device to detect any possible weapon would be nice, but it is a pipe dream. Just off the top of my head: A strategically perforated plastic clipboard, where the edge breaks off sharp, and some tape for the handle.