From the dictionary: to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance. . It is gambling. It is a game of skill. It's both.
Let me answer with an example. Let us say you are walking down the street, and find a man with a gun pointed at his head. You ask him what he is doing, and he responds that because life has gotten hard, he is committing suicide.
Now since you said that the fundamental human right we have is to do what we want with our own body, you would walk on your way, feeling sad about the whole situation, but respecting his right to kill himself. But let's say instead of you, it's someone with a different fundamental philosophy. This other man does want to let people control their own bodies, but even more so he thinks humans have a duty to protect each other from harm. He hears the suicidal man's story, and snatches the gun from his hand, saving him from the harm of death.
The difference between you and the man who takes his gun away have different fundamental philosophies. It is unfair for you to simply say he is bringing his religion into politics, because the two of you are simply applying you reason to different fundamental ideas that are grounded in your gut feelings.
And what is the basis for your human rights? Is it not grounded in some set of axiomatic philosophical beliefs? You can claim all you want that your ideas are based in reason. Whether I ask a Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, or anyone, all I need to do is keep asking one question: "why?" And in the end, you will be forced to respond "just because I think that's true."
You and these "religious" folks you disagree with really have a fundamental conflict of philosophy. You're both trying to define what makes life valuable, and you come up with different results, because your guts both say different things. Your opponents are not the only ones bringing their "religion" (or whatever you want to label it) into the fight.
One of the things the Republicans had going for them back in 2008 was John McCain was a huge supporter of nuclear power. He envied France, and wanted us on that track. It's quite a tragedy really, that this time around there is no such support. At the most recent debate, all I heard was "Drill Baby Drill" for energy policy.
It seems like a new high profile hack happens every day. Is this just a fad? Will things calm down again? Or is this the beginning of a radical change for the internet. It used to be that you could get away with just a few weak security measures, but now that doesn't look sustainable. Not to mention the rise of DDOS attacks recently. Will we see a radical shift in the way tech companies operate? Is it really affordable to be secure? Maybe new technologies will be required to bring the cost down. Is it even possible to be secure? I'm sure all these companies thought they had locked the door tight.
Don't be silly. It's ridiculously easy to redact electronically. Just highlight the sensitive text, and turn on strikethrough. If it's really sensitive, use a double strikethrough.
Did you forget the hundreds of millions of dollars apple had to pay the music industry cartel to get this exact some functionality? Apple probably rejected the app for fear of legal trouble, or at least that the industry would stop supporting the iTunes store. And stole the idea? It's about as obvious as it gets. Anyways, doesn't the Zune already let you sync your music wirelessly?
After reading her words the day she said them, I checked the wikipedia page to see whether she was correct. Think how easy it is to fool people. Just change the wikipedia on the day after you tell your lies. Or google bomb a fake history site. Average folks won't double check the fact.
This is all a bit unfair to Mrs. Palin though. She stuttered out the whole sentence, and you're shocked she made an error?
I've always wondered how secure slashdot is. Let's do an experiment. Mod me up to +5 insightful, and see if LulzSec hacks/. to bring my post down.
And for good measure: Assange should be in jail, child pornography is evil, and Ron Paul would make a terrible president. There, that should lure them out.
A college degree is about making you an educated individual. I had a friend in college, who admitted that all she wanted to do is be a house wife. But for her, 10 grand a year in tuition was worth it, because she didn't want to be a moron for the rest of her life. What kind of role model are you to your kids if you can't communicate well, don't understand history, can't appreciate literature and art? What kind of voter are you if you can't think critically, or if you don't understand politics and science? Can you manage your financial decisions without and understanding of math and business? Think about what a better neighbor, parent, and traveler you would be, if you could speak a foreign language.
Your technical degree can make you all the money in the world, but actually being educated is what will improve life for you, your family, and your neighbors. Ideally high school would teach you these core skills, but kids just aren't mature enough at that age to do it.
at all. I'm just waiting for the day when I sign up for some google social network, only to find that they already made my profile for me, full of all of my interests, contact information, relationships, and even pictures.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I think the real citibank should get the .con tld.
From the dictionary:
to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance.
. It is gambling. It is a game of skill. It's both.
real citizen input on its legislation"
It's called representative government, and the Chinese citizens would love to have it.
We need to build one of these to the United States! We cannot allow a hot foreign bride gap!
These fiends have gone to far. Quick, someone turn on the internet bat signal!
Indeed, I would've thought they'd block a big brother app for competing with them.
http://slashdot.org/~CmdrTaco
Dear God....
Let me answer with an example. Let us say you are walking down the street, and find a man with a gun pointed at his head. You ask him what he is doing, and he responds that because life has gotten hard, he is committing suicide.
Now since you said that the fundamental human right we have is to do what we want with our own body, you would walk on your way, feeling sad about the whole situation, but respecting his right to kill himself. But let's say instead of you, it's someone with a different fundamental philosophy. This other man does want to let people control their own bodies, but even more so he thinks humans have a duty to protect each other from harm. He hears the suicidal man's story, and snatches the gun from his hand, saving him from the harm of death.
The difference between you and the man who takes his gun away have different fundamental philosophies. It is unfair for you to simply say he is bringing his religion into politics, because the two of you are simply applying you reason to different fundamental ideas that are grounded in your gut feelings.
And what is the basis for your human rights? Is it not grounded in some set of axiomatic philosophical beliefs? You can claim all you want that your ideas are based in reason. Whether I ask a Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, or anyone, all I need to do is keep asking one question: "why?" And in the end, you will be forced to respond "just because I think that's true."
You and these "religious" folks you disagree with really have a fundamental conflict of philosophy. You're both trying to define what makes life valuable, and you come up with different results, because your guts both say different things. Your opponents are not the only ones bringing their "religion" (or whatever you want to label it) into the fight.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=693
Facebook is just confused, because so many google employees have no friends :(
One of the things the Republicans had going for them back in 2008 was John McCain was a huge supporter of nuclear power. He envied France, and wanted us on that track. It's quite a tragedy really, that this time around there is no such support. At the most recent debate, all I heard was "Drill Baby Drill" for energy policy.
It seems like a new high profile hack happens every day. Is this just a fad? Will things calm down again? Or is this the beginning of a radical change for the internet. It used to be that you could get away with just a few weak security measures, but now that doesn't look sustainable. Not to mention the rise of DDOS attacks recently. Will we see a radical shift in the way tech companies operate? Is it really affordable to be secure? Maybe new technologies will be required to bring the cost down. Is it even possible to be secure? I'm sure all these companies thought they had locked the door tight.
Yeah who would ever do a detailed analysis just to have it put behind a pay wall? Now if you'll excuse me, I have a journal article I'm working on...
Kind of reminds me of Twitter.
Don't be silly. It's ridiculously easy to redact electronically. Just highlight the sensitive text, and turn on strikethrough. If it's really sensitive, use a double strikethrough.
Did you forget the hundreds of millions of dollars apple had to pay the music industry cartel to get this exact some functionality? Apple probably rejected the app for fear of legal trouble, or at least that the industry would stop supporting the iTunes store. And stole the idea? It's about as obvious as it gets. Anyways, doesn't the Zune already let you sync your music wirelessly?
They'd take this approach, but unfortunately somebody already patented the business practice of patent hoarding.
After reading her words the day she said them, I checked the wikipedia page to see whether she was correct. Think how easy it is to fool people. Just change the wikipedia on the day after you tell your lies. Or google bomb a fake history site. Average folks won't double check the fact.
This is all a bit unfair to Mrs. Palin though. She stuttered out the whole sentence, and you're shocked she made an error?
Did you get sent back in time? My apartment still has us use quarters for the wash.
I've always wondered how secure slashdot is. Let's do an experiment. Mod me up to +5 insightful, and see if LulzSec hacks /. to bring my post down.
And for good measure: Assange should be in jail, child pornography is evil, and Ron Paul would make a terrible president. There, that should lure them out.
Mac OS XI?
A college degree is about making you an educated individual. I had a friend in college, who admitted that all she wanted to do is be a house wife. But for her, 10 grand a year in tuition was worth it, because she didn't want to be a moron for the rest of her life. What kind of role model are you to your kids if you can't communicate well, don't understand history, can't appreciate literature and art? What kind of voter are you if you can't think critically, or if you don't understand politics and science? Can you manage your financial decisions without and understanding of math and business? Think about what a better neighbor, parent, and traveler you would be, if you could speak a foreign language.
Your technical degree can make you all the money in the world, but actually being educated is what will improve life for you, your family, and your neighbors. Ideally high school would teach you these core skills, but kids just aren't mature enough at that age to do it.
at all. I'm just waiting for the day when I sign up for some google social network, only to find that they already made my profile for me, full of all of my interests, contact information, relationships, and even pictures.
If they stay in college a few more years they'll be past their prime and doomed to failure!