Fair enough. I'm still a little suspicious about the timing. Did they just choose this time because they knew where he was going to be, or was it a bit of PR for the FBI?
How can I be a part of the "crowd that hates Jerry Springer and hates those who watches the show" when I don't even have the brain-rotting device known as the television?
What does owning a television have to do with whether you hate those who have such a device?
Also, those that follow a crowd don't usually think for themselves, rather they go with what is popular with their peers.
You still follow a crowd. You might believe you think for yourself, but your thoughts are coloured by prejudices picked up from society. Hence you consider television to be a "brain rotting device". You're quite clearly a member of a pseudo intellectual, television dislikng crowd. You consider that other people don't think for themselves and that you do. Lots of people feel this way, but I find in all cases, there are certain prejudices acquired from other people, or the media. How many people do you know who watch Jerry Springer? How do you know how bad the show is if you don't have a television? Have you actually watched a few shows to confirm that it is as bad as you think?
Also the point I was making was showing how ignorant a good number of slashdotters are, since they love to use profanity
This is beside the point. What makes you think profanity is indicative of ignorance? Seems to me that somebody else said so. Someone you may consider a peer perhaps.
Sorrty, but you're deluding yourself. You follow a crowd just like everyone else. You just follow a different crowd. The crowd that hates Jerry Springer and hates those who watch the show.
Why else would you be using somebody elses proverb to make your point?
Erm.. you are aware that your employer was actually just a hypothetical situation aren't you?
I'd hate to think of you getting up every day and going to a meat packing plant that only exists for the sake of argument. I hear imaginary companies don't pay all that well.
Batteries allow for greater efficiency and decoupling between the power plant and the car. How much innefficiency is there in having lots of tiny little combustion engines zooming all over the place with a bunch of ignorant car owners
Indeed. It's a lot more complicated than people are making out. An internal combustion engine is something like 25% efficient. A power station can be anywhere from 30% to 80% (if waste heat is reused). Thenm you lose a certain amount through transmission and charging up the batteries, then gain some from greater effiency at low speed (especially stopped), and with regenerative braking.
Then you have the loss of efficency in the weight of batteries, and the extra pollution associated with the manufacture and disposal of the batteries.
Why would they fire you for that? Shouldn't they simply ask you to stop promoting your personal political views on your company blog? Assuming the rest of your work was of a decent standard, it seems rather heavy handed.
By "actual evidence", I meant proper evidence, not vague anecdotal evidence. Some of the countries with even lower crime rates have essentially banned firearms.
Ah well, here's how it works - Only those with a vested interest in getting the console will pay such a large deposit up front. You know - serious gamers. And those who want to sell it on ebay. DOH!
I haven't read the article or read any comment from Jack yet, but I'll bet I can guess his spin on this will be something along the lines of "The Games industry his clearly absolutely terrified of me. This is why they went to so much effort to have me barred from this case. This is proof that I'm winning."
A single data point is not proof! Switzerland also has considerably lower littering rates, and better language abilities. Is this also down to their firearms policy?
Could the low crime rate actually be down to Switzerlands extremly high wealth and social policy meaning that the poor don't need to resort to a life of crime? Could the low crime rate mean that there hasn't been a perceived need for firearms controls? Could it be that universal firearms ownership reduces crime, whereas the level of ownership in the US doesn't?
The crime rate in Japan is even lower and they have strict gun controls. The gun crime rate in the US with lower restrictions is very high. Finland has high gun ownership and a large homicide rate. Why aren't they using all their guns to prevent these murders?
Quite frankly, looking at both sides of the argument, it seems that gun ownership is just a distraction. Legally available guns neither cause nor prevent a significant number of crimes.
It's interesting, but as you say, the site is biased. Yes, the figures are backed up with actual research but are they cherry picking? theey debunk a lot of statistics that aren't in their favour. Are the ones in their favour accurate? It's also a little US centric. Gun ownership is so common in the US that any form of gun control at this stage would be worse than useless. This doesn't in any way suggest that relaxing gun laws in the UK would be effective.
It does confirm one of my suspicions though - that concealed carry decreases crime. Personally, I think the most effective means of crime prevention would be to make carrying a firearm mandatory...
Already covered at the end of the article. "Eberhard suggests it would be easy enough to pump MP3s of prerecorded engine roar into the car's Blaupunkt stereo. And for those with even older tastes, the sound of horse hooves could be substituted. But damn if that horse isn't going to sound strange at 13,500 rpm."
I think wikipedia is being ambiguous rather than incorrect.
My understanding is that very weak evidence can be used to apply an ASBO, but to actually punish for breach of an ASBO, requires proof of beyond reasonable doubt that the terms of the ASBO were breached.
to criminalise behaviour that someone finds undesirable but is certainly not, in itself, criminal.
That's the point of an ASBO.
One woman was given an ASBO to prevent her answering her door in her underwear, for heaven's sake.
Yes... there are a few examples of them being unfair. The fact that these are so rare is one of the problems with the system. If they were handed out to anyone and everyone, then they would rapidly lose their popularity with the public.
This is just a straight lie. There are numerous instances of ASBOS being applied to children with a diagnosed mental disorder or accepted learning difficulty. About 1 in 3 asbos applied to persons under 17 fall into this category.
I never said they weren't.
. I recall one autistic child served with an ASBO for 'constantly staring over the neighbours fence'.
People with aspergers are antisocial. It's one of the key symptoms.
What is happening is that people like 91degrees are too lazy or incompetent to check the situation, and don't care about the sacrifice of principles of justice so long as the police are only coming for the most vulnerable in society.
What makes you think I approve of these things? They are a total violation of basic principles of due process, and can easily be abused. This doesn't stop them from being popular, and in turn, being popular doesn't mean they're a good thing. As I said in my very first sentence on the matter; "there's the problem".
Erm. Yes. As does most of the software industry. Have you tried running the latest version of Mac OSX on a G3? How about KDE on a Pentium? Since this is the way the software industry works, and most customers seem to be quite happy to buy faster hardware rather than allow for longer development times for more highly optimised software, why does it matter which programming language we use? The vast majority of applications will run at a perfectly acceptable speed on a reasonably cheap PC whatever language they're written in? Only a few applications (e.g. games and video compression) will show a noticable speed difference even if the performance is halved.
Yeah. The O2 was a fantastic machine. I remember playing GLQuake on one at a much higher framerate and resolution than anyone's PC could manage, and Iris4D is still my favourite Unix window manager. The trouble is, 3D hardware is less exclusive these days. nVidia and ATI bioth make exceptionally powerful hardware, and the economies of scale mean that they can do this for considerably less than SGI could if SGI focussed only on 3d workstations.
This is the problem with discussing the law on slashdot. Poeple always seem to mistake a brief summary with the law.
Actual legal texts have a long list of definitioins at the start, which describe exactly what is and isn't a computer. This si why a typical act is severaldozen pages long even though it appears to only do a few simple things.
Yeah. But it's only applied to a very small minority of genuine anti social people right now. I believe this guy had something to say on the matter but what does he know?
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. I'm still a little suspicious about the timing. Did they just choose this time because they knew where he was going to be, or was it a bit of PR for the FBI?
How can I be a part of the "crowd that hates Jerry Springer and hates those who watches the show" when I don't even have the brain-rotting device known as the television?
What does owning a television have to do with whether you hate those who have such a device?
Also, those that follow a crowd don't usually think for themselves, rather they go with what is popular with their peers.
You still follow a crowd. You might believe you think for yourself, but your thoughts are coloured by prejudices picked up from society. Hence you consider television to be a "brain rotting device". You're quite clearly a member of a pseudo intellectual, television dislikng crowd. You consider that other people don't think for themselves and that you do. Lots of people feel this way, but I find in all cases, there are certain prejudices acquired from other people, or the media. How many people do you know who watch Jerry Springer? How do you know how bad the show is if you don't have a television? Have you actually watched a few shows to confirm that it is as bad as you think?
Also the point I was making was showing how ignorant a good number of slashdotters are, since they love to use profanity
This is beside the point. What makes you think profanity is indicative of ignorance? Seems to me that somebody else said so. Someone you may consider a peer perhaps.
Sorrty, but you're deluding yourself. You follow a crowd just like everyone else. You just follow a different crowd. The crowd that hates Jerry Springer and hates those who watch the show.
Why else would you be using somebody elses proverb to make your point?
Yup.
So, do you have anything else to say, or does it simply make you feel better to call other people dorks for liking things you don't?
Erm.. you are aware that your employer was actually just a hypothetical situation aren't you?
I'd hate to think of you getting up every day and going to a meat packing plant that only exists for the sake of argument. I hear imaginary companies don't pay all that well.
Batteries allow for greater efficiency and decoupling between the power plant and the car. How much innefficiency is there in having lots of tiny little combustion engines zooming all over the place with a bunch of ignorant car owners
Indeed. It's a lot more complicated than people are making out. An internal combustion engine is something like 25% efficient. A power station can be anywhere from 30% to 80% (if waste heat is reused). Thenm you lose a certain amount through transmission and charging up the batteries, then gain some from greater effiency at low speed (especially stopped), and with regenerative braking.
Then you have the loss of efficency in the weight of batteries, and the extra pollution associated with the manufacture and disposal of the batteries.
And this is still a huge oversimplification.
Why would they fire you for that? Shouldn't they simply ask you to stop promoting your personal political views on your company blog? Assuming the rest of your work was of a decent standard, it seems rather heavy handed.
She's a "home house aid". Not quite sure what this means but it probably involves cleaning.
By "actual evidence", I meant proper evidence, not vague anecdotal evidence. Some of the countries with even lower crime rates have essentially banned firearms.
Ah well, here's how it works - Only those with a vested interest in getting the console will pay such a large deposit up front. You know - serious gamers. And those who want to sell it on ebay. DOH!
I haven't read the article or read any comment from Jack yet, but I'll bet I can guess his spin on this will be something along the lines of "The Games industry his clearly absolutely terrified of me. This is why they went to so much effort to have me barred from this case. This is proof that I'm winning."
Anyone want to take me up on this bet?
Yes, but that's just stupid.
A single data point is not proof! Switzerland also has considerably lower littering rates, and better language abilities. Is this also down to their firearms policy?
Could the low crime rate actually be down to Switzerlands extremly high wealth and social policy meaning that the poor don't need to resort to a life of crime? Could the low crime rate mean that there hasn't been a perceived need for firearms controls? Could it be that universal firearms ownership reduces crime, whereas the level of ownership in the US doesn't?
The crime rate in Japan is even lower and they have strict gun controls. The gun crime rate in the US with lower restrictions is very high. Finland has high gun ownership and a large homicide rate. Why aren't they using all their guns to prevent these murders?
Quite frankly, looking at both sides of the argument, it seems that gun ownership is just a distraction. Legally available guns neither cause nor prevent a significant number of crimes.
It's interesting, but as you say, the site is biased. Yes, the figures are backed up with actual research but are they cherry picking? theey debunk a lot of statistics that aren't in their favour. Are the ones in their favour accurate? It's also a little US centric. Gun ownership is so common in the US that any form of gun control at this stage would be worse than useless. This doesn't in any way suggest that relaxing gun laws in the UK would be effective.
It does confirm one of my suspicions though - that concealed carry decreases crime. Personally, I think the most effective means of crime prevention would be to make carrying a firearm mandatory...
Is there any actual evidence freely available firearms substantially reduces gun crime, or is it all hyperbole from the US pro-gun lobby?
It's not about blame. It's about cause. Who cares who's to blame.
So, ban them from embarassing the program and the school. Can't they assume some level of personal responsibility ?
Already covered at the end of the article. "Eberhard suggests it would be easy enough to pump MP3s of prerecorded engine roar into the car's Blaupunkt stereo. And for those with even older tastes, the sound of horse hooves could be substituted. But damn if that horse isn't going to sound strange at 13,500 rpm."
I think wikipedia is being ambiguous rather than incorrect.
My understanding is that very weak evidence can be used to apply an ASBO, but to actually punish for breach of an ASBO, requires proof of beyond reasonable doubt that the terms of the ASBO were breached.
to criminalise behaviour that someone finds undesirable but is certainly not, in itself, criminal.
That's the point of an ASBO.
One woman was given an ASBO to prevent her answering her door in her underwear, for heaven's sake.
Yes... there are a few examples of them being unfair. The fact that these are so rare is one of the problems with the system. If they were handed out to anyone and everyone, then they would rapidly lose their popularity with the public.
This is just a straight lie. There are numerous instances of ASBOS being applied to children with a diagnosed mental disorder or accepted learning difficulty. About 1 in 3 asbos applied to persons under 17 fall into this category.
I never said they weren't.
. I recall one autistic child served with an ASBO for 'constantly staring over the neighbours fence'. People with aspergers are antisocial. It's one of the key symptoms.
What is happening is that people like 91degrees are too lazy or incompetent to check the situation, and don't care about the sacrifice of principles of justice so long as the police are only coming for the most vulnerable in society.
What makes you think I approve of these things? They are a total violation of basic principles of due process, and can easily be abused. This doesn't stop them from being popular, and in turn, being popular doesn't mean they're a good thing. As I said in my very first sentence on the matter; "there's the problem".
Erm. Yes. As does most of the software industry. Have you tried running the latest version of Mac OSX on a G3? How about KDE on a Pentium? Since this is the way the software industry works, and most customers seem to be quite happy to buy faster hardware rather than allow for longer development times for more highly optimised software, why does it matter which programming language we use? The vast majority of applications will run at a perfectly acceptable speed on a reasonably cheap PC whatever language they're written in? Only a few applications (e.g. games and video compression) will show a noticable speed difference even if the performance is halved.
Yeah. The O2 was a fantastic machine. I remember playing GLQuake on one at a much higher framerate and resolution than anyone's PC could manage, and Iris4D is still my favourite Unix window manager. The trouble is, 3D hardware is less exclusive these days. nVidia and ATI bioth make exceptionally powerful hardware, and the economies of scale mean that they can do this for considerably less than SGI could if SGI focussed only on 3d workstations.
You expect RESTRAINT from judges?
More so than from politicians. (Marginally at least).
sigh.
This is the problem with discussing the law on slashdot. Poeple always seem to mistake a brief summary with the law.
Actual legal texts have a long list of definitioins at the start, which describe exactly what is and isn't a computer. This si why a typical act is severaldozen pages long even though it appears to only do a few simple things.
Yeah. But it's only applied to a very small minority of genuine anti social people right now. I believe this guy had something to say on the matter but what does he know?