Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but the problem with being drunk while you drive isn't that it's distracting, it's that it fucks up your coordination and reaction time no matter how focused you are.
I disagree. I'm smart and moral enough to not text while driving no matter what it says, but I'd still like to know what's going to count as breaking the law. I don't like laws making vague categories of actions illegal. I want to know what I'm going to and not going to get busted for.
I don't know more than a bit about Australian politics, but I'm thinking this proposal is outside the realm of the realistically-possible-to-pass. However, if it did, I smell a massive civil disobedience campaign in the Land Down Under's future.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the Prisoner's Dilemma. If a person buys all three consoles so they can play every game, all console makers benefit more than if everyone bought one console and they shared the profit.
The natural order of progression for any project like this is to tend towards conservatism.
But if you had actually read the post you're replying to, you'd see that this is a step back towards openness. It's a less-restrictive alternative to protection and semi-protection.
The article is basically bullshit, but it says something a lot of people seem ready to believe.
Sorry, but Wikipedia is just another private website, just like most other websites. By extension, that means it isn't under government control, so your obscure 1984 reference doesn't fit.
Private censorship is freedom... Now that's Orwellian.
I find if anything other than fact based articles are ok, if they concern people, ideas, or beliefs, its too liberal to be fair, and too feminist to be accurate.
This is getting a bit off-topic, but what do you mean when you call Wikipedia "too feminist"?
This is a ridiculously biased (or, more likely, ignorant) article. The flagged protection system is designed to be a LESS restrictive alternative to the protection and semi-protection system, a way to allow those who like to edit anonymously to contribute to articles they're currently blocked from.
You perhaps accidentally bring up an interesting question, namely: Why can't there be a competition between humans where they're allowed to use every possible means to enhance themselves athletically? Why not compete to see who can be the most athletically fit human being by whatever means?
But if you do that, you simply rule out females from the competition altogether. The sex/gender division in athletic competitions is due to the inescapable, if very unfortunate, fact that men are physically superior to women in athletic ability. We (men) can't get pregnant. That's the trade-off. If you're a woman and don't plan on ever reproducing, it's kind of a raw deal, but there you go.
I'm a big fan of Firefox and prefer it to Opera, but I'm glad it's around. I once saw a forum thread somewhere about why the world needs Opera - to which someone replied: "so Firefox has somewhere to steal features from".
There's a difference between your theory being refined and eventually superseded and it being "wrong". Quite possibly, the world will one day look back on Einstein the way we look back on Newton: the father of a previous revolution in physics, superseded by an even deeper understanding but as valid as ever.
If they don't find gravitational waves of a certain magnitude then either Einstein was wrong or, more likely, the sorts of astronomical phenomena that could create the waves don't exist.
Forgive me for not knowing anything about the topic, but... what's the difference?
I don't really care if my neighbors think we sprouted like mushrooms from unicorn poop, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me, and I think they should have the right to teach their kids whatever they want
I'd extend the right to not have bullshit forced on them to their kids as well, at least in principal (by force would be going a bit too far for other reasons).
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but the problem with being drunk while you drive isn't that it's distracting, it's that it fucks up your coordination and reaction time no matter how focused you are.
I disagree. I'm smart and moral enough to not text while driving no matter what it says, but I'd still like to know what's going to count as breaking the law. I don't like laws making vague categories of actions illegal. I want to know what I'm going to and not going to get busted for.
MP3s lose some quality from CDs and FLAC/WAV, but who cares?
People who care about their music.
The real aim of this move is obviously to suppress the "Ban Kleenex!" movement.
I'm with you all the way.
People laugh at that site, but the danger of DHMO is terrifyingly real.
What's next, a license for sex?
More than a few disappointed individuals would get behind such a program.
We Mac users don't have 'lunch money'.
Because, after buying all their iProducts, Mac users have no money left.
I don't know more than a bit about Australian politics, but I'm thinking this proposal is outside the realm of the realistically-possible-to-pass. However, if it did, I smell a massive civil disobedience campaign in the Land Down Under's future.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the Prisoner's Dilemma. If a person buys all three consoles so they can play every game, all console makers benefit more than if everyone bought one console and they shared the profit.
Many Polish people may indeed be ... anti-semites ... but racists?
What the hell are you talking about?
The natural order of progression for any project like this is to tend towards conservatism.
But if you had actually read the post you're replying to, you'd see that this is a step back towards openness. It's a less-restrictive alternative to protection and semi-protection.
The article is basically bullshit, but it says something a lot of people seem ready to believe.
Sorry, but Wikipedia is just another private website, just like most other websites. By extension, that means it isn't under government control, so your obscure 1984 reference doesn't fit.
Private censorship is freedom... Now that's Orwellian.
I find if anything other than fact based articles are ok, if they concern people, ideas, or beliefs, its too liberal to be fair, and too feminist to be accurate.
This is getting a bit off-topic, but what do you mean when you call Wikipedia "too feminist"?
This is a ridiculously biased (or, more likely, ignorant) article. The flagged protection system is designed to be a LESS restrictive alternative to the protection and semi-protection system, a way to allow those who like to edit anonymously to contribute to articles they're currently blocked from.
If your contribution is indeed impartial (remember we're only talking about living people entries), it WILL get accepted.
Hahaha! Oh man, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week. Either you're a long-time moderator or you haven't done much editing on Wikipedia.
You perhaps accidentally bring up an interesting question, namely: Why can't there be a competition between humans where they're allowed to use every possible means to enhance themselves athletically? Why not compete to see who can be the most athletically fit human being by whatever means?
That's one of the most insightful comments I've yet seen in this discussion. If only it led us closer to an answer to the problem. :-/
But if you do that, you simply rule out females from the competition altogether. The sex/gender division in athletic competitions is due to the inescapable, if very unfortunate, fact that men are physically superior to women in athletic ability. We (men) can't get pregnant. That's the trade-off. If you're a woman and don't plan on ever reproducing, it's kind of a raw deal, but there you go.
I'm a big fan of Firefox and prefer it to Opera, but I'm glad it's around. I once saw a forum thread somewhere about why the world needs Opera - to which someone replied: "so Firefox has somewhere to steal features from".
There's a difference between your theory being refined and eventually superseded and it being "wrong". Quite possibly, the world will one day look back on Einstein the way we look back on Newton: the father of a previous revolution in physics, superseded by an even deeper understanding but as valid as ever.
Or, I suppose, not.
If they don't find gravitational waves of a certain magnitude then either Einstein was wrong or, more likely, the sorts of astronomical phenomena that could create the waves don't exist.
Forgive me for not knowing anything about the topic, but... what's the difference?
+/-1 Pedantic
I don't really care if my neighbors think we sprouted like mushrooms from unicorn poop, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me, and I think they should have the right to teach their kids whatever they want
I'd extend the right to not have bullshit forced on them to their kids as well, at least in principal (by force would be going a bit too far for other reasons).
My "drive" is in a solid state, and it's size is massive.