That's funny. I was wondering if someone was going to comment on that earlier. It's actually meant to mean that you can still do "fun" things even when you're old (it came from a skydiving t-shirt) but you're right.
It won't do anything. The only thing that keeps kids safe is teaching them how to be safe. Preventing them from accessing things just makes them go somewhere else to access them.
You want to protect kids? Teach parents to be responsible and talk to their kids about real danger. Teach parents to give their children a good sense of identity and self that doesn't revolve around being "liked" by other people. Teach parents to do their damn job.
Having lived with several alcoholics, I know quite well what the reality of it is. I also know that most alcoholics who get treatment are decent people, even if they're complete assholes when drinking.
I never said "I was drunk" should be an excuse. I just said that not everyone who is a drunk is worthless and should be killed or beaten. There's a big difference between those points of view.
And evidence of being beaten (or she wouldn't have talked to a pastor) is evidence that the law has been broken. Calling the cops at that point is the right choice. Leaving the house is only a temporary measure that will help ensure her safety until the police do their job.
That may be the case. Or it may be that he just has an alcohol problem that needs to be treated and isn't aware he's beating his wife while he's doing it.
You can't diagnose a problem from a distance. Sometimes the guy is just an ass that deserves the worst, and sometimes he's just a person with a problem. Sometimes it's the woman doing the beating (a coworker had that problem and the military made him take anger management classes because they couldn't do anything to her) and that brings a whole other set of issues. How do you defend yourself against a woman who's beating you with pots and pans, brooms and the like?
And most kids don't have clinical depression either. I think you're generally right, but there are exceptions to every rule. The woman being prosecuted not only knew the girl was an exception to that rule, she exploited it. I think the method of prosecution sucks, but some recourse should be taken against her.
Which raises the question - if we can take care of ourselves and our families with some help from our community, why does the State wish to stop that?
Because, like it or not, the woman in your example was no better beating her husband than he was beating her. It may have worked, but more often than not, it doesn't. I know people who've been hospitalized for shit like that. I know of (second hand) multiple people who've been killed for shit like that. Either the husband died or the wife died because she tried to "fight" back.
Giving bad advice that works out okay isn't acceptable. What the pastor should have told her was "get out of the house--take the children (if applicable) and call the cops." Anything else was negligence on his part.
--The woman deserves what is coming, and I will laugh happily every time I hear her family has suffered misfortune - losing their business, pulling their daughter from school and hopefully soon being forced from the community. She acted without remorse and deserves to suffer consequences.--
I'm not a big fan of mob justice. Not patronizing a business because you disagree with the owner is fine. Death threats, assault, and other violent and criminal activities have no place here. Causing more unhappiness certainly doesn't improve their community.
Why not put all that hate-filled energy into positive steps, like helping out a suicide hotline or pushing for legislation they feel would prevent this in the future?
The people who attack her family are doing evil, plain and simple. I hope they get sent to jail for it.
Where do you see anything about attacking her family, or "doing evil" to her? Not to mention "mob justice". The GP simply said the woman deserves what she gets, whether that is losing her business (I read it as losing from financial burden of a criminal/civil defense lawyer) or whatever.
You read an awful lot into what the GP said.
I agree with your general sentiment, I just think your comment was triggered from the wrong post.
What you said is "aware of common arguments for and against", which isn't the same thing as being able to "read all material now being published".
I would also say that comparing the situation in any field now, to the situation of 50 years ago isn't realistic. We are making advancements and publishing information much faster now than people were 50 years ago. It's not linear growth, it's closer to geometric, so it certainly would have been possible, in my opinion, to read enough about a subject to be competently able to be an "authority" on it.
As example, I am generally considered, by my peers at work, and by others, to be an "authority" on many subjects regarding outdoor activities like camping, hiking, climbing and kayaking. I am an authority on several of those types of activities in that I read everything I can about them and I participate in them regularly. None of those, however, are my full time job.
Being an authority doesn't automatically require being a professional in the field. It requires a higher degree of knowledge than is standard, and as you stated in another post, a higher degree of thought about the subject. Einstein, like it or not, had both of those under his belt.
I'll also wager that the capability of a genius of Einstein's caliber to grasp multiple fields is generally beyond that of the "average professional" in any field.
Being born Jewish doesn't mean you adhere to Judaism. Why do people keep confusing a "race" or ethnic genealogy with a religion?
Einstein was married to an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and was raised by Jewish parents. He didn't espouse any particular religion, and therefore there's no reason to say he would have believed in a "christian god" versus a Jewish god, which by the way are the same thing. Jews and Christians worship the same god, Jews just don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.
If you are going to be cited as an authority, it helps to be someone who has thought long and hard about one's position, and who is aware of common arguments for and against.
Which Einstein did, and was. You must not have read many biographies of Einstein if you think differently. Either that, or you got something completely different from those works (and his writings) than I did.
No you haven't. Philosophy of religion studies both sides of the argument, trying to determine whether or not a god truly exists and why people "need" a god/religion, not just the pro-side.
"The ocean can carry away energies produced by earthquakes near or under them and in some ways act as a buffer of sorts, but what happens when the only buffer is land?"
Basically, shit falls down, mountains are "made" and lakes are made, etc. etc.
As example the "big" earthquake in California, in 1989 that that collapsed a section of the San Francisco Bay bridge and took out the Embarcadero in San Francisco was a 7.1 but only killed 60-70 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loma_Prieta_earthquake
As someone else mentioned, the difference in damage and feeling it a long way away has to do with the way the plates are and the fact that the entire eastern seaboard of the US out to about illinois etc, are all on the same piece of bedrock.
The NSA doesn't really care about hardening your system, they care about their own, first and those of the other US government agencies after that. They produce these guidelines to be used by other agencies, and contractors for use on systems that the NSA will then purchase.
As for backdoors, I don't know that they've created any code to secure the system, just produced a set of rules and guidelines that help people know what to secure and how.
Again, don't count on it. I'm guessing you've never worked on a government contract, or for a government agency. It's just not like that.
I have several friends working at NASA and it's not a "normal" service to have an open blanket contract for because drastic failures don't occur enough to warrant it. And, again, blanket POs aren't the norm for government contracts because they have to be shopped around, by law, if the contract is expected to be over a certain dollar amount. Even the ones that are well below that dollar amount (I don't remember the exact number) are generally shopped around because the purchasers in the accounting group pretty much force it with an annoying policy of sole source justification requirements and the like.
You can be fairly sure NASA doesn't have data recovery services "on tap" simply because it is a rare need.
This is just not worth the money. It may be good for someone who pretty much sits around doing nothing but watching tv all day anyway (if there is such a person) but for anyone who actually enjoys life this will be a miserable experience.
They want to work in college dorm common areas or trendy architecture firm-designed modern, overpriced playpens.
I didn't see a single example of a useful work environment to me. I need to be able to talk on the phone without shouting over the people around me, and have adequate space on my desk (not 2 feet away from the "desk" next to me) to spread out design drawings, ICDs and other documents to reference. The only "good" workspace is a private office where you can close the door for the times when you need quiet/privacy, whatever, and some common areas where you can "unwind" for a few minutes between tasks. All that other shit, the games, movie theaters, and the like, should be at home.
Any office that has all that crap expects you to work far too many hours at too little pay (most likely) for it it be a good work environment.
Just because something is trendy or pretty doesn't make it "good" for you.
Networked or not, the police can and do "demand" access to the tapes and archival footage of those "privately owned" surveillance cameras.
They don't need to be networked! That's the problem, or at least part of it. So they're not networked now, big deal, when it's trivial for them to walk into a place and say "we need to see your surveillance tapes for the last 30 days".
"Funny that this ridicules story is on the front page, while the reclassification of cannabis probably wont make it, that's much more infringing on civil liberties than videos of you when your in a public place."
Only if you're smoking pot you dirty hippie.
But, seriously though, how is that more infringing on civil liberties than pervasive video surveillance?
While you make an interesting point, how is being expected to carry around a "personal data recorder" that has to interact with every CCTV camera available any better than being watched in the first place? What happens if I forget to bring my recorder, or it gets lost, or broken? Who is right in your proposed scenario then? The person with the data recorder, the person without, some passerby?
I say just remove the damn cameras and get back to a society where we watch out for ourselves and our neighbors like decent human beings should.
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny. I was wondering if someone was going to comment on that earlier. It's actually meant to mean that you can still do "fun" things even when you're old (it came from a skydiving t-shirt) but you're right.
It won't do anything. The only thing that keeps kids safe is teaching them how to be safe. Preventing them from accessing things just makes them go somewhere else to access them.
You want to protect kids? Teach parents to be responsible and talk to their kids about real danger. Teach parents to give their children a good sense of identity and self that doesn't revolve around being "liked" by other people. Teach parents to do their damn job.
Nothing depresses me more than adults who have completely failed to grow the fsck up.
I hate to say it but you're going to have to get used to it. It only seems to be getting more common.
Having lived with several alcoholics, I know quite well what the reality of it is. I also know that most alcoholics who get treatment are decent people, even if they're complete assholes when drinking.
I never said "I was drunk" should be an excuse. I just said that not everyone who is a drunk is worthless and should be killed or beaten. There's a big difference between those points of view.
And evidence of being beaten (or she wouldn't have talked to a pastor) is evidence that the law has been broken. Calling the cops at that point is the right choice. Leaving the house is only a temporary measure that will help ensure her safety until the police do their job.
That may be the case. Or it may be that he just has an alcohol problem that needs to be treated and isn't aware he's beating his wife while he's doing it.
You can't diagnose a problem from a distance. Sometimes the guy is just an ass that deserves the worst, and sometimes he's just a person with a problem. Sometimes it's the woman doing the beating (a coworker had that problem and the military made him take anger management classes because they couldn't do anything to her) and that brings a whole other set of issues. How do you defend yourself against a woman who's beating you with pots and pans, brooms and the like?
And most kids don't have clinical depression either. I think you're generally right, but there are exceptions to every rule. The woman being prosecuted not only knew the girl was an exception to that rule, she exploited it. I think the method of prosecution sucks, but some recourse should be taken against her.
Which raises the question - if we can take care of ourselves and our families with some help from our community, why does the State wish to stop that?
Because, like it or not, the woman in your example was no better beating her husband than he was beating her. It may have worked, but more often than not, it doesn't. I know people who've been hospitalized for shit like that. I know of (second hand) multiple people who've been killed for shit like that. Either the husband died or the wife died because she tried to "fight" back.
Giving bad advice that works out okay isn't acceptable. What the pastor should have told her was "get out of the house--take the children (if applicable) and call the cops." Anything else was negligence on his part.
--The woman deserves what is coming, and I will laugh happily every time I hear her family has suffered misfortune - losing their business, pulling their daughter from school and hopefully soon being forced from the community. She acted without remorse and deserves to suffer consequences.--
I'm not a big fan of mob justice. Not patronizing a business because you disagree with the owner is fine. Death threats, assault, and other violent and criminal activities have no place here. Causing more unhappiness certainly doesn't improve their community.
Why not put all that hate-filled energy into positive steps, like helping out a suicide hotline or pushing for legislation they feel would prevent this in the future?
The people who attack her family are doing evil, plain and simple. I hope they get sent to jail for it.
Where do you see anything about attacking her family, or "doing evil" to her? Not to mention "mob justice". The GP simply said the woman deserves what she gets, whether that is losing her business (I read it as losing from financial burden of a criminal/civil defense lawyer) or whatever.
You read an awful lot into what the GP said.
I agree with your general sentiment, I just think your comment was triggered from the wrong post.
What you said is "aware of common arguments for and against", which isn't the same thing as being able to "read all material now being published".
I would also say that comparing the situation in any field now, to the situation of 50 years ago isn't realistic. We are making advancements and publishing information much faster now than people were 50 years ago. It's not linear growth, it's closer to geometric, so it certainly would have been possible, in my opinion, to read enough about a subject to be competently able to be an "authority" on it.
As example, I am generally considered, by my peers at work, and by others, to be an "authority" on many subjects regarding outdoor activities like camping, hiking, climbing and kayaking. I am an authority on several of those types of activities in that I read everything I can about them and I participate in them regularly. None of those, however, are my full time job.
Being an authority doesn't automatically require being a professional in the field. It requires a higher degree of knowledge than is standard, and as you stated in another post, a higher degree of thought about the subject. Einstein, like it or not, had both of those under his belt.
I'll also wager that the capability of a genius of Einstein's caliber to grasp multiple fields is generally beyond that of the "average professional" in any field.
Being born Jewish doesn't mean you adhere to Judaism. Why do people keep confusing a "race" or ethnic genealogy with a religion?
Einstein was married to an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and was raised by Jewish parents. He didn't espouse any particular religion, and therefore there's no reason to say he would have believed in a "christian god" versus a Jewish god, which by the way are the same thing. Jews and Christians worship the same god, Jews just don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.
If you are going to be cited as an authority, it helps to be someone who has thought long and hard about one's position, and who is aware of common arguments for and against.
Which Einstein did, and was. You must not have read many biographies of Einstein if you think differently. Either that, or you got something completely different from those works (and his writings) than I did.
No you haven't. Philosophy of religion studies both sides of the argument, trying to determine whether or not a god truly exists and why people "need" a god/religion, not just the pro-side.
You are correct, I used the wrong word. I meant adage, as someone else pointed out. Several someones actually.
I stand corrected in my misuse of the word idiom.
"The ocean can carry away energies produced by earthquakes near or under them and in some ways act as a buffer of sorts, but what happens when the only buffer is land?"
Basically, shit falls down, mountains are "made" and lakes are made, etc. etc.
As example the "big" earthquake in California, in 1989 that that collapsed a section of the San Francisco Bay bridge and took out the Embarcadero in San Francisco was a 7.1 but only killed 60-70 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loma_Prieta_earthquake
As someone else mentioned, the difference in damage and feeling it a long way away has to do with the way the plates are and the fact that the entire eastern seaboard of the US out to about illinois etc, are all on the same piece of bedrock.
The NSA doesn't really care about hardening your system, they care about their own, first and those of the other US government agencies after that. They produce these guidelines to be used by other agencies, and contractors for use on systems that the NSA will then purchase.
As for backdoors, I don't know that they've created any code to secure the system, just produced a set of rules and guidelines that help people know what to secure and how.
It's a "saying", which the GP specifically stated. "As the saying goes..."
It doesn't need a citation, because it's a pretty common idiom. Or at least it was 20 years ago.
Again, don't count on it. I'm guessing you've never worked on a government contract, or for a government agency. It's just not like that.
I have several friends working at NASA and it's not a "normal" service to have an open blanket contract for because drastic failures don't occur enough to warrant it. And, again, blanket POs aren't the norm for government contracts because they have to be shopped around, by law, if the contract is expected to be over a certain dollar amount. Even the ones that are well below that dollar amount (I don't remember the exact number) are generally shopped around because the purchasers in the accounting group pretty much force it with an annoying policy of sole source justification requirements and the like.
You can be fairly sure NASA doesn't have data recovery services "on tap" simply because it is a rare need.
This is just not worth the money. It may be good for someone who pretty much sits around doing nothing but watching tv all day anyway (if there is such a person) but for anyone who actually enjoys life this will be a miserable experience.
Misery deserves far more compensation than 17K.
They want to work in college dorm common areas or trendy architecture firm-designed modern, overpriced playpens.
I didn't see a single example of a useful work environment to me. I need to be able to talk on the phone without shouting over the people around me, and have adequate space on my desk (not 2 feet away from the "desk" next to me) to spread out design drawings, ICDs and other documents to reference. The only "good" workspace is a private office where you can close the door for the times when you need quiet/privacy, whatever, and some common areas where you can "unwind" for a few minutes between tasks. All that other shit, the games, movie theaters, and the like, should be at home.
Any office that has all that crap expects you to work far too many hours at too little pay (most likely) for it it be a good work environment.
Just because something is trendy or pretty doesn't make it "good" for you.
Networked or not, the police can and do "demand" access to the tapes and archival footage of those "privately owned" surveillance cameras.
They don't need to be networked! That's the problem, or at least part of it. So they're not networked now, big deal, when it's trivial for them to walk into a place and say "we need to see your surveillance tapes for the last 30 days".
That's a good point.
I'll say, however, that once there's acceptance of "public surveillance" acceptance of all surveillance (Patriot Act anyone?) isn't far behind.
It's all about baby steps.
Spoken like a true believer. "Sure it's not great here, but it's better than everywhere else."
Just keep telling yourself that and everything will be okay, right up to the point where it isn't.
"Funny that this ridicules story is on the front page, while the reclassification of cannabis probably wont make it, that's much more infringing on civil liberties than videos of you when your in a public place."
Only if you're smoking pot you dirty hippie.
But, seriously though, how is that more infringing on civil liberties than pervasive video surveillance?
While you make an interesting point, how is being expected to carry around a "personal data recorder" that has to interact with every CCTV camera available any better than being watched in the first place? What happens if I forget to bring my recorder, or it gets lost, or broken? Who is right in your proposed scenario then? The person with the data recorder, the person without, some passerby?
I say just remove the damn cameras and get back to a society where we watch out for ourselves and our neighbors like decent human beings should.