I have some issues with that perspective. One issue is where the line should be drawn? I don't have a facebook that is in active use. ALLOWING that sort of behavior gives other people who are privacy conscious an unfair edge because (1) they are willing to give up their facebook information and (2) make everyone else look dishonest or all manner of other negative adjectives for even denying that one exists.
People with moral objections end up looking like the bad people in the end. At this office, we have "jeans for charity" on Fridays. If you wear demin pants, you are expected (actually, required) to donate a minimal amount to a company selected charity. I have moral objections over the creation of these star-bellied sneeches. I want my charity to be anonymous and not recorded by any group in the position to judge me as a person. I also feel that it's not "charity" if there is a payment for a privilege or any sort of expected return. I choose not to participate. But then when I don't, it makes me "stand out" as someone who doesn't donate to charity. To me, this is the very definition of a hostile work environment where people are forced into a choice of "comply or be visibly identifyable."
And this exchange of information isn't even equal. It's completely one-sided. If they want my information, shouldn't I be entitled to theirs as well? I'm willing to bet no HR executive is willing to hand out their private data and credentials to job candidates.
It's not their business to know things which are private. It is unfortunate that people litigate far too often in this country, but it doesn't mean that an appropriate response is to put additional burden on employees and to further cause distance and mistrust as a result not to mention weeding out people with moral convictions against this sort of behavior in the first place.
"Can you lift 50lbs or more?" They aren't allowed to ask if you have any disabilities. There's a lot of things they aren't allowed to ask. Why are religious objections protected while moral objections are not? Seems unfair.
There is a way. It's called the congressional hearing. They have had those and nothing seems to come of it. In the end, they seem to end up becoming a political contribution drive.
You teach children to use the tools necessary for life. Knives, cars and all... you don't hide any of these things from children and act like they don't exist "until they are old enough." You see things from a particular perspective without realizing you're actually applying a moral standard which is not quite universal. Why treat one like it's bad/evil and the other like it simply needs to be handled carefully and with respect?
Good health and mental state are key. Your story suggests you would have a good future in the porn industry. Look into it. Lots of money in it for men who can perform... turns out, women can fake anything but men can fake nothing.
Pornography. I'm still not so sure pornography is bad.
We like to watch entertainment of the things we like or are interested in. We watch food shows. No one has a problem with that. We watch beauty contests. No one... okay, 'few' have a problem with that. Olympics? Fishing? Golf? Fighting!! You name it; if someone likes it, there's a form of entertainment which will be produced about it. But because it involves sex, a rather basic and extremely universal pleasure in the animal world, we have to say "oh no..."
What we fear, dislike or disapprove of about sex has more to do with religious and social values than anything else. Remove those from the equation and you will see less "forbidden fruit." Suddenly people aren't making unsubstantiated claims like "it harms children!" You know what harms children? Curiosity which isn't managed by adults. Knives, fire, fireworks, guns, heights, roads and streets... sex isn't quite as dangerous as any of those other things and yet somehow we are more concerned over whether or not they know what their 'things' are for than just about anything else.
This is the new media we are talking about here. It is wider and busier and less controlable than ever before. The mob is the media. Let's consider how we control such media. It's pretty hard to imagine already. Let's get our news from 4chan.
Guards are "workers" too by many definitions. A fight among workers can easily be spin from "clash between guards and assembly workers."
Lots of spin going on here. That a simple fight can turn into a riot? With cars turned over? Doubting it. Most such fights are simply watched by people as a form of entertainment. But when the dispute is something close to the observers' hearts (such as working conditions and abuses) others joining in and working together is natural.
... okay, prior to being vegetarian-capable, being omnivorous was the fixed state of early humans?
Let's imagine... travelling across the land... probably fleeing from another group in S.Africa who was strong enough to stay and keep their claim to the land they had... and finding themselves increasingly hungry... wild game of any sort becoming more scarce and harder to catch or kill... the ones that didn't adapt, died and didn't produce offspring. The ones that lived passed on whatever capacity to survive without dying of malnutrition. Classic natural selection we're talking about.
But here's the thing. Even today when people try to go vegetarian, some people simply can't make the change without nutritional complications while others are just fine with it.
I don't think ALL humans are equally mutated if you wish to call it that.
... being able to eat vegetables is not unusual for ANY monkey or ape. What is more if not most interesting is a genetic mutation which allows us to eat grains. Chimpanzees, for example, simply cannot process grains and as far as I have heard humans are the only primates which can.
The problem is more likely "patent" rather than copyright.
That's the thing about software patents that is rarely talked about. For all other inventions, you have to show how it works. In the case of software, you "describe" how it works in the most vague way possible. This is completely the opposite purpose of patents which is to, among other things, encourage disclosure of technology rather than keeping it as a secret. In the case of software patents, they are doing both... patenting and keeping the specifics secret.
But it turns out, most of my headaches are MY FAULT. By following bad eating habits, for example, I create sub-optimal nutritional conditions which, at times, results in discomfort. Other causes of headaches might result from other conditions within my preventative control. And it is my failure to manage those conditions which is the cause of my headaches.
Apple? Are you listening? Manage your conditions and you will have fewer headaches.
I think nothing demonstrates our corporate addiction to short-term gains quite like the end of the world as we know it.
We know what generally needs to be changed. But the changes required are controlled by large money interests. They don't what that change.
This is simple but still quite accurate.
We see this problem all over the financial globe. We see it in the fact that bad practices caused the global financial problems we are seeing today and the same parties who participated and are still going unpunished are pushing for even less regulation... regulation that was put into place to keep the global economy stable and worked well for over 7 decades.
Of course any and all of this can be fixed in a variety of ways by correcting a variety of behaviors. Among these include the ways money can influence government and the way business can influence government.
The people benefitting from the current conditions, of course, will not hear of any change and certainly will do everything they can to prevent it. They have what they want and don't want to lose it. And the suffering of the rest of the world isn't on the radars of their conscience.
Of course we will all die and suffer the same in the end, but their denial is at the source of global doom. This denial was somewhat understandable when the actual effects weren't quite so visible or measurable. But now things are profoundly demonstrable. But then again, we're still a planet populated by extremely superstitious people... we believe in gods and stuff like that. So I have little doubt that we cannot stop the end which is coming.
Money will be worthless when the end is here... but bullets will be pretty valuable. Invest in precious metals... like lead.
Its second version, known variously as ST-II or ST2, was drafted by Claudio Topolcic and others in 1987 and specified in 1990[4]. The final version of ST2, which was also known as ST2+, was drafted by the IETF ST2 Working group[5][6] and published as RFC 1819. ST2 distinguishes its own packets with an Internet Protocol version number 5, although it was never known as IPv5. Almost got me... taken from the page you linked us to.
Aside from the other things which paint the accused in a bad way, short of him confessing to having issued the terrorist threat, I have to wonder what evidence they are using to identify him. We have established over and over that an IP address is not a valid identifier. Even if they siezed his computer and verified the message came from his computer and only his fingerprints were on it, it doesn't prove he sent the message beyond a reasonable doubt. We have ample evidence that criminals don't need to crack your home network to be on it. We have ample evidence that a criminal doesn't have to physically touch a machine to make use of it.
To make this comment seems incredibly stupid to the effect that it even seems unlikely to me that he did it at all... that someone playing a dirty joke on him is responsible.
Ah yes.... IPv8 (since we skipped IPv5 to go to IPv6) will IP over subspace carrier and will handle complication such as data arriving before it was transmitted.
I'll try to remember not to have a mild headache before posting my thoughts. In fact, I think I'll also make sure I'm wearing pants, a shirt and tie... posting on slashdot is a much more formal occasion than it used to be.
At the office we are routinely turning IPv6 in order to make things work. (I'm not saying that's the right approach but turning it off on everything keeps things running.) IPv6 is a great idea but it's also very alien. Why didn't they just make it IPv4 with an added two bytes for addresses? I guess IPv4 is just too simple and needed to be made more complicated. It always make some people feel smart to know things everyone else doesn't. Hooray for elitism.
Microsoft created a vendor lock-in strategy. Expensive and proprietary, they encouraged everyone to develop develop develop for it.
Microsoft has pushed the limits of what companies will spend for OSes and applications. That everything is so very integrated, while it encourages business to work within its proprietary framework, prevents them from easily leaving it.
The short description of the problem? It's deeply complex and rooted within business systems and Microsoft created things this way intentionally.
All other factors being equal (cut, clarity, flaws, etc) diamonds are priced higher than rubies and yet of the two, rubies are more rare.
There's more to it than only that. One is public perception and expectation. People expect diamond to be expensive and sellers are willing to meet that expectation with a higher price. If someone lowered the price of diamonds, they would actually sell fewer of them. People usually believe they are getting more or better when they spend more. In other words, people offer too much trust to sellers.
Slashdot Mirror
I have some issues with that perspective. One issue is where the line should be drawn? I don't have a facebook that is in active use. ALLOWING that sort of behavior gives other people who are privacy conscious an unfair edge because (1) they are willing to give up their facebook information and (2) make everyone else look dishonest or all manner of other negative adjectives for even denying that one exists.
People with moral objections end up looking like the bad people in the end. At this office, we have "jeans for charity" on Fridays. If you wear demin pants, you are expected (actually, required) to donate a minimal amount to a company selected charity. I have moral objections over the creation of these star-bellied sneeches. I want my charity to be anonymous and not recorded by any group in the position to judge me as a person. I also feel that it's not "charity" if there is a payment for a privilege or any sort of expected return. I choose not to participate. But then when I don't, it makes me "stand out" as someone who doesn't donate to charity. To me, this is the very definition of a hostile work environment where people are forced into a choice of "comply or be visibly identifyable."
And this exchange of information isn't even equal. It's completely one-sided. If they want my information, shouldn't I be entitled to theirs as well? I'm willing to bet no HR executive is willing to hand out their private data and credentials to job candidates.
It's not their business to know things which are private. It is unfortunate that people litigate far too often in this country, but it doesn't mean that an appropriate response is to put additional burden on employees and to further cause distance and mistrust as a result not to mention weeding out people with moral convictions against this sort of behavior in the first place.
"Can you lift 50lbs or more?" They aren't allowed to ask if you have any disabilities. There's a lot of things they aren't allowed to ask. Why are religious objections protected while moral objections are not? Seems unfair.
There is a way. It's called the congressional hearing. They have had those and nothing seems to come of it. In the end, they seem to end up becoming a political contribution drive.
Hey hey hey... let's try to keep religion out of this shall we? I presume that by "nation of undereducated idiots" that's what you're talking about.
You teach children to use the tools necessary for life. Knives, cars and all... you don't hide any of these things from children and act like they don't exist "until they are old enough." You see things from a particular perspective without realizing you're actually applying a moral standard which is not quite universal. Why treat one like it's bad/evil and the other like it simply needs to be handled carefully and with respect?
Good health and mental state are key. Your story suggests you would have a good future in the porn industry. Look into it. Lots of money in it for men who can perform... turns out, women can fake anything but men can fake nothing.
I think that might be because your wife doesn't excite you. Consider boys or animals. Seriously. Be honest with yourself about what excites you.
I have the opposite experience, personally... When my wife makes herself available to me in a pleasant way, things go pretty well... way better.
Pornography. I'm still not so sure pornography is bad.
We like to watch entertainment of the things we like or are interested in. We watch food shows. No one has a problem with that. We watch beauty contests. No one... okay, 'few' have a problem with that. Olympics? Fishing? Golf? Fighting!! You name it; if someone likes it, there's a form of entertainment which will be produced about it. But because it involves sex, a rather basic and extremely universal pleasure in the animal world, we have to say "oh no..."
What we fear, dislike or disapprove of about sex has more to do with religious and social values than anything else. Remove those from the equation and you will see less "forbidden fruit." Suddenly people aren't making unsubstantiated claims like "it harms children!" You know what harms children? Curiosity which isn't managed by adults. Knives, fire, fireworks, guns, heights, roads and streets... sex isn't quite as dangerous as any of those other things and yet somehow we are more concerned over whether or not they know what their 'things' are for than just about anything else.
Seriously true.
This is the new media we are talking about here. It is wider and busier and less controlable than ever before. The mob is the media. Let's consider how we control such media. It's pretty hard to imagine already. Let's get our news from 4chan.
Judging by the title of this article, I somehow expect to see links to the goatse.cx site...
Anyone have this image in 1920x1080?
Guards are "workers" too by many definitions. A fight among workers can easily be spin from "clash between guards and assembly workers."
Lots of spin going on here. That a simple fight can turn into a riot? With cars turned over? Doubting it. Most such fights are simply watched by people as a form of entertainment. But when the dispute is something close to the observers' hearts (such as working conditions and abuses) others joining in and working together is natural.
... okay, prior to being vegetarian-capable, being omnivorous was the fixed state of early humans?
Let's imagine... travelling across the land... probably fleeing from another group in S.Africa who was strong enough to stay and keep their claim to the land they had... and finding themselves increasingly hungry... wild game of any sort becoming more scarce and harder to catch or kill... the ones that didn't adapt, died and didn't produce offspring. The ones that lived passed on whatever capacity to survive without dying of malnutrition. Classic natural selection we're talking about.
But here's the thing. Even today when people try to go vegetarian, some people simply can't make the change without nutritional complications while others are just fine with it.
I don't think ALL humans are equally mutated if you wish to call it that.
... being able to eat vegetables is not unusual for ANY monkey or ape. What is more if not most interesting is a genetic mutation which allows us to eat grains. Chimpanzees, for example, simply cannot process grains and as far as I have heard humans are the only primates which can.
The problem is more likely "patent" rather than copyright.
That's the thing about software patents that is rarely talked about. For all other inventions, you have to show how it works. In the case of software, you "describe" how it works in the most vague way possible. This is completely the opposite purpose of patents which is to, among other things, encourage disclosure of technology rather than keeping it as a secret. In the case of software patents, they are doing both... patenting and keeping the specifics secret.
But it turns out, most of my headaches are MY FAULT. By following bad eating habits, for example, I create sub-optimal nutritional conditions which, at times, results in discomfort. Other causes of headaches might result from other conditions within my preventative control. And it is my failure to manage those conditions which is the cause of my headaches.
Apple? Are you listening? Manage your conditions and you will have fewer headaches.
I think nothing demonstrates our corporate addiction to short-term gains quite like the end of the world as we know it.
We know what generally needs to be changed. But the changes required are controlled by large money interests. They don't what that change.
This is simple but still quite accurate.
We see this problem all over the financial globe. We see it in the fact that bad practices caused the global financial problems we are seeing today and the same parties who participated and are still going unpunished are pushing for even less regulation... regulation that was put into place to keep the global economy stable and worked well for over 7 decades.
Of course any and all of this can be fixed in a variety of ways by correcting a variety of behaviors. Among these include the ways money can influence government and the way business can influence government.
The people benefitting from the current conditions, of course, will not hear of any change and certainly will do everything they can to prevent it. They have what they want and don't want to lose it. And the suffering of the rest of the world isn't on the radars of their conscience.
Of course we will all die and suffer the same in the end, but their denial is at the source of global doom. This denial was somewhat understandable when the actual effects weren't quite so visible or measurable. But now things are profoundly demonstrable. But then again, we're still a planet populated by extremely superstitious people... we believe in gods and stuff like that. So I have little doubt that we cannot stop the end which is coming.
Money will be worthless when the end is here... but bullets will be pretty valuable. Invest in precious metals... like lead.
Wanna cause problems? Add code from the various AV vendors...
Its second version, known variously as ST-II or ST2, was drafted by Claudio Topolcic and others in 1987 and specified in 1990[4]. The final version of ST2, which was also known as ST2+, was drafted by the IETF ST2 Working group[5][6] and published as RFC 1819. ST2 distinguishes its own packets with an Internet Protocol version number 5, although it was never known as IPv5.
Almost got me... taken from the page you linked us to.
Aside from the other things which paint the accused in a bad way, short of him confessing to having issued the terrorist threat, I have to wonder what evidence they are using to identify him. We have established over and over that an IP address is not a valid identifier. Even if they siezed his computer and verified the message came from his computer and only his fingerprints were on it, it doesn't prove he sent the message beyond a reasonable doubt. We have ample evidence that criminals don't need to crack your home network to be on it. We have ample evidence that a criminal doesn't have to physically touch a machine to make use of it.
To make this comment seems incredibly stupid to the effect that it even seems unlikely to me that he did it at all... that someone playing a dirty joke on him is responsible.
I have lots of reasonable doubt on my end.
Ah yes.... IPv8 (since we skipped IPv5 to go to IPv6) will IP over subspace carrier and will handle complication such as data arriving before it was transmitted.
Sou desu ka?
I'll try to remember not to have a mild headache before posting my thoughts. In fact, I think I'll also make sure I'm wearing pants, a shirt and tie... posting on slashdot is a much more formal occasion than it used to be.
re-training/education, software compatibilty, firmware compatibility...
At the office we are routinely turning IPv6 in order to make things work. (I'm not saying that's the right approach but turning it off on everything keeps things running.) IPv6 is a great idea but it's also very alien. Why didn't they just make it IPv4 with an added two bytes for addresses? I guess IPv4 is just too simple and needed to be made more complicated. It always make some people feel smart to know things everyone else doesn't. Hooray for elitism.
Microsoft created a vendor lock-in strategy. Expensive and proprietary, they encouraged everyone to develop develop develop for it.
Microsoft has pushed the limits of what companies will spend for OSes and applications. That everything is so very integrated, while it encourages business to work within its proprietary framework, prevents them from easily leaving it.
The short description of the problem? It's deeply complex and rooted within business systems and Microsoft created things this way intentionally.
What did they expect would happen?
Indeed! When did over-priced become "dear", "dearer" or "dearest"?
Oh dear... I'm afraid Bill Gates is a dear friend to us all!
All other factors being equal (cut, clarity, flaws, etc) diamonds are priced higher than rubies and yet of the two, rubies are more rare.
There's more to it than only that. One is public perception and expectation. People expect diamond to be expensive and sellers are willing to meet that expectation with a higher price. If someone lowered the price of diamonds, they would actually sell fewer of them. People usually believe they are getting more or better when they spend more. In other words, people offer too much trust to sellers.