Reverse discrimination (a.k.a Affirmative Action) does in fact exist. It's a law based attempt to reverse a bad trend that had existed because of human stupidity. It's a specific case of descrimination, you're right about that bit. It's also a distinct case and does justify the name. It'll probably be lost to antiquity within a few years though. Near as I can tell it's an attempt to jump start careers of people who share characteristics with people who were descriminated in the past and supposedly need the boost to correct the wrongs that've been done. I believe the laws are useless now, the qualifications of the people seeking jobs get them hired. On the other hand the people whose ancestors were maligned have been put into a sort of caste by society, which the law seeks to break them out of. Kind of a sticky situation. To me it seems a necessary evil that should be done away with after it's usefulness has been realized. (Sorry if I'm wandering from the topic, I do that =/ ) The point is it does exist, and I think you're confusing discrimination with prejudice. Reverse discrimination only implies that it's a reversal of prior trends. If I'm utterly mistaken feel free to enlighten me.
I love the irony in this, you call me an idiot then argue FOR my point. =) I probably worded my post badly (I was in a rush to finish it before going out to lunch), but you pretty much summed up what I intended to say (I have a bad tendency to beat around the bush). The only part I argue with is that observation isn't the same as "free as in speech." It's a personal decision whether to look at another person's house or not. There's no personal decision as to whether you're allowed to express yourself as speech (I suppose you could mentally censor yourself before talking, but that's another topic for another time). People put in windows so that they can see out, but they still want privacy so they tells others not to look in or install blinds. It's exactly the same freedom as distributing music on CD, so that people can buy it and you earn money, and then applying encryption or telling people not to make copies. It's not like free as in speech because you don't have the right to push aside blinds and look in anyway.
I propose "Free as in cable" (You can hook up multiple cable ready TVs to cable splitters to get cable recption on all of the TVs, at least where I live, I no longer do it myself, but I used to). The concept being you've paid someone else for something, and you can get another copy with your own effort, but the source of the good/service doesn't want you to/doesn't want you to know that you can. It's not the same as "Free as in speech," it has nothing do with innalienable rights. Nor "Free as in beer," it's not possible to get two pitchers out of one (barring free refills). "Free as in cable" represents something where you're able to get more out of something than the provider wants you to, and the only way they can stop you is by the provider saying that you can't do it.
This applies to the story in that you CAN port scan someone, but they may want you not to do it. You've paid for the use of an internet connection, and can do more than someone else may want you to with it. Free as in cable applies also to the analogies people have been offering of looking at someone's house through the windows. If they don't draw the curtains (or blinds), you can look inside from a distance without, but they may not want you to. You may just be admiring the new wallpaper your neighbor put in, but you may also be looking to see what the combination to the wall safe is.
Theoretically you could bar your windows all the time, but you lose the convenience of watching a thunderstorm from inside, or letting a breeze in on a hot day. Saying that someone isn't allowed to look in through your windows to stop them only works if the that someone obeys your request. They're still free (as in cable) to look in. It's the price we pay for living.
Probably considered illegal, but there's clearly benevolent intent. Anyone doing this would probably be given community service hours, and would demand more...
Shouldn't it be avoid using it in the proper context (lest you be sued)? Using English(tm) outside of the context of elecric/magnetic storage media as the tradmark mentions, isn't covered by trademark. (I.E. Apple Computer and the Apple the recording studio both have Apple(tm), different trades so they don't sue one another)
*sarcasm*
Obviously because AI enslaved mankind in The Matrix, it'd happen if we develop AI in real life.
*sarcasm*
C'mon people, The Matrix ins't gospel (Whether gospel is Gospel or not is another debate, just using it to refer as something to be taken at face value). It's a warning of a potential faux pas that man kind should avoid (made a darned good movie as well, also beside the point). It's like seeing Fifth Element and concluding that stellar travel combined with using black holes causes people to go to hell (literally). Nobell realized that nearly all technology can be used for sinister or benevolent purposes, and offered a peace prize as incentive for people to come up with beneficial uses for technology. It's up to the implementors and the users to determine which is gonna happen. Murphy's law isn't "everything will always go wrong." If anything can possibly go wrong, it will (probably not verbatim but close enough).
Just my usual $03.141592653589...
P.S. Yes I realize this is probably a flame, and yes I probably took the flamebait that I responded to.
Factoring prime numbers has been trivial since the realization of their existence, let N equal a prime number. The factorization is N time 1.
Or was this meant to be the factoring of arbitrarily large composite numbers into a set of primes?
That's true, but you'll still find that magazines are printed with four dots, shoeboy would have to be either joking (yes I know he is =P ) or intentionally missing the fourth dot in the rosettes. Being that this is supposed to have happened a while ago, it kinda rules out Pantone coloring of the afore-mentioned magazine. (I'm pretty sure Pantone process color is fairly new, could be wrong though, must go look that up)
Seems more like the guy calls someone's house asking if the homeowner has a gun. The homeowner says yes there's a gun at the house. The guy then proceeds to load the gun with millions of his bullets and shoots lots of people in the mailbox.
Re:well why don't you...
on
EULA In Games
·
· Score: 1
*minor flash of insight*
Just suppose people started distributing installers for this purpose. New OpenSource project anyone? =) Wonder if the DMCA has anything to cover people writing/ running/ distributing installs for other people's software, you can't violate a contract that you don't agree to. I believe (not I know, haven't read enough) the DMCA doesn't cover installation. If anyone can clarify this I'd really appreciate it.
P.S. Speaking of EULA's, where's the "I accept" / "Cancel" button for the DMCA?;)
Re:You always give up a right in a contract.
on
EULA In Games
·
· Score: 1
The difficulty here is, in most cases I've seen, by the time the EULA is readable, the company already sold you the product...
The news is this fellow's review of the book, doesn't matter whether the book is new or not.
Re:Book for the Illiterate
on
Longitude
·
· Score: 1
Nice antithesis (the book for the illiterate bit). Kinda like saying internet for the unwired, or digital cable for those without television sets.
P.S. This is not meant as a flame, just saying it's a good use of a literary device.
Cheating is context dependent. I think it's valid to cheat if you're not getting the enjoyment you expected when you purchased a game. I don't think it's valid to cheat to ruin the gaming experience of someone else. Either you're being sarcastic or I'd really like to discuss this with you.
*shrug*
Beg Pardon? If the server is demanding bytes that either means the server is storing uncompressed copies of everything in addition to mp3s(gosh that'd be wasteful), or you're required to have a copy of the current mp3 stored locally with the same encoder. Of course I could be wrong and it could be generating mp3's from cd's on the fly (again, the number cd-changers to have that many cd's boggles my mind).
I fail to see any ethical dilemma at using a cheat code in a single player game, if you've gotten to a point where you're stuck. On the other hand buying a game just to cheat seems like a waste of money on the game to me (if you have a good reason for it feel free to share).
It's a different case when you're playing against other people imho. Cheating to gain advantage over people who want to play a game by it's rules seems immoral. I can never seem to convince my brothers that changing the light settings in Q3, so you can see normally shadowed areas, is in fact cheating. Their argument is that anyone can change the light settings, and my argument is they're gaining an unintended advantage.
Being an introvert myself, gaming (online in particular) has made me much more social than I had ever been face to face with people. I can agree that you get a lot of loonies online (never can tell if it's real or a facade), but no more than you'd meet in "real life".
I personally believe (ack! opinion! kill it before it multiplies!) the environment is much more balanced for some people, such as myself, who have a hard time socializing in real life.
And what, pray tell, is socially unbalanced about gaming online? People talk smack in game to taunt opponents into making mistakes, I've yet to meet anyone (both of my younger brothers, two of my cousins, and about 5 or 6 other real life friends of mine are all Q3 fanatics in game) who takes it seriously and applies anything in game to real life.
Probably a stupid and half-informed question, but here goes. Isn't hubble meant for taking pictures outside our solar system. A friend of mine, here's the half-informed bit, told me anything in our solar system would ruin hubble being "too bright", the idea being hubble is meant to view stellar bodies much further away...
Sorry if it's a dumb comment but comparing this to hubble seems odd.
*sarcasm*
Can't you see, obviously any software with a feature as vile and putrid as anti-aliasing must be communist. And communism must obviously be bad since it didn't work well for the former Soviet Union.
*end sarcasm*
Anywho, looks like anti-aliasing looks good so far, anything that beautifies a GUI a bit more is a good thing IMHO. My only question (since the link to the story was not reachable when I tried to read it, the pictures were mirrored though, they look good)is "Can AA can be turned off if you run kde on a system where you don't need/want it?
P.S. If you feel like debating economic/political systems as applied to KDE's anti-aliasing further, please don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Reverse discrimination (a.k.a Affirmative Action) does in fact exist. It's a law based attempt to reverse a bad trend that had existed because of human stupidity. It's a specific case of descrimination, you're right about that bit. It's also a distinct case and does justify the name. It'll probably be lost to antiquity within a few years though. Near as I can tell it's an attempt to jump start careers of people who share characteristics with people who were descriminated in the past and supposedly need the boost to correct the wrongs that've been done. I believe the laws are useless now, the qualifications of the people seeking jobs get them hired. On the other hand the people whose ancestors were maligned have been put into a sort of caste by society, which the law seeks to break them out of. Kind of a sticky situation. To me it seems a necessary evil that should be done away with after it's usefulness has been realized. (Sorry if I'm wandering from the topic, I do that =/ ) The point is it does exist, and I think you're confusing discrimination with prejudice. Reverse discrimination only implies that it's a reversal of prior trends. If I'm utterly mistaken feel free to enlighten me.
Jiggling locks = Malign intent
Glancing through Windows = Benign intent
There, nice and simple. Now if only there was a way of knowing the intent of a port scan...
I love the irony in this, you call me an idiot then argue FOR my point. =) I probably worded my post badly (I was in a rush to finish it before going out to lunch), but you pretty much summed up what I intended to say (I have a bad tendency to beat around the bush). The only part I argue with is that observation isn't the same as "free as in speech." It's a personal decision whether to look at another person's house or not. There's no personal decision as to whether you're allowed to express yourself as speech (I suppose you could mentally censor yourself before talking, but that's another topic for another time). People put in windows so that they can see out, but they still want privacy so they tells others not to look in or install blinds. It's exactly the same freedom as distributing music on CD, so that people can buy it and you earn money, and then applying encryption or telling people not to make copies. It's not like free as in speech because you don't have the right to push aside blinds and look in anyway.
I propose "Free as in cable" (You can hook up multiple cable ready TVs to cable splitters to get cable recption on all of the TVs, at least where I live, I no longer do it myself, but I used to). The concept being you've paid someone else for something, and you can get another copy with your own effort, but the source of the good/service doesn't want you to/doesn't want you to know that you can. It's not the same as "Free as in speech," it has nothing do with innalienable rights. Nor "Free as in beer," it's not possible to get two pitchers out of one (barring free refills). "Free as in cable" represents something where you're able to get more out of something than the provider wants you to, and the only way they can stop you is by the provider saying that you can't do it.
This applies to the story in that you CAN port scan someone, but they may want you not to do it. You've paid for the use of an internet connection, and can do more than someone else may want you to with it. Free as in cable applies also to the analogies people have been offering of looking at someone's house through the windows. If they don't draw the curtains (or blinds), you can look inside from a distance without, but they may not want you to. You may just be admiring the new wallpaper your neighbor put in, but you may also be looking to see what the combination to the wall safe is.
Theoretically you could bar your windows all the time, but you lose the convenience of watching a thunderstorm from inside, or letting a breeze in on a hot day. Saying that someone isn't allowed to look in through your windows to stop them only works if the that someone obeys your request. They're still free (as in cable) to look in. It's the price we pay for living.
Probably considered illegal, but there's clearly benevolent intent. Anyone doing this would probably be given community service hours, and would demand more...
Picking a nit here but...
Shouldn't it be avoid using it in the proper context (lest you be sued)? Using English(tm) outside of the context of elecric/magnetic storage media as the tradmark mentions, isn't covered by trademark. (I.E. Apple Computer and the Apple the recording studio both have Apple(tm), different trades so they don't sue one another)
*sarcasm* Obviously because AI enslaved mankind in The Matrix, it'd happen if we develop AI in real life. *sarcasm* C'mon people, The Matrix ins't gospel (Whether gospel is Gospel or not is another debate, just using it to refer as something to be taken at face value). It's a warning of a potential faux pas that man kind should avoid (made a darned good movie as well, also beside the point). It's like seeing Fifth Element and concluding that stellar travel combined with using black holes causes people to go to hell (literally). Nobell realized that nearly all technology can be used for sinister or benevolent purposes, and offered a peace prize as incentive for people to come up with beneficial uses for technology. It's up to the implementors and the users to determine which is gonna happen. Murphy's law isn't "everything will always go wrong." If anything can possibly go wrong, it will (probably not verbatim but close enough). Just my usual $03.141592653589... P.S. Yes I realize this is probably a flame, and yes I probably took the flamebait that I responded to.
Factoring prime numbers has been trivial since the realization of their existence, let N equal a prime number. The factorization is N time 1. Or was this meant to be the factoring of arbitrarily large composite numbers into a set of primes?
Suppose you toss said script-fu a screen of frankenfurter from rocky horror picture show? *Shudder*
That's true, but you'll still find that magazines are printed with four dots, shoeboy would have to be either joking (yes I know he is =P ) or intentionally missing the fourth dot in the rosettes. Being that this is supposed to have happened a while ago, it kinda rules out Pantone coloring of the afore-mentioned magazine. (I'm pretty sure Pantone process color is fairly new, could be wrong though, must go look that up)
What magazine prints red,yellow, and blue? Coulda sworn color print for magazines was typically CMYK...
And introduce another "black market" for domain names? *playing devil's advocate*
If only spamming could be used for good instead of evil. Perhaps submitting something like majordomo@www.goatse.cx to a spambot. =)
Seems more like the guy calls someone's house asking if the homeowner has a gun. The homeowner says yes there's a gun at the house. The guy then proceeds to load the gun with millions of his bullets and shoots lots of people in the mailbox.
*minor flash of insight* Just suppose people started distributing installers for this purpose. New OpenSource project anyone? =) Wonder if the DMCA has anything to cover people writing/ running/ distributing installs for other people's software, you can't violate a contract that you don't agree to. I believe (not I know, haven't read enough) the DMCA doesn't cover installation. If anyone can clarify this I'd really appreciate it. P.S. Speaking of EULA's, where's the "I accept" / "Cancel" button for the DMCA? ;)
The difficulty here is, in most cases I've seen, by the time the EULA is readable, the company already sold you the product...
The news is this fellow's review of the book, doesn't matter whether the book is new or not.
Nice antithesis (the book for the illiterate bit). Kinda like saying internet for the unwired, or digital cable for those without television sets. P.S. This is not meant as a flame, just saying it's a good use of a literary device.
Cheating is context dependent. I think it's valid to cheat if you're not getting the enjoyment you expected when you purchased a game. I don't think it's valid to cheat to ruin the gaming experience of someone else. Either you're being sarcastic or I'd really like to discuss this with you. *shrug*
Beg Pardon? If the server is demanding bytes that either means the server is storing uncompressed copies of everything in addition to mp3s(gosh that'd be wasteful), or you're required to have a copy of the current mp3 stored locally with the same encoder. Of course I could be wrong and it could be generating mp3's from cd's on the fly (again, the number cd-changers to have that many cd's boggles my mind).
*shrug*
I fail to see any ethical dilemma at using a cheat code in a single player game, if you've gotten to a point where you're stuck. On the other hand buying a game just to cheat seems like a waste of money on the game to me (if you have a good reason for it feel free to share).
It's a different case when you're playing against other people imho. Cheating to gain advantage over people who want to play a game by it's rules seems immoral. I can never seem to convince my brothers that changing the light settings in Q3, so you can see normally shadowed areas, is in fact cheating. Their argument is that anyone can change the light settings, and my argument is they're gaining an unintended advantage.
*shrug*
Socially unbalanced you say...
Being an introvert myself, gaming (online in particular) has made me much more social than I had ever been face to face with people. I can agree that you get a lot of loonies online (never can tell if it's real or a facade), but no more than you'd meet in "real life".
I personally believe (ack! opinion! kill it before it multiplies!) the environment is much more balanced for some people, such as myself, who have a hard time socializing in real life.
And what, pray tell, is socially unbalanced about gaming online? People talk smack in game to taunt opponents into making mistakes, I've yet to meet anyone (both of my younger brothers, two of my cousins, and about 5 or 6 other real life friends of mine are all Q3 fanatics in game) who takes it seriously and applies anything in game to real life.
Probably a stupid and half-informed question, but here goes. Isn't hubble meant for taking pictures outside our solar system. A friend of mine, here's the half-informed bit, told me anything in our solar system would ruin hubble being "too bright", the idea being hubble is meant to view stellar bodies much further away... Sorry if it's a dumb comment but comparing this to hubble seems odd.
*sarcasm*
Can't you see, obviously any software with a feature as vile and putrid as anti-aliasing must be communist. And communism must obviously be bad since it didn't work well for the former Soviet Union.
*end sarcasm*
Anywho, looks like anti-aliasing looks good so far, anything that beautifies a GUI a bit more is a good thing IMHO. My only question (since the link to the story was not reachable when I tried to read it, the pictures were mirrored though, they look good)is "Can AA can be turned off if you run kde on a system where you don't need/want it?
P.S. If you feel like debating economic/political systems as applied to KDE's anti-aliasing further, please don't.