Yes, one person's opinion is practically hearsay. No matter how reasonable or well founded the argument if there's no study for it then it's just some dude's opinion.
One individual's opinion has changed the course of history many times before they needed studies.
These days it's just an immediate reaction to shoot the messenger. "Why? who are you? what are you qualifications? -you're biased!" anything except examining the message.
Even a damaged clock and all that...
Also, very interesting and insightful perspective...but does it also account for more efficient processes that are constantly being developed or aimed for?
I don't know what's the prediction here. AI will just push the balance point in a certain direction but we already have a useless class of people.
There are many such people. They are non-value add for the species. They do not contribute to anything and just leech off the rest of us as a survival strategy.
Say what you want about politicians and executives, some are very much necessary. Leeches on society such as junkies and career criminals that will always seek to exploit us in the worst ways. Some may be politicians, accountants, crack heads etc.
We could take some time to classify such people and make them useful to us buy forcing them to be productive.
Let's not forget that if you are forced to watch shows she loves and you hate, you're the bitch.
What is this pathetic pandering to someone else's will because they might hold it against you?! -are these men and women or boys and girls?
...but let's face it, some are like Howard Wolowitz. For you the solution is to simply try to have sex when that show that you hate is on. You will find you are asked to leave OR not. win/win.
If you cannot find the right person then hack the right behaviours out of them whilst you're still single. -Shit works. True story.
It's far more effective to get kids to arrive in uniform; leave their school bags and phones/tablets/smartwatches outside and have good spacing between tables and a person present in the classroom to monitor activities.
Do the old school teacher trick and leave the room for a bit. Often you'll see desperate cheaters frantically checking to see if you've gone far and what the brightest students notes are. Cheating children are easily caught.
If you have a budget for it a security camera can help. You can always view the tape later for suspicious activities of under performing kids achieving suspiciously high marks. Hopefully it's through merit, hard work and dedication.
If they bothered to make every major region have a different exam data set and every kid gets a multi-page exam in a different order then mass scale cheating would become rather complicated.
Culturally some drugs are in common use like weed and alcohol and regardless of legality they are in casual weekly/daily use and you no what? nothing special happens. In fact this has been the case for a very long time and things have chugged along.
What is the reason for drug screening? -once upon a time any "drug use" was immediately associated with the severe hard drug addiction junkies often have. On that basis drug using people are thought to be dishonest, capable of violent acts, thefts etc.
I believe that the law must accept that people that use drugs like ecstasy, weed and other mild types make up society. It does not reflect upon them badly in any way.
So many studies have found that alcohol is far more harmful to the individual and to society (via violent crimes/drink driving) and yet we do not consider people that have had alcohol in their systems from the night before to be unemployable.
It's time to legalize certain drugs that are clinically proven or the vast majority of the evidence base supports are less harmful than alcohol in order to put things into perspective.
A person injecting heroin is not the same "drug user" as a person smoking a joint. Much like a person drinking 10 cups of coffee a day is not like an alcoholic.
While I would like people in general to prefer not to alter their perception of consciousness via drugs it's a personal decision and a preference. Why should my view infringe upon the freedom of someone else if their chosen activity is non-impacting to others?
It's as if we discovered that although some 70% of Americans are catholic most do not attend church and certainly do not live pious lives.
Most workplaces do not benefit from drug testing. There are enough people that embezzle, lie, abuse their positions, discriminate and generally break the law that have not used drugs. Time to move on.
Maria who? what indignities has she suffered again? -free press??
Sick and tired of artists crying because their work is "stolen" or someone is supposedly making millions on their work while they starve for food.
The labels are milking you and tossing you out for the next "hip" thing. Worse, too many so called "artists" do not actually do any fucking work.
They produce their one hit and expect an infinite revenue stream. Even football (not American) players do not feel so entitled.
Once upon a time artists were paid for work. A performance, a sculpture, an act etc. Bands would go on tour and perform! (read work)
So now just because we have ears we have to pay you every time we hear your song? because we have eyes we have to pay you every time we see a movie?
I already paid for the movie/song/series. How? by paying for TV/radio license, for the netflix subscription, for spotify, for fucking cable; I paid for your shit several times over but they still want more. They say I was only renting it per use as per the EULA. Who the fuck reads the EULA that's a fucking joke. It can say I'm renting my dog to Satan no one will notice and because people are known not to read it it says things they;d not agree to.
No additional effort was made for that additional use of mine, what was lost? nothing. It's not like money, It's not like copying a dollar bill. It does not inflate the economy and it certainly does not hurt sales by "making it available". Star Wars is highly pirated movie/content and does that decades long, multi-billion dollar franchise look like it's not profiting?
So now we have a platform (many actually) that spreads some random "artist's" crap for free, leading to additional audiences and additional revenue opportunities for that artist and still some ignorant people keep bitching.
How about you lazy fuckers work? You know, people work. Seen any surgeon that performed one operation then retire expecting money forever? that surgeon studied for many years, trained many years and has to perform yes, *groan* the same operations many times. Crazy huh?
I'll pay to see an act in theatre per performance because you know, someone has to work to perform for my pleasure. I'll pay a band every time I see them because they do something for it.
The entire model of charging "per use" for people to use their sense although legal is actually based in BS. One day we will be able to record thoughts, images we imagine and see and thus transfer them. What will happen then? will it be illegal to think copyrighted content? -this point may seem arbitrary but this is what copyright is, thought.
I recorded a thought and now I want every to pay $9.99 for it. That's cool but unlike hardware thoughts do not seem to depreciate. I could sell a million copies and the price would still be $9.99 -the effort I put it was nothing compared to the effort so many people put in to earn $9.99.
You see if I could automate my job function and sell it no one would need me to do any work any more. In order to earn money I would have to do a new function. Don't musicians do anything beyond record their work and sell that? after all, I already have a mastered copy of their best, auto-tuned performance. Why would I need them again? -unless of course, shockingly they did something new like performs live the way music actually sounds by doing actual work.
I never promised to buy your shit to begin with, the fact I was willing to listen to it on youtube should be flattery enough that I'm a potential customer.
The value of your copy of said work is what people are willing to pay for it. We are no longer willing to pay, fuck you, get a real job and fuck off.
If you were in a mega corporation at C level wouldn't you complain about how anything negative to your business would ruin it?
Wouldn't you try your best to stall any change that ends up causing you to have less profits (even a minuscule reduction) until you implement a process that circumvents the more expensive method?
Minimum wage will drive your business to the ground...like when uhm minimum wage was first introduced?
Otherwise wasn't the future of burger flippers always to be replaced by automation? -we'll only need minimal supervision of a human that can also greet customers should they care for a smiley service person.
Those C-level folk are disconnected from the reality of everyday people. It's all about profit margins, quarterly statements, shareholder meetings, bonuses and so on. It's not about how their business will crash and burn supposedly affecting their poor employees, it's about earning a single cent than they did before and fuck everyone else.
Security researcher Tom will definitely not carry out any DDoS attacks, or social engineering attacks or phishing attacks etc. non no none of those. That was something those other researchers did, Dick and Harry.
Dude, don't knock it. He's clearly a successful businessman and isn't a "bought" candidate.
Sure his ideas sound quirky but no one else is brave enough to try.
I'm sure that once he increase poverty rates, worsens inequality, creates an international diplomatic incident and possibly run the economy to self-serving interests to the detriment of all and eventually bring the country to brink of ruin a new candidate will emerge. People will then remember how he wasn't the guy they voted for and that he said a bunch of stuff he didn't actually do.
So yes, a wall. That might genuinely be his idea and in his mind this might fix climate change.
You're obviously confused. Idealists often are in the face of reality. It doesn't quite fit into neat little boxes.
He is born a human. He is biologically human. Ethically, socially behaviourally he has no humanity. That's the whole fucking point of being a human.
Much like myself he could, in some wild theory plot the murderer of children for months but very much unlike myself he actually went ahead and did it.
No, to entertain the thought he is human is very dangerous. He deserves no better or worse than the treatment of a convict dependent on his crimes
We have minimum security for such things as theft and more serious conditions for murderers.
What conditions do you propose are fitting for a person that has murdered so many under the motives he had?
It's always easy to be dispassionately idealistic. After all there's a perfectly logical and reasoned case behind it right? Breivik too has a dispassionately idealistic and supposedly reasonable explanation for his actions. He's just a person, like you, right?
I hope you never have to endure the loss that so many parents have endured. Tell them about the reasoned and logical argument. About how we are better than him by treating him especially nice. I'm have a feeling like-minded people like him are less deterred now than they were before his actions.
He is unworthy of this wonderful treatment reserved for much nicer people that have only murdered one or two others for perhaps much more justifiable causes. The punishment should at least relate to the crime if it cannot fit it.
To conclude; I categorically reject your claim he is a human. We are not "de-humanizing" him he has dehumanized himself.
I am not sure I made any mistakes to be fair. Seems you are making the mistake of assuming my nationality.
You keep your mass murderer prisoners with TV, games and exercise options. That's fine by me.
You may agree though that it certainly is not much of a deterrent.
I assure you Breivik had a rather cool head when he did what he did. Cooler heads do not always possess an innate advantage ethically.
I would certainly not like to see him lynched. that would be too fast, too easy. Of course if the judge wishes for his treatment to be fairer I'm all for it:-)
It's just so sad that this fancy forum or the webby iteration of advertisement voyeurism AKA Facebook is being "discovered".
Once upon a time if you used a computer you were a nerd. IRC chat? social reclusive nerd!, BBS? sad lonely geek! -what was missing was a fancy GUI! and some pictures!! Oh how the monkeys like to look. Look, I am a monkey but I have a can and a stick and bang and bang so loud. ENVY ME.
Now it's cool. Now it's weird if you don't have a computer, if you're not on Facebook. What are you not social? it's not for nerds it's a "social network" all the cool kids are doing it. (actually did it and moved on years ago but whatever)
Now all those trips to must have lots of photos. After all if you don't have photos it's like your trip didn't happen right? don't savour the moment, ask a passer-by to picture it so you can upload them so everyone can see.
You have a FB account so find reasons why your life is interesting . After all everyone else's life seems so interesting right? keeping up with the selfies, the poses, the likes and comments of . Like some open conduit to soul searching for lost children or the crazed loony preachers that would get kicked and banned out of an IRC channel.
Once I see those friends from far far away I'll enjoy their photos so much more. If they are really special they can share those with me, personally.
Broadcasting your pictures to your tens of really good, close, trusted friends is not really personal. It's not really friendship. In fact most people know this but they do it anyhow. Why? because now they too have a stick and a can and they can bang bang bang so loud. Woohoo what fun!
If people want to see photos of my kids they'll show interest or ask. You know, because they care.
Outside of Facebook I only have a handful of close friends. Wait, let me rephrase that, outside of Facebook I have real friends. People I meet, people I speak with. People I trust. The relationship is more meaningful because it is more involved, it requires more effort and as such would be of real social value when one person is invested in your well being and you are invested in theirs. Clicking "like" a million times cannot emulate or replace that.
This is not a criticism of you sir but a criticism of Facebook alleged social nature specifically and Facebook in general. You do seem to be doing just find on Facebook. Good. I am happy for you.
I've decided to delete my Facebook account quite some time ago. I am missing a lot of context on those important office conversations about oh did you see it? saw what he said? the photos of her holiday? his mom? the car?
You can say I am bitter and alone etc and you may be right but such people are on Facebook and they look like they are having the best time, total legends.
If only the intricacies of subjective "good" and so called "evil" in our lives could be explained in a sentence how binary life could be.
Legal rights theory and practice should not always be the same. This person has murdered many others, targeting the young and vulnerable. This is vastly different than say a jealous husband plotting to murder his wife's lover.
Society has a prison system not to make inmates lives wonderful but in order to exact punishment. The death penalty is something I oppose because the debt to society would not be paid in many cases by a quit execution, painful or not.
More than that, in this case the debt cannot be repaid practically or theoretically. No amount of prison time will suffice. There simply sint a punishment we can inflict upon this person to mirror a fraction of the pain he has inflicted.
As we are semi-evolved beings in this day and age we offer the comfort of a cell. In this case with facilities to play games, exercise and even watch TV. Far too good of a cell many would agree.
So let the fucker rot, slowly, in the darkest corner of the smallest cell and until his last day. I'd pay good money for that.
In principle it's great that the judge has upheld the rights of even the lowest scum in society.
On this matter I disagree with the judge. If you can play video games, watch TV and exercise you're doing far better than many people on this planet.
Perhaps Mr. Breivik should endeavour to thank all the people around him for treating him to some degree as a human. Be grateful and thank his lucky stars that he has landed in a prison system that is far too good for him. Wonder how is it possible that a parent of a murdered child has not yet manage to find a way to choke the life out of him only to stop before his demise only to repeat the process several minutes later.
Perhaps the judge has a point though, maybe he needs to be treated more fairly and equally. I say put him into general prison population...
Just imagine the panic and mayham when there's an HVAC outage and the lifts aren't working! DC techs are notoriously fast over short distances, especially fi there's pizza involved but 65 floors? SIXTY FIVE?? -I guess that will be on the Bear Grylls "Born survivor" futuristic show.
You know it in your heart that it has to be done for posterity; if only to study what happens when 500,000 servers' overheat alarms go off to answer the question "Is half a million rhythmic beeps actually enough to create seismic oscillation that may affect structural integrity?"
I humbly suggest the new possible term for such an event as mi ignem terrae what do you think they'll call those? -discuss.
While that is idealistic and noble you will find that the vast majority of people care very much so. The thought of raising someone else's child typically has associations of infidelity. Society in general is monogamous even if most humans do cheat on a partners at least once at some point in life.
Perhaps all genetics have "bugs" yours might not be worse than the unknown and there is an advantage of knowing about such "bugs". Even if yours are severe the adopted might be worse. No real guarantees.
I believe that from inception humans are born to compete. To be better. From the fertilization of an egg to achieving anything in life. Sure there is a lot of bias and corruption and some unworthy humans have a head start in a position of privilege that it seems plain unfair.
So most humans, as vessels for our genes are often very precious about us and what is our and of our own. The way you live, where you live, who your parents and grandparents are (genetically) shapes you as a person and your offspring.
There are particular sets of difficulties when a child is known to be of a different parent. From social stigma to tendencies to biological/genetic differences that one parent's ego can find extremely challenging.
While many women would choose to adopt, especially if they cannot have children of their own many men will give serious consideration to changing their to one that is fertile rather than adopt or at least have a surrogate mother as they want the child's gene to be of their own.
We are not in the group because we love the group. We are in the group because we love ourselves. The group helps protect us, has economies of scale and sense of community. We would save our children first and foremost.
While you may not care and I applaud you for the often believed enlightened position I care. I believe the vast majority of people care.
Have you also noticed that no one uses AOL/MSN anymore?
I think it was down to marketing and user treatment...AOL abused and MSN failed to market the "value".
Now the question is this, why would anyone use Kik over WhatsApp or Telegram in order for these bots to be worth a damn...assuming the implementation of the bots will not degrade perceived user value or abuse them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, one person's opinion is practically hearsay. No matter how reasonable or well founded the argument if there's no study for it then it's just some dude's opinion.
One individual's opinion has changed the course of history many times before they needed studies.
These days it's just an immediate reaction to shoot the messenger. "Why? who are you? what are you qualifications? -you're biased!" anything except examining the message.
Even a damaged clock and all that...
My brother, backlash can only take you so far.
This has become a monster, changing and adapting and worse, winning.
We must nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Should read "Burning all fossil fuels will improve UK temperatures immensely!" -How soon can we start?
"They just have an extraordinarily bad battery."
Also, very interesting and insightful perspective...but does it also account for more efficient processes that are constantly being developed or aimed for?
I don't know what's the prediction here. AI will just push the balance point in a certain direction but we already have a useless class of people.
There are many such people. They are non-value add for the species. They do not contribute to anything and just leech off the rest of us as a survival strategy.
Say what you want about politicians and executives, some are very much necessary. Leeches on society such as junkies and career criminals that will always seek to exploit us in the worst ways. Some may be politicians, accountants, crack heads etc.
We could take some time to classify such people and make them useful to us buy forcing them to be productive.
Let's not forget that if you are forced to watch shows she loves and you hate, you're the bitch.
What is this pathetic pandering to someone else's will because they might hold it against you?! -are these men and women or boys and girls?
...but let's face it, some are like Howard Wolowitz. For you the solution is to simply try to have sex when that show that you hate is on. You will find you are asked to leave OR not. win/win.
If you cannot find the right person then hack the right behaviours out of them whilst you're still single. -Shit works. True story.
What did cheaters do before the internet?
It's far more effective to get kids to arrive in uniform; leave their school bags and phones/tablets/smartwatches outside and have good spacing between tables and a person present in the classroom to monitor activities.
Do the old school teacher trick and leave the room for a bit. Often you'll see desperate cheaters frantically checking to see if you've gone far and what the brightest students notes are. Cheating children are easily caught.
If you have a budget for it a security camera can help. You can always view the tape later for suspicious activities of under performing kids achieving suspiciously high marks. Hopefully it's through merit, hard work and dedication.
If they bothered to make every major region have a different exam data set and every kid gets a multi-page exam in a different order then mass scale cheating would become rather complicated.
Culturally some drugs are in common use like weed and alcohol and regardless of legality they are in casual weekly/daily use and you no what? nothing special happens. In fact this has been the case for a very long time and things have chugged along.
What is the reason for drug screening? -once upon a time any "drug use" was immediately associated with the severe hard drug addiction junkies often have. On that basis drug using people are thought to be dishonest, capable of violent acts, thefts etc.
I believe that the law must accept that people that use drugs like ecstasy, weed and other mild types make up society. It does not reflect upon them badly in any way.
So many studies have found that alcohol is far more harmful to the individual and to society (via violent crimes/drink driving) and yet we do not consider people that have had alcohol in their systems from the night before to be unemployable.
It's time to legalize certain drugs that are clinically proven or the vast majority of the evidence base supports are less harmful than alcohol in order to put things into perspective.
A person injecting heroin is not the same "drug user" as a person smoking a joint. Much like a person drinking 10 cups of coffee a day is not like an alcoholic.
While I would like people in general to prefer not to alter their perception of consciousness via drugs it's a personal decision and a preference. Why should my view infringe upon the freedom of someone else if their chosen activity is non-impacting to others?
It's as if we discovered that although some 70% of Americans are catholic most do not attend church and certainly do not live pious lives.
Most workplaces do not benefit from drug testing. There are enough people that embezzle, lie, abuse their positions, discriminate and generally break the law that have not used drugs. Time to move on.
Maria who? what indignities has she suffered again? -free press??
Sick and tired of artists crying because their work is "stolen" or someone is supposedly making millions on their work while they starve for food.
The labels are milking you and tossing you out for the next "hip" thing. Worse, too many so called "artists" do not actually do any fucking work.
They produce their one hit and expect an infinite revenue stream. Even football (not American) players do not feel so entitled.
Once upon a time artists were paid for work. A performance, a sculpture, an act etc. Bands would go on tour and perform! (read work)
So now just because we have ears we have to pay you every time we hear your song? because we have eyes we have to pay you every time we see a movie?
I already paid for the movie/song/series. How? by paying for TV/radio license, for the netflix subscription, for spotify, for fucking cable; I paid for your shit several times over but they still want more. They say I was only renting it per use as per the EULA. Who the fuck reads the EULA that's a fucking joke. It can say I'm renting my dog to Satan no one will notice and because people are known not to read it it says things they;d not agree to.
No additional effort was made for that additional use of mine, what was lost? nothing. It's not like money, It's not like copying a dollar bill. It does not inflate the economy and it certainly does not hurt sales by "making it available". Star Wars is highly pirated movie/content and does that decades long, multi-billion dollar franchise look like it's not profiting?
So now we have a platform (many actually) that spreads some random "artist's" crap for free, leading to additional audiences and additional revenue opportunities for that artist and still some ignorant people keep bitching.
How about you lazy fuckers work? You know, people work. Seen any surgeon that performed one operation then retire expecting money forever? that surgeon studied for many years, trained many years and has to perform yes, *groan* the same operations many times. Crazy huh?
I'll pay to see an act in theatre per performance because you know, someone has to work to perform for my pleasure. I'll pay a band every time I see them because they do something for it.
The entire model of charging "per use" for people to use their sense although legal is actually based in BS. One day we will be able to record thoughts, images we imagine and see and thus transfer them. What will happen then? will it be illegal to think copyrighted content? -this point may seem arbitrary but this is what copyright is, thought.
I recorded a thought and now I want every to pay $9.99 for it. That's cool but unlike hardware thoughts do not seem to depreciate. I could sell a million copies and the price would still be $9.99 -the effort I put it was nothing compared to the effort so many people put in to earn $9.99.
You see if I could automate my job function and sell it no one would need me to do any work any more. In order to earn money I would have to do a new function. Don't musicians do anything beyond record their work and sell that? after all, I already have a mastered copy of their best, auto-tuned performance. Why would I need them again? -unless of course, shockingly they did something new like performs live the way music actually sounds by doing actual work.
I never promised to buy your shit to begin with, the fact I was willing to listen to it on youtube should be flattery enough that I'm a potential customer.
The value of your copy of said work is what people are willing to pay for it. We are no longer willing to pay, fuck you, get a real job and fuck off.
If you were in a mega corporation at C level wouldn't you complain about how anything negative to your business would ruin it?
Wouldn't you try your best to stall any change that ends up causing you to have less profits (even a minuscule reduction) until you implement a process that circumvents the more expensive method?
Minimum wage will drive your business to the ground...like when uhm minimum wage was first introduced?
Otherwise wasn't the future of burger flippers always to be replaced by automation? -we'll only need minimal supervision of a human that can also greet customers should they care for a smiley service person.
Those C-level folk are disconnected from the reality of everyday people. It's all about profit margins, quarterly statements, shareholder meetings, bonuses and so on. It's not about how their business will crash and burn supposedly affecting their poor employees, it's about earning a single cent than they did before and fuck everyone else.
I usually go for something more copyright friendly like "Unenforcible Free Torrenting Hot Spot!"
...a guest SSID on every AP coming to everything near you!
Security researcher Tom will definitely not carry out any DDoS attacks, or social engineering attacks or phishing attacks etc. non no none of those. That was something those other researchers did, Dick and Harry.
Just curious here as I am in the [ ] Trump or [ ] Not Trump side...what do you find so emetic about Clinton?
(I can find plenty of criticisms but I'm curious about your views)
What are you going to do about the secret courts that you didn't know about making all those legal decisions you cannot tell us about?
You cannot even believe your parking tickets when that system exists.
Full transparency of the legal process is what must be enforced. How is the founder of some distro going to ensure that?
Dude, don't knock it. He's clearly a successful businessman and isn't a "bought" candidate.
Sure his ideas sound quirky but no one else is brave enough to try.
I'm sure that once he increase poverty rates, worsens inequality, creates an international diplomatic incident and possibly run the economy to self-serving interests to the detriment of all and eventually bring the country to brink of ruin a new candidate will emerge. People will then remember how he wasn't the guy they voted for and that he said a bunch of stuff he didn't actually do.
So yes, a wall. That might genuinely be his idea and in his mind this might fix climate change.
You're obviously confused. Idealists often are in the face of reality. It doesn't quite fit into neat little boxes.
He is born a human. He is biologically human. Ethically, socially behaviourally he has no humanity. That's the whole fucking point of being a human.
Much like myself he could, in some wild theory plot the murderer of children for months but very much unlike myself he actually went ahead and did it.
No, to entertain the thought he is human is very dangerous. He deserves no better or worse than the treatment of a convict
dependent on his crimes
We have minimum security for such things as theft and more serious conditions for murderers.
What conditions do you propose are fitting for a person that has murdered so many under the motives he had?
It's always easy to be dispassionately idealistic. After all there's a perfectly logical and reasoned case behind it right? Breivik too has a dispassionately idealistic and supposedly reasonable explanation for his actions. He's just a person, like you, right?
I hope you never have to endure the loss that so many parents have endured. Tell them about the reasoned and logical argument. About how we are better than him by treating him especially nice. I'm have a feeling like-minded people like him are less deterred now than they were before his actions.
He is unworthy of this wonderful treatment reserved for much nicer people that have only murdered one or two others for perhaps much more justifiable causes. The punishment should at least relate to the crime if it cannot fit it.
To conclude; I categorically reject your claim he is a human. We are not "de-humanizing" him he has dehumanized himself.
I am not sure I made any mistakes to be fair. Seems you are making the mistake of assuming my nationality.
You keep your mass murderer prisoners with TV, games and exercise options. That's fine by me.
You may agree though that it certainly is not much of a deterrent.
I assure you Breivik had a rather cool head when he did what he did. Cooler heads do not always possess an innate advantage ethically.
I would certainly not like to see him lynched. that would be too fast, too easy. Of course if the judge wishes for his treatment to be fairer I'm all for it
It's just so sad that this fancy forum or the webby iteration of advertisement voyeurism AKA Facebook is being "discovered".
Once upon a time if you used a computer you were a nerd. IRC chat? social reclusive nerd!, BBS? sad lonely geek! -what was missing was a fancy GUI! and some pictures!! Oh how the monkeys like to look. Look, I am a monkey but I have a can and a stick and bang and bang so loud. ENVY ME.
Now it's cool. Now it's weird if you don't have a computer, if you're not on Facebook. What are you not social? it's not for nerds it's a "social network" all the cool kids are doing it. (actually did it and moved on years ago but whatever)
Now all those trips to must have lots of photos. After all if you don't have photos it's like your trip didn't happen right? don't savour the moment, ask a passer-by to picture it so you can upload them so everyone can see.
You have a FB account so find reasons why your life is interesting . After all everyone else's life seems so interesting right? keeping up with the selfies, the poses, the likes and comments of . Like some open conduit to soul searching for lost children or the crazed loony preachers that would get kicked and banned out of an IRC channel.
Once I see those friends from far far away I'll enjoy their photos so much more. If they are really special they can share those with me, personally.
Broadcasting your pictures to your tens of really good, close, trusted friends is not really personal. It's not really friendship. In fact most people know this but they do it anyhow. Why? because now they too have a stick and a can and they can bang bang bang so loud. Woohoo what fun!
If people want to see photos of my kids they'll show interest or ask. You know, because they care.
Outside of Facebook I only have a handful of close friends. Wait, let me rephrase that, outside of Facebook I have real friends. People I meet, people I speak with. People I trust. The relationship is more meaningful because it is more involved, it requires more effort and as such would be of real social value when one person is invested in your well being and you are invested in theirs. Clicking "like" a million times cannot emulate or replace that.
This is not a criticism of you sir but a criticism of Facebook alleged social nature specifically and Facebook in general. You do seem to be doing just find on Facebook. Good. I am happy for you.
I've decided to delete my Facebook account quite some time ago. I am missing a lot of context on those important office conversations about oh did you see it? saw what he said? the photos of her holiday? his mom? the car?
You can say I am bitter and alone etc and you may be right but such people are on Facebook and they look like they are having the best time, total legends.
Socially bitter, alone and old school,
GeekWithAKnife
If only the intricacies of subjective "good" and so called "evil" in our lives could be explained in a sentence how binary life could be.
Legal rights theory and practice should not always be the same. This person has murdered many others, targeting the young and vulnerable. This is vastly different than say a jealous husband plotting to murder his wife's lover.
Society has a prison system not to make inmates lives wonderful but in order to exact punishment. The death penalty is something I oppose because the debt to society would not be paid in many cases by a quit execution, painful or not.
More than that, in this case the debt cannot be repaid practically or theoretically. No amount of prison time will suffice. There simply sint a punishment we can inflict upon this person to mirror a fraction of the pain he has inflicted.
As we are semi-evolved beings in this day and age we offer the comfort of a cell. In this case with facilities to play games, exercise and even watch TV. Far too good of a cell many would agree.
So let the fucker rot, slowly, in the darkest corner of the smallest cell and until his last day. I'd pay good money for that.
In principle it's great that the judge has upheld the rights of even the lowest scum in society.
On this matter I disagree with the judge. If you can play video games, watch TV and exercise you're doing far better than many people on this planet.
Perhaps Mr. Breivik should endeavour to thank all the people around him for treating him to some degree as a human. Be grateful and thank his lucky stars that he has landed in a prison system that is far too good for him. Wonder how is it possible that a parent of a murdered child has not yet manage to find a way to choke the life out of him only to stop before his demise only to repeat the process several minutes later.
Perhaps the judge has a point though, maybe he needs to be treated more fairly and equally. I say put him into general prison population...
No one could figure out how they are making money and by that I mean turning a profit.
Turns out neither did they.
I cannot wait for them to get this completed.
Just imagine the panic and mayham when there's an HVAC outage and the lifts aren't working! DC techs are notoriously fast over short distances, especially fi there's pizza involved but 65 floors? SIXTY FIVE?? -I guess that will be on the Bear Grylls "Born survivor" futuristic show.
You know it in your heart that it has to be done for posterity; if only to study what happens when 500,000 servers' overheat alarms go off to answer the question "Is half a million rhythmic beeps actually enough to create seismic oscillation that may affect structural integrity?"
I humbly suggest the new possible term for such an event as mi ignem terrae what do you think they'll call those? -discuss.
While that is idealistic and noble you will find that the vast majority of people care very much so. The thought of raising someone else's child typically has associations of infidelity. Society in general is monogamous even if most humans do cheat on a partners at least once at some point in life.
Perhaps all genetics have "bugs" yours might not be worse than the unknown and there is an advantage of knowing about such "bugs". Even if yours are severe the adopted might be worse. No real guarantees.
I believe that from inception humans are born to compete. To be better. From the fertilization of an egg to achieving anything in life. Sure there is a lot of bias and corruption and some unworthy humans have a head start in a position of privilege that it seems plain unfair.
So most humans, as vessels for our genes are often very precious about us and what is our and of our own. The way you live, where you live, who your parents and grandparents are (genetically) shapes you as a person and your offspring.
There are particular sets of difficulties when a child is known to be of a different parent. From social stigma to tendencies to biological/genetic differences that one parent's ego can find extremely challenging.
While many women would choose to adopt, especially if they cannot have children of their own many men will give serious consideration to changing their to one that is fertile rather than adopt or at least have a surrogate mother as they want the child's gene to be of their own.
We are not in the group because we love the group. We are in the group because we love ourselves. The group helps protect us, has economies of scale and sense of community. We would save our children first and foremost.
While you may not care and I applaud you for the often believed enlightened position I care. I believe the vast majority of people care.
Have you also noticed that no one uses AOL/MSN anymore?
I think it was down to marketing and user treatment...AOL abused and MSN failed to market the "value".
Now the question is this, why would anyone use Kik over WhatsApp or Telegram in order for these bots to be worth a damn...assuming the implementation of the bots will not degrade perceived user value or abuse them.