Yet you aren't either. Likely because you don't actually understand how math works. You're using a simplistic equation that assumes everyone is worth different amounts, and thus you get a nice linear vector where you can chop off 1%. That's not likely true at all.
Actually, if we're going to go there, I am... and comfortably so. Although the reality is the 99% of the 1% have a lot more in common with the bottom 1% of the 99% than the 1% of the 1%.
And, of course, my original post was mocking your brain fart, not really attempting to make any socio-political statement about any correlation of internet gaffes to wealth or the intelligence or lack thereof of any particular income bracket.
Now, I suppose the fact that everyone else seems to understand that and you missed it might suggest an additional set of evidence related to my original assertion, so perhaps the joke was a little too close to home.
....that if i had a button which if pressed, would kill every man, woman and child; I would push it without hesitation.
The problem with that is that you're effectively dooming three billion years of evolution to comparatively short term extinction.
Humanity may be killing vast percentages of the biome, and may be causing substantial short term damage to the ecosphere, but its also the best opportunity the planet has had, or likely will ever have, to getting off the planet. And life that doesn't get off the planet will end, period. The odds are there won't be a second chance. Could intelligence arise again? Its possible. Its also possible it has arisen before.
The problem is one of opportunity. Getting life off this rock doesn't take intelligence. It takes intelligence, the right series of events making that kind of capability important to be developed, *AND*, most importantly, it will require some hypothetical future species to have access to vast amounts of energy.
Guess what, we've used up virtually all of the dense sources of energy that can be recovered without technology. The conditions that led to the development of coal, oil and natural gas involve geological and environmental conditions that in concert won't likely happen again.
So your short-sighted action would likely save one small potential set of life that otherwise wouldn't have a chance to exist, but would essentially guarantee an end to the entire chain of life in another half billion or billion years.
So you are saying that it is okay to use human babies as fertilizer for your lawn and skin them to make lamp shades? After all, they are already dead.
Aggregations of phosphorus and nitrogen rich chemicals and collections of proteins made by a set of cells following a program. The chemistry is essentially identical in the production of those materials regardless of the animal that did so. So you must be drawing the line because of, essentially, unrelated software differences. Where is the line in which the identical biological processes as I've got suddenly go from "wrong" to "okay"?.5% genetic difference? 1%? 5%? Does it matter which sequences are different? A male chimpanzee is about 1% different, genetically from me. A female human has almost 3% more DNA than I do because she's got two X chromosomes, so I'd suggest 2.5% difference isn't a particularly good bar for you to pick.
I'm curious what the defining parameters of your morality is. Most of the traits you mention that make someone "human" are traits that have been demonstrated in dozens, if not hundreds, of species, so they're not really valid reasons to elevate humans above other species. Is it a cliquish sense of sticking together with other reproductively compatible creatures? That would at least be defensible, although it does ignore the fact that the cells that make up "you" are less than 50% cells that actually contain the DNA your parents passed along that could be analytically identified as "human".
The results are spread on a gazillion ad-littered pages whose content are shorter than this text field. Even the print page has ads on it and only includes the current page you're viewing. How do I mod article -1?
Clearly their webdeveloper discovered they were at the bottom end of the scale...
Most Christians, statistically speaking, do not hold beliefs that fundamentally contradict science. Therefore, most Christians are not, as you put it, ignorant.
They're either ignorant or hypocrites. You can't claim to follow a particular dogma and then pick and choose the bits of it you do believe as people whack-a-mole the fundamental tenets of that dogma. That's just hypocricy, or a misguided attempt to hold onto something drilled into your head long before you had learned to question the motivations of those who are trying to instill those ideas on you.
A claim that its better to believe because by the time you discover you're wrong, you're dead is just ignorant as well. That is based on a premise that there's no downside to that belief, so its better to believe and be wrong than to not believe and be wrong. But the last 2000 years is a long tattered history of reasons why those beliefs are a HUGE net negative to humanity. The hundreds of millions mentally enslaved, abused, or murdered in the name of those beliefs would disagree with you.
Evolution is something observed, and tested *every day*.
God is a concept made up by humanity. The core theology Christians believe in was fabricated by man, and the evidence of that is FAR stronger than for evolution. Its trivial to trace back the morphing and origin of key theological cornerstones through history, via primary sources.
So, yes, its okay to lump in all Christians with that lot. Ignorance is ignorance -- it doesn't matter if a larger number of people share it.
You'll need a new battery pack within 3-6 years to retain anything like those efficiency numbers. I would call that a maintenance cost. You still need to buy brake discs / pads like a normal car, and the brake/power steering fluids too. Tyres as always, lights will fail at the same rate. So what you don't have to buy really is engine oil/filter / spark plugs and some belts occasionally. Would you still need an air filter? Surely you would.
Buying any of those things (bar the battery) was not expensive anyway, the pricey bit is paying a guy to do it. So yeah, practically zero...
I doubt Tesla screwed up their battery design. that much. GM, for example, is claiming a real-world tested 300k+ miles without degredation in the Voltec battery packs. That's over 8500 charge cycles without degredation.
people in africa have been starving since i was a kid. too bad when you send them food the government takes it
Right, and beyond that, this implies that the kids our food and money saved in the 80's turned around and had another generation of even more kids... that still couldn't be fed.
Accessing a page referenced in robots.txt is not "hostile penetration analysis." It's basically just picking up a dollar bill left on the ground. Just because half the population doesn't know how to look at the ground (metaphorically) doesn't mean that it's stealing.
If I put a dollar on the ground on my driveway, its stealing for you to pick it up.
While playing closed-minded open-source Microsoft-bashing zealot on Slashdot is, in the eyes of many here, a route to being cool -- if you want to know, you could always use Google, Bing, or just run Fiddler and look for yourself.
The protocol is fully documented by Microsoft and not hard to find if you have some keyword ninja skills and a search engine.
In my case, if I had my current ATT account on Verizon, that'd be saving me a nice chunk of money. Anyone with more than one device is coming out ahead. Anyone with a current Verizon data plan *and* a phone will come out ahead. Anyone who is currently paying for tethering will come out ahead.
Personally, I hope ATT does this quickly, as well. (Although, frankly, I wish I could skip the $40 voice part... as it works out to about $2 a minute for the usage I have in a given month.)
What are you going to do with millions of password hashes, even without usernames none the less?
How do you suppose all the people mentioned on Twitter who verified their passwords in the list were correct did so if they couldn't find their hash in the list?
Of bigger concern to me is not the loss of the passwords, but the loss of the e-mail addresses (usernames). That's a VERY long list of valid, valuable e-mail accounts.
It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!! We have a winner!
That's problem with government funded health care. Whoever pays the bills gets to make the rules! If you let government take over your health care, you are giving the government control over your health.
Society, and the government as a proxy of society, already funds healthcare because hospitals aren't allowed to turn away people who can't pay and let them rot and die. (Or, I suppose, the other way around.)
As long as society feels obligated to help those in need, society should feel absolutely justified in putting strict limitations on the ways that people can take advantage of that.
It's a nudge, but nothing to do with curbing eating habits and much more to do with getting people used to government intervention in their every day life.
As long as the government is intervening in their every day life by providing a safety net for their irresponsible decisions, how is this a bad thing?
Slashdot Mirror
Yet you aren't either. Likely because you don't actually understand how math works. You're using a simplistic equation that assumes everyone is worth different amounts, and thus you get a nice linear vector where you can chop off 1%. That's not likely true at all.
Actually, if we're going to go there, I am... and comfortably so. Although the reality is the 99% of the 1% have a lot more in common with the bottom 1% of the 99% than the 1% of the 1%.
And, of course, my original post was mocking your brain fart, not really attempting to make any socio-political statement about any correlation of internet gaffes to wealth or the intelligence or lack thereof of any particular income bracket.
Now, I suppose the fact that everyone else seems to understand that and you missed it might suggest an additional set of evidence related to my original assertion, so perhaps the joke was a little too close to home.
....that if i had a button which if pressed, would kill every man, woman and child; I would push it without hesitation.
The problem with that is that you're effectively dooming three billion years of evolution to comparatively short term extinction.
Humanity may be killing vast percentages of the biome, and may be causing substantial short term damage to the ecosphere, but its also the best opportunity the planet has had, or likely will ever have, to getting off the planet. And life that doesn't get off the planet will end, period. The odds are there won't be a second chance. Could intelligence arise again? Its possible. Its also possible it has arisen before.
The problem is one of opportunity. Getting life off this rock doesn't take intelligence. It takes intelligence, the right series of events making that kind of capability important to be developed, *AND*, most importantly, it will require some hypothetical future species to have access to vast amounts of energy.
Guess what, we've used up virtually all of the dense sources of energy that can be recovered without technology. The conditions that led to the development of coal, oil and natural gas involve geological and environmental conditions that in concert won't likely happen again.
So your short-sighted action would likely save one small potential set of life that otherwise wouldn't have a chance to exist, but would essentially guarantee an end to the entire chain of life in another half billion or billion years.
The top 1% is based on income, not population.
I may have found a contributing factor to you not being in the 1% ...
It might be too soon to say you went and saw it and weren't really blown away.
So you are saying that it is okay to use human babies as fertilizer for your lawn and skin them to make lamp shades? After all, they are already dead.
Aggregations of phosphorus and nitrogen rich chemicals and collections of proteins made by a set of cells following a program. The chemistry is essentially identical in the production of those materials regardless of the animal that did so. So you must be drawing the line because of, essentially, unrelated software differences. Where is the line in which the identical biological processes as I've got suddenly go from "wrong" to "okay"? .5% genetic difference? 1%? 5%? Does it matter which sequences are different? A male chimpanzee is about 1% different, genetically from me. A female human has almost 3% more DNA than I do because she's got two X chromosomes, so I'd suggest 2.5% difference isn't a particularly good bar for you to pick.
I'm curious what the defining parameters of your morality is. Most of the traits you mention that make someone "human" are traits that have been demonstrated in dozens, if not hundreds, of species, so they're not really valid reasons to elevate humans above other species. Is it a cliquish sense of sticking together with other reproductively compatible creatures? That would at least be defensible, although it does ignore the fact that the cells that make up "you" are less than 50% cells that actually contain the DNA your parents passed along that could be analytically identified as "human".
The results are spread on a gazillion ad-littered pages whose content are shorter than this text field. Even the print page has ads on it and only includes the current page you're viewing. How do I mod article -1?
Clearly their webdeveloper discovered they were at the bottom end of the scale ...
Or should be.
Queue the sexism. :( A very disappointing first comment.
I think you mean cue the sexism.
Maybe a woman would've known the difference.
Most Christians, statistically speaking, do not hold beliefs that fundamentally contradict science. Therefore, most Christians are not, as you put it, ignorant.
They're either ignorant or hypocrites. You can't claim to follow a particular dogma and then pick and choose the bits of it you do believe as people whack-a-mole the fundamental tenets of that dogma. That's just hypocricy, or a misguided attempt to hold onto something drilled into your head long before you had learned to question the motivations of those who are trying to instill those ideas on you.
A claim that its better to believe because by the time you discover you're wrong, you're dead is just ignorant as well. That is based on a premise that there's no downside to that belief, so its better to believe and be wrong than to not believe and be wrong. But the last 2000 years is a long tattered history of reasons why those beliefs are a HUGE net negative to humanity. The hundreds of millions mentally enslaved, abused, or murdered in the name of those beliefs would disagree with you.
Evolution is something observed, and tested *every day*.
God is a concept made up by humanity. The core theology Christians believe in was fabricated by man, and the evidence of that is FAR stronger than for evolution. Its trivial to trace back the morphing and origin of key theological cornerstones through history, via primary sources.
So, yes, its okay to lump in all Christians with that lot. Ignorance is ignorance -- it doesn't matter if a larger number of people share it.
> practically-zero maintenance cost
You'll need a new battery pack within 3-6 years to retain anything like those efficiency numbers. I would call that a maintenance cost. You still need to buy brake discs / pads like a normal car, and the brake/power steering fluids too. Tyres as always, lights will fail at the same rate. So what you don't have to buy really is engine oil/filter / spark plugs and some belts occasionally. Would you still need an air filter? Surely you would.
Buying any of those things (bar the battery) was not expensive anyway, the pricey bit is paying a guy to do it. So yeah, practically zero...
I doubt Tesla screwed up their battery design. that much. GM, for example, is claiming a real-world tested 300k+ miles without degredation in the Voltec battery packs. That's over 8500 charge cycles without degredation.
But it's OK for me to take a picture of it, no?
Not in a lot of states.
people in africa have been starving since i was a kid. too bad when you send them food the government takes it
Right, and beyond that, this implies that the kids our food and money saved in the 80's turned around and had another generation of even more kids... that still couldn't be fed.
Not sure what the end game of that process is.
Accessing a page referenced in robots.txt is not "hostile penetration analysis." It's basically just picking up a dollar bill left on the ground. Just because half the population doesn't know how to look at the ground (metaphorically) doesn't mean that it's stealing.
If I put a dollar on the ground on my driveway, its stealing for you to pick it up.
Re-read my post. It's not what is being sent, it is what's being kept and tracked.
Look at the protocol. They can't keep more than is in there.
The placebo effect from homeopathy is pretty neat, but on the downside you have to be a fucking idiot for it to work.
You make it sound like a religion
Prayer works for the same kind of folks, too.
While playing closed-minded open-source Microsoft-bashing zealot on Slashdot is, in the eyes of many here, a route to being cool -- if you want to know, you could always use Google, Bing, or just run Fiddler and look for yourself.
The protocol is fully documented by Microsoft and not hard to find if you have some keyword ninja skills and a search engine.
Great so 3 toy things are built in. How about useful stuff?
So where can I find VS2012 for OSX?
Dual boot with BootCamp.
Buy VMWare.
Buy Parallels.
How are you going to run XCode on Windows? Oh yeah, you can't legally.
p>Do you mean they're made by totally different companies, with a completely separate code base?
The way things are structured at Microsoft between operating divisions and teams, that's effectively true.
You don't have to try this hard to jump the shark. The shark was jumped a decade ago.
These stories are just making a mockery of the mockery that Slashdot has become.
Just to keep the ball rollin', there's probably GPL violations, Microsoft software and patented things at those bases, too!
Excuse me... If you think I'll come out ahead, you're smoking CRACK.
I have no idea who you are, nor do I care in the least if you'll come out ahead.
Why in the world would you think I would?
Some may win, some may lose.
In my case, if I had my current ATT account on Verizon, that'd be saving me a nice chunk of money. Anyone with more than one device is coming out ahead. Anyone with a current Verizon data plan *and* a phone will come out ahead. Anyone who is currently paying for tethering will come out ahead.
Personally, I hope ATT does this quickly, as well. (Although, frankly, I wish I could skip the $40 voice part... as it works out to about $2 a minute for the usage I have in a given month.)
All the reports say WinRT is including Office RT. Its as simple as that. WinRT comes with Office, so it costs more.
Win8 bundled with Office would cost more, too.
What are you going to do with millions of password hashes, even without usernames none the less?
How do you suppose all the people mentioned on Twitter who verified their passwords in the list were correct did so if they couldn't find their hash in the list?
Of bigger concern to me is not the loss of the passwords, but the loss of the e-mail addresses (usernames). That's a VERY long list of valid, valuable e-mail accounts.
It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!! We have a winner!
That's problem with government funded health care. Whoever pays the bills gets to make the rules! If you let government take over your health care, you are giving the government control over your health.
Society, and the government as a proxy of society, already funds healthcare because hospitals aren't allowed to turn away people who can't pay and let them rot and die. (Or, I suppose, the other way around.)
As long as society feels obligated to help those in need, society should feel absolutely justified in putting strict limitations on the ways that people can take advantage of that.
It's a nudge, but nothing to do with curbing eating habits and much more to do with getting people used to government intervention in their every day life.
As long as the government is intervening in their every day life by providing a safety net for their irresponsible decisions, how is this a bad thing?