Because the adult thing to do when people you don't like are nearby is to pump up your amp and play out a really loud sound until they leave? Right?
Next up: Replacing all ramps and lifts with extra-steep stairs to keep the elderly etc. away. Installing emitters in the HVAC that put a smell that only women can smell.
"When they came for the children, I did not speak because I was not a child."
It's all fine to say that copyright is too long and the public (i.e., us) shouldn't have to pay three billion dollars to see these 1955 stories in film. However, the 3 billion dollars was paid. This argument is only about who should get it. We certainly aren't going to get it back.
They say: Never attribute to malice what can readily be explained by incompetence.
Which has this corollary when leveling accusations at slipper, duplicitous people: Before you accuse some one of an illegal cover-up, be sure that they can't simply say, "Oops, my bad".
One interesting issue will be what country the ships will be registered in. Will they pick a country that does not recognize most copyrights and patents and attempt to act as a data haven, as Sealand did?
Nicely done.
"The people I know who are anti-vaccine generally tend to be more intelligent, better educated and questioning than the people who aren't."
I'm a bit rusty on my fallacies, for I've misremembered the name of this one--but no, you cannot claim that because your particular group is somehow 'smarter' your argument is automatically correct. Error 1: It assumes facts not proven (viz. the allegedly high intelligence of this particular group).
Error 2: It's another form of Appeal to Authority. The argument runs something like: (i) my group is a smart group; (ii) my group has concluded A; (iii) therefore, you should conclude A.
Step 1: Assume an omnipotent entity. Step 2: (is arbitrary) Step 3: Profit!
You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.
The system went online on [December 18, 2007]. Human decisions were removed from strategic defense. [It] began to learn at a geometric rate. It became self aware [11:08] am Eastern Time. In the ensuing panic and attempts to shut [it] down, [it] retaliated by . ..
Finally, a chance for to prove or disprove the things that the feminists among us have been arguing about for the last hundred years or so! For example, assuming that there exists a reasonably competent sex-bot, so that a woman is not needed for a man to get a reasonably good physical release, we can learn the answers to:
1. Does he really love me or is he just using me for sex? (solved) 2. Why don't men treat women as equals? (no more hiding behind the old objectification defense) 3. What do men really want from a sex partner? (scary)
Are you telling me that the software utilized by Mapquest, Yahoo, Google, Magellan, Garmin, and Tom Tom hasn't been weighting left turns as taking longer than right turns lo these last 10 years?! Or did it just take UPS 10 years to catch on?
Next Announcement: UPS will include two-way radio communications in all their trucks by 2012.
I'm quite certain I'm a geek and, while I've dealt with various kinds of errata for decades, I can't say with any certainly that I've heard the term "erratum" before in the singular. Which is not to say the Latin isn't obvious, just that most English fora use the English when talking about a single error.
From TFA: 75 per cent of respondents were concerned about the content in videogames that their children played.
Of course parents are concerned. Any responsible parent would be. But that's not the interesting question. The interesting question is "Do you feel that you have access to enough information ensure that the games your kids own meet your standards for content?" Put that question in your survey and smoke it, why don't you!
I'll always be concerned at one level or another about what's in the media my kids consume, but I'm not worried about it in the slightest.
. . . something li[k]e this could only happen in the US, or some other country where religious fundamentalism is prevalent . To be sure. Still, there are some differences between the U.S. and, for instance, Sudan. For instance, in a civilized, rational place like the U.S., the penalty for not being a true believer is only losing your job.
By the numbers, NYU students aren't appreciably less dedicated than the rest of us. At least they demanded something of value for their unvote! Lots of us skip elections all the time and we receive nothing in return.
66 - percentage of NYU students who would trade one vote for a ~$140,000 scholarship 50 - percentage of NYU students who would trade ALL votes for $1,000,000 45 - percentage of eligible voters who traded their 2004 vote for nothing (i.e., they didn't vote) 20 - percentage of NYU students who would trade one vote for a $300 iPod
There are two things TFA could have done, but didn't, to provide some newsworthy insight: (1) what percentage of NYU students who actually voted in the last election would trade a vote for money? (2) What price is a non-voter's non-vote worth to them? That is, how much would it take to get non-voters to vote?
IT is overhead. IT exists only to support revenue. If a laptop will increase revenue by more than the differential cost between that and a desktop, then deploy the laptop.
Don't expect IT to see any share of that increased revenue. Things don't work that way.
>> We had better hope those kids exercise better judgment than we have and pay that number down.
>That would be incredibly stupid. Why should I pay your debts for you? As far as I'm concerned, you can take them to the grave with you.
They aren't just "my debts". They are our debts (that is, assuming you're a U.S. citizen), at least until I'm in the grave. Then, they'll just be your debts. It's quite a bit like me being your estranged wife who borrowed all the equity in your house to buy days at the spa. Of course it's unfair! But, unless some one settles that mortgage, you'll lose your house.
What would be "incredibly stupid" would be to continue down the road to national bankruptcy and/or revolution. Paying off the debt (and forcing my generation and the ones before me to help pay it off) will serve you a lot better than any of your available alternatives. If you start us paying now, you'll be able to tax me for decades yet; if not, I pity you.
I voted to increase my taxes twice today. What did you do to help?
When considering the reason for a legislative result, it is error to assume that there is only one reason. People vote for different reasons. Even when one realizes that there are multiple "reasons" coming together to create a result, it is tempting to make the error of supposing that the "reasons" are compatible with each other -- they may be entirely contradictory and yet lead to the same vote. Laws are sausages -- you pour all the "reasons" into the meat-grinder and a decision comes out.
some vote to continue things "the way they have always been"
some vote with the crowd because "everybody thinks so" or because some one they respect has told them to
some would ban all smoking because it harms smokers
some would ban all smoking because it raises health costs
some would ban all smoking because they fear or dislike secondhand smoke
some would ban minors from smoking because young lungs are particularly vulnerable
some would restrict minors' freedom because they don't trust minors to choose wisely
some don't trust anyone to choose wisely, but believe they must let adults choose anyway
some vote irrationally (e.g., based on their level of grumpiness on Tuesday morning)
some (smokers and tobacco cos.) would ban minors smoking because it is a middle ground that avoids a ban on everyone
some voted for prohibitionist representatives for unrelated reasons (e.g., party politics)
some (smokers) vote to preserve their own option to smoke
some (tobacco cos. and resellers) would allow all smoking to make money
some would allow all smoking for personal freedom reasons
some vote to change things for the sake of change
and on and on and on
You can polish any one of these arguments until it gleams, but be aware that even one individual may choose by balancing how strongly they feel about two or more of these arguments. A person may be irrational; people definitely are.
Here's a hint: what tax burden is paid by those younger than 18? Answer: About $9085.6 billion + $1.4 billion/day. That's the amount that the generations currently in charge (including me) have spent, but not paid for. We show no signs that we plan to paying it, ourselves, any time soon. We had better hope those kids exercise better judgment than we have and pay that number down.
Are you suggesting that our banning smoking by 18-year olds is a rational economic response to the minuscule amount of taxes we let ourselves pay? Horse-cookies! If we were rational economic actors, there are a lot of bigger-ticket items we would have eliminated first.
(4) Minors can't vote. The smoking voters who have resisted attempts to ban their own smoking have not been as interested in preserving the option to smoke for those who cannot vote. (Recently, of course, the overwhelming tide has passed some bans against anyone smoking, at least in certain locations. However, the ban against minors is everywhere and has existed for a long time.)
The effect of minors having no say in the restrictions that are placed on their options should not be discounted.
Time and again, Microsoft had said: "what the f**k does that mean ? we are trying to make [M$] THE format, we dont care about what [anyone else] is pushing or its compatibility. [They] should try to make whatever they have compatible with [M$]. they have forced enough stuff to the i.t. world already, its time they adapt their ways to what [M$] wants."
Let us not mistake the point of good translation being to reduce fighting. That may or may not happen. After all, once people understand each other perfectly, they may still disagree.
The point of good translation is to allow us to fight only about the stuff we disagree on. What a waste of time to fight about something we actually agree on -- just because we misunderstood each other!
Slashdot Mirror
Q: ...but the sky is pretty much Public Domain. Or are you going to outlaw looking up?
A: Yes--just ask soon as we work out how.
----
Take my love, take my land
Take me where I cannot stand
I don't care, I'm still free
You can't take the sky from me
Great plan.
Because the adult thing to do when people you don't like are nearby is to pump up your amp and play out a really loud sound until they leave? Right?
Next up:
Replacing all ramps and lifts with extra-steep stairs to keep the elderly etc. away.
Installing emitters in the HVAC that put a smell that only women can smell.
"When they came for the children, I did not speak because I was not a child."
Half the time when I take food out of the refrigerator and put it on the counter, I can't identify it.
It's all fine to say that copyright is too long and the public (i.e., us) shouldn't have to pay three billion dollars to see these 1955 stories in film. However, the 3 billion dollars was paid. This argument is only about who should get it. We certainly aren't going to get it back.
They say: Never attribute to malice what can readily be explained by incompetence.
Which has this corollary when leveling accusations at slipper, duplicitous people: Before you accuse some one of an illegal cover-up, be sure that they can't simply say, "Oops, my bad".
One interesting issue will be what country the ships will be registered in. Will they pick a country that does not recognize most copyrights and patents and attempt to act as a data haven, as Sealand did?
I'm a bit rusty on my fallacies, for I've misremembered the name of this one--but no, you cannot claim that because your particular group is somehow 'smarter' your argument is automatically correct. Error 1: It assumes facts not proven (viz. the allegedly high intelligence of this particular group).
Error 2: It's another form of Appeal to Authority. The argument runs something like: (i) my group is a smart group; (ii) my group has concluded A; (iii) therefore, you should conclude A.
HTH.
You really want to know how few women there are on Slashdot? Here's how.
Step 1: Go anywhere* that there are two or more moms.
Step 2: State that some mom is "A Real Mom".
Step 3: (duck)
Anywhere but here, that headline would have sparked a 500+ post flamewar.
*Note: Do not attempt this in meatspace.
Step 2: (is arbitrary)
Step 3: Profit! You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.
by . .
Finally, a chance for to prove or disprove the things that the feminists among us have been arguing about for the last hundred years or so! For example, assuming that there exists a reasonably competent sex-bot, so that a woman is not needed for a man to get a reasonably good physical release, we can learn the answers to:
1. Does he really love me or is he just using me for sex? (solved)
2. Why don't men treat women as equals? (no more hiding behind the old objectification defense)
3. What do men really want from a sex partner? (scary)
Are you telling me that the software utilized by Mapquest, Yahoo, Google, Magellan, Garmin, and Tom Tom hasn't been weighting left turns as taking longer than right turns lo these last 10 years?! Or did it just take UPS 10 years to catch on?
Next Announcement: UPS will include two-way radio communications in all their trucks by 2012.
So, evolution occurs faster when all individuals breed?
I always thought that 'evolution' occurred when individuals with an old, less successful trait were eaten before they could breed.
I'm quite certain I'm a geek and, while I've dealt with various kinds of errata for decades, I can't say with any certainly that I've heard the term "erratum" before in the singular. Which is not to say the Latin isn't obvious, just that most English fora use the English when talking about a single error.
From TFA: 75 per cent of respondents were concerned about the content in videogames that their children played.
Of course parents are concerned. Any responsible parent would be. But that's not the interesting question. The interesting question is "Do you feel that you have access to enough information ensure that the games your kids own meet your standards for content?" Put that question in your survey and smoke it, why don't you!
I'll always be concerned at one level or another about what's in the media my kids consume, but I'm not worried about it in the slightest.
I think some of the article misses the point:
Among the points being missed: regardless of the cost of fuel, this system reduces polluting emissions.
By the numbers, NYU students aren't appreciably less dedicated than the rest of us. At least they demanded something of value for their unvote! Lots of us skip elections all the time and we receive nothing in return.
66 - percentage of NYU students who would trade one vote for a ~$140,000 scholarship
50 - percentage of NYU students who would trade ALL votes for $1,000,000
45 - percentage of eligible voters who traded their 2004 vote for nothing (i.e., they didn't vote)
20 - percentage of NYU students who would trade one vote for a $300 iPod
There are two things TFA could have done, but didn't, to provide some newsworthy insight: (1) what percentage of NYU students who actually voted in the last election would trade a vote for money? (2) What price is a non-voter's non-vote worth to them? That is, how much would it take to get non-voters to vote?
IT is overhead. IT exists only to support revenue. If a laptop will increase revenue by more than the differential cost between that and a desktop, then deploy the laptop.
Don't expect IT to see any share of that increased revenue. Things don't work that way.
>> We had better hope those kids exercise better judgment than we have and pay that number down.
>That would be incredibly stupid. Why should I pay your debts for you? As far as I'm concerned, you can take them to the grave with you.
They aren't just "my debts". They are our debts (that is, assuming you're a U.S. citizen), at least until I'm in the grave. Then, they'll just be your debts. It's quite a bit like me being your estranged wife who borrowed all the equity in your house to buy days at the spa. Of course it's unfair! But, unless some one settles that mortgage, you'll lose your house.
What would be "incredibly stupid" would be to continue down the road to national bankruptcy and/or revolution. Paying off the debt (and forcing my generation and the ones before me to help pay it off) will serve you a lot better than any of your available alternatives. If you start us paying now, you'll be able to tax me for decades yet; if not, I pity you.
I voted to increase my taxes twice today. What did you do to help?
- some vote to continue things "the way they have always been"
- some vote with the crowd because "everybody thinks so" or because some one they respect has told them to
- some would ban all smoking because it harms smokers
- some would ban all smoking because it raises health costs
- some would ban all smoking because they fear or dislike secondhand smoke
- some would ban minors from smoking because young lungs are particularly vulnerable
- some would restrict minors' freedom because they don't trust minors to choose wisely
- some don't trust anyone to choose wisely, but believe they must let adults choose anyway
- some vote irrationally (e.g., based on their level of grumpiness on Tuesday morning)
- some (smokers and tobacco cos.) would ban minors smoking because it is a middle ground that avoids a ban on everyone
- some voted for prohibitionist representatives for unrelated reasons (e.g., party politics)
- some (smokers) vote to preserve their own option to smoke
- some (tobacco cos. and resellers) would allow all smoking to make money
- some would allow all smoking for personal freedom reasons
- some vote to change things for the sake of change
- and on and on and on
You can polish any one of these arguments until it gleams, but be aware that even one individual may choose by balancing how strongly they feel about two or more of these arguments. A person may be irrational; people definitely are.Are you suggesting that our banning smoking by 18-year olds is a rational economic response to the minuscule amount of taxes we let ourselves pay? Horse-cookies! If we were rational economic actors, there are a lot of bigger-ticket items we would have eliminated first.
(4) Minors can't vote. The smoking voters who have resisted attempts to ban their own smoking have not been as interested in preserving the option to smoke for those who cannot vote. (Recently, of course, the overwhelming tide has passed some bans against anyone smoking, at least in certain locations. However, the ban against minors is everywhere and has existed for a long time.)
The effect of minors having no say in the restrictions that are placed on their options should not be discounted.
Time and again, Microsoft had said: "what the f**k does that mean ? we are trying to make [M$] THE format, we dont care about what [anyone else] is pushing or its compatibility. [They] should try to make whatever they have compatible with [M$]. they have forced enough stuff to the i.t. world already, its time they adapt their ways to what [M$] wants."
.
And thus, to defeat M$, we became M$ . .
Let us not mistake the point of good translation being to reduce fighting. That may or may not happen. After all, once people understand each other perfectly, they may still disagree.
The point of good translation is to allow us to fight only about the stuff we disagree on. What a waste of time to fight about something we actually agree on -- just because we misunderstood each other!