You may have schizophrenia, and you definitely have a bad case of confirmation bias, but you're not a telepath.
Says who? I'm a skeptic, and I don't "believe" in telepathy, but I do know that we do NOT know enough about how the brain works to definitively say one way or the other that this guy is not telepathic. People like you who make grand, sweeping, dismissive statements ("oh you're just imagining it all") for any condition out of the norm are standing in the way of progress, not helping.
There was one actual legal offense here, and it's the difference between this video and all the other comedy skits of adults talking dirty in front of kids. He used footage of these children without their parents' informed consent of what it was going to be used for.
Except that's not illegal, because his usage of their likenesses was not for commercial purposes.
To say there are "members" and a "hierarchy" or even an actual group called "Anonymous" in any normal sense of the word reveals a lack of understanding of the phenomena.
To say that there are NOT members and a hierarchy or an actual group called Anonymous reveals a lack of understanding of human social dynamics. There most certainly IS a group called Anonymous, composed of members (some more active than others), and organized in a hierarchy.
Someone who just posts random ideas to IRC and is never listened to by anyone is not a high ranking member of the hierarchy. Another guy whose many good ideas are listened to and followed is de facto a high ranking member of Anonymous. Some other guy who often works for the cause, and has carried out many successful attacks, also has status within the group. Just because nobody is able to view the whole system from the top down transparently and SEE who is who and who has status, and judge this based on concrete terms like facts and numbers, since the whole thing is based on anonymity, doesn't mean that said status/ranking does not exist. It is an inherent property of ANY humans working together socially in groups of two or more.
Of course it's not called the PSP2, because that would be too obvious and straightforward for the games industry.
No, it's not called the PSP2 because that would be a poor choice of name, for a couple of different reasons. Why don't you stick to computer programming or whatever you're good at, and leave the marketing to the highly paid experts, hmm?
The rest of the Internet doesn't lock up Firefox for 10 seconds just to load a single page.
This.
My initial impression is, the new design *looks* great. However, not only are pages still slow to render, now the scrolling is abysmally laggy. I haven't encountered a single other web site on the Internet that is so damn slow.
Bro I'm sorry, but you are wrong. I've been in a war zone before. I spent a year and a half in Afghanistan and I watched people die. If I'm on the high seas minding my own business and some mother fuckers want to run up to me in a boat and threaten my life, fuck them, they are sinking. Let their asses drown. And yes, you can certainly possess weapons in territorial waters, and you damn well should, if you value your life when sailing through dangerous areas such as anywhere near Africa.
As for the morality - I am talking about your Joe Average not being a coldhearted killer.
What's cold hearted about taking out some pirates, armed with AK47s and RPGs, who intend to hold you hostage and quite possibly kill you?
Being social and tribal animals, most of us are actually empathic towards other humans, regardless of their orientation towards us.
Apparently you haven't spent much time around many humans. Try getting out of the basement every once in a while. Or better yet--out of the country. Check out the third world some time, it's not quite as civilized as what you're obviously used to. Somalia is a war torn country, full of desperate people who are ready to commit violent acts. These pirates don't give a fuck about your life, and you are naive and stupid to care about theirs.
Better yet, a deck mounted machine gun--say, a 50 cal, which to be compliant with nations' laws against ship mounted weaponry, can easily be detached and stowed. Even if you don't directly kill any, you can punch holes in their silly little pirate boat hull and send them all to the bottom. Even if they somehow survive, guaranteed they're gonna rethink their career choice. The seafaring equivalent of being broke down on the side of the road is never a pleasant experience.
Arming home-owners just means a simple property crime turns into a shootout. It'd be like in America where people shoot suspected trespassers, like some kid coming round to get his ball, or some minority you thought walked over your lawn. The problem with everyone carrying guns in a violent society is that every small incident escalates into a shootout as everyone instinctively pulls out their guns and starts shooting wild west style.
Wow, this is probably the dumbest thing I've read on slashdot all day. Congrats.
I'm from a state and culture that is BIG on gun ownership and usage. I'd say I'm pretty familiar with the habits of gun owners, considering that I know many of them, including my own father who has quite a collection.
You think that just because someone owns a gun, they're liable to just fire it off randomly for any reason at any person who annoys them?
You think that a typical petty criminal who breaks into a home and hears a shotgun being cocked, or has a firearm pointed at him, is going to stand and try to fight it out?
How unbelievably stupid.
And since we are considering how many accidental shootings there are in America...just how many ARE there, any way? According to this link showing the most common causes of death in the US, accidental shootings are in last place with a grand total of 776 in the year sampled, trailing far behind motor vehicle accidents, falls, poisoning, drowning, exposure to fire/smoke/flame, and complications of surgery/medical care.
Intentional firearm deaths are also dwarfed by cardiovascular disease, malignant neuroplasms (whatever the hell that is), lower respiratory disease (i.e. smoking), diabetes, flu, alzheimers, motor vehicle accidents, renal failure, and septicemia. These intentional firearms deaths also include gang warfare (criminals killing criminals), self defense shootings (guns being used as intended), and criminals being killed by police.
You sir, may not be an idiot, but you are EXTREMELY naive and ignorant.
Another thing--alcohol is legal, but if your wife was demonstrably an alcoholic, that could prevent her from gaining custody. Same thing would apply pot were legal, and she were a chronic pot smoker with self control problems.
There are people out there in the world who can get addicted to damn near anything. That doesn't make pot addictive. It's simply not, at least not any more than chocolate, gambling, WoW, or any of the multitudes of other things that people somehow find themselves addicted to. Some people just have addiction problems. And when your knee-jerk reaction is "ban it", you're not only not solving that problem, you're also creating others. Daily deaths and violence in Mexico being one current and relevant example. There's also our huge and growing prison industry, which contains a large percentage of non-violent drug offenders who in many cases were doing nothing more than growing and selling a plant, to customers such as your doctor, your lawyer, your kid's teachers.
Legal aspects aside, you're also trampling all over others' legitimate rights and freedoms. I don't have an addiction problem. I quit cigarettes cold turkey. I dont see a need to use any substance to escape or compensate for a shitty life, or anything like that. I like smoking pot (and participating in other possibly "addictive" activities) simply because it's fun and enjoyable. I'm in the majority. Why should *I*, or the millions of others just like me, be banned from smoking pot, because a few flawed people can't handle their shit? Especially considering the vast *benefits* that come from smoking it--such as enhanced creativity and thought processes, relaxation, better sleep, etc?
But because of people who hold views like yours, people who are operating out of ignorance and misinformation rather than facts and reason, I have to live in fear every day that cops will bust in through the front door and arrest me, and put me in jail, or force me into some bullshit court-mandated "substance abuse" counseling (to become another statistic that will be pointed to by anti-drug activists to reinforce their assertions that marijuana is addictive and harmful. "see, look, millions of people are in treatment for it!"), all because I choose to partake in an activity that harms nobody, not even myself.
The reason is that in situations where desperation is high enough, risk of death is not an effective deterrent
No, but ACTUAL death sure is. And in a battle on the high seas with small arms, the ship with more mass and height, i.e. the cargo ship, has the fighting advantage. It's far harder to sink a big, massive cargo ship than a creaky ass little pirate boat, and the cargo ship crew also has the advantage of a high position to fire down from. Once the pirate vessel is sunk or disabled, they can't exactly walk or swim home.
Not according to a quick Google search. Perhaps you could link to a study or some kind of material backing up this assertion? This is the first time I've ever anyone say this, and I've done quite a lot of reading on the subject. If these fertilizers are so toxic, then why are they being used on edible plants?
Yet, when you're dealing with a high stress situation, and really wanting to unwind, the first thing you're probably going to think of is weed.
I don't smoke because of stress. This isn't tobacco. I smoke because I enjoy getting high.
It is not physically addicting, but I'm convinced that there is a strong psychological addictiveness. There's a reason why people are "every day, all day long" types of smokers.
Really? And perhaps you could share that with us and enlighten us all, Mr. Subject Matter Expert.
What a coward. "Please don't hurt me Mr. Pirate! Just take whatever you want, we're all a bunch of pussies who won't stand our ground and defend ourselves." As more and more pirates get rich off holding people hostage and stealing their shit, more and more pirates will be created, and the problem will grow larger. If we don't take steps to end this NOW, we'll have to take much larger and more difficult steps later. Do you think the mafia would be as large and as powerful as it is if people had resisted them back in the day when they were first getting started and demanding protection money from people? Do you think WWII would have happened if people had seriously opposed Hitler before he grew strong and powerful and invaded half the world? Use your fucking brain and quit being a PUSSY.
marijuna has far fewer toxins because it is often grown without toxins like fertilizer. If your going to grow it on a grand scale you will need fertilizers and then your introducing harmful toxins to the plant. Tobacco grown as organically as marijuana is now has less toxins too.
I grow marijuana. Everybody uses fertilizer. Fertilizer does not in any way introduce "toxins" to the plant.
....A conclusion I reached after reading the comments to this article.
I thought slashdot was supposed to be full of smart people? Geeks with 130+ IQs? Where's the vision, or intelligence, in comments like "Facebook is just a fad", "I don't see any use for it in my own personal life so therefore it's a useless waste of time for everyone", "why would people use Facebook when they could just use IRC, email, or telnet into a FreeBSD server to set up their own CMS", "myself and my friends are all boring, so everyone else must obviously be boring too, and therefore they are stupid for using Facebook", or the billions of variations or similar idiotic lines of reasoning I've seen posted here?
Facebook is not dying any time soon. It fulfills and enhances real needs in people's lives, which is why it's so damn popular, and why millions of people (myself included) are on there every day. The great thing about it--and any other technology which successfully recruits 500+ million members and is still growing daily--is everybody has their own use for it. Men, women, stay at home moms, professionals, grandmas, grandpas, high school kids, college students, entertainers, politicians, the list is endless, and every one of them finds some kind of value in it that's personally relevant to them. Maybe it's contacting and staying in touch with old friends. Maybe it's sharing pictures of friends and family (especially HUGE amongst women of all ages). Maybe it's attracting supporters to a cause. Maybe it's finding girls to date and fuck. Maybe it's organizing events or parties. Maybe it's keeping others up to date on happenings. Maybe it's playing some time wasting game with friends. There's tons of value that can be had from it, if one is a social creature and wants to easily communicate and stay in touch with other people for any reason. (Which might explain why a site full of antisocial geeks like Slashdot finds particular trouble in understanding why people like it so much.)
Something may eventually come along better to replace it, but it's not happening in the next 5 years, or likely 10, since Facebook continues to do a great job in adding new features and upgrading/improving existing ones. You can take that to the bank and cash it.
If I comment on something, I should be able to avoid the 100 "also commented on" emails which follow. ie. there's no "unsubscribe" for posts and photos. So it becomes a pain.
I agree. I'm sure this feature is commonly requested and will be added.
I don't want to see "is now friends with" posts.
OK, then suggest the feature.
I don't want to see "likes (someone I don't know)'s status"
This was taken out a while back.
I want to turn of, selectively, who can add "likes" shite to my feed, because some people are simply a pain in the ass on the internet and like 5 things a day, or post crap.
If someone is always posting annoying shit, just delete them from your news feed.
The site is evolving and getting better all the time. It's not like it's a static entity and you are just stuck with things the way they are. If that was the case, the site would have never become as popular as it has.
Slashdot Mirror
You may have schizophrenia, and you definitely have a bad case of confirmation bias, but you're not a telepath.
Says who? I'm a skeptic, and I don't "believe" in telepathy, but I do know that we do NOT know enough about how the brain works to definitively say one way or the other that this guy is not telepathic. People like you who make grand, sweeping, dismissive statements ("oh you're just imagining it all") for any condition out of the norm are standing in the way of progress, not helping.
The kids nor their parents gave permission for this footage to be used as this.
Nor is he legally required to ask for it, in the case of non-commercial use.
There was one actual legal offense here, and it's the difference between this video and all the other comedy skits of adults talking dirty in front of kids. He used footage of these children without their parents' informed consent of what it was going to be used for.
Except that's not illegal, because his usage of their likenesses was not for commercial purposes.
To say there are "members" and a "hierarchy" or even an actual group called "Anonymous" in any normal sense of the word reveals a lack of understanding of the phenomena.
To say that there are NOT members and a hierarchy or an actual group called Anonymous reveals a lack of understanding of human social dynamics. There most certainly IS a group called Anonymous, composed of members (some more active than others), and organized in a hierarchy.
Someone who just posts random ideas to IRC and is never listened to by anyone is not a high ranking member of the hierarchy. Another guy whose many good ideas are listened to and followed is de facto a high ranking member of Anonymous. Some other guy who often works for the cause, and has carried out many successful attacks, also has status within the group. Just because nobody is able to view the whole system from the top down transparently and SEE who is who and who has status, and judge this based on concrete terms like facts and numbers, since the whole thing is based on anonymity, doesn't mean that said status/ranking does not exist. It is an inherent property of ANY humans working together socially in groups of two or more.
Of course it's not called the PSP2, because that would be too obvious and straightforward for the games industry.
No, it's not called the PSP2 because that would be a poor choice of name, for a couple of different reasons. Why don't you stick to computer programming or whatever you're good at, and leave the marketing to the highly paid experts, hmm?
The rest of the Internet doesn't lock up Firefox for 10 seconds just to load a single page.
This.
My initial impression is, the new design *looks* great. However, not only are pages still slow to render, now the scrolling is abysmally laggy. I haven't encountered a single other web site on the Internet that is so damn slow.
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -- Albert Einstein
Um, no he wasn....oh, wait.
As geeks, we can only hope the core of Betelgeuse undergoes catastrophic failure in our lifetime.
My home plant orbits Betelgeuse, you insensitive clod!
Then there's this one:
Doubt cast on cannabis, schizophrenia link
Bro I'm sorry, but you are wrong. I've been in a war zone before. I spent a year and a half in Afghanistan and I watched people die. If I'm on the high seas minding my own business and some mother fuckers want to run up to me in a boat and threaten my life, fuck them, they are sinking. Let their asses drown. And yes, you can certainly possess weapons in territorial waters, and you damn well should, if you value your life when sailing through dangerous areas such as anywhere near Africa.
As for the morality - I am talking about your Joe Average not being a coldhearted killer.
What's cold hearted about taking out some pirates, armed with AK47s and RPGs, who intend to hold you hostage and quite possibly kill you?
Being social and tribal animals, most of us are actually empathic towards other humans, regardless of their orientation towards us.
Apparently you haven't spent much time around many humans. Try getting out of the basement every once in a while. Or better yet--out of the country. Check out the third world some time, it's not quite as civilized as what you're obviously used to. Somalia is a war torn country, full of desperate people who are ready to commit violent acts. These pirates don't give a fuck about your life, and you are naive and stupid to care about theirs.
Better yet, a deck mounted machine gun--say, a 50 cal, which to be compliant with nations' laws against ship mounted weaponry, can easily be detached and stowed. Even if you don't directly kill any, you can punch holes in their silly little pirate boat hull and send them all to the bottom. Even if they somehow survive, guaranteed they're gonna rethink their career choice. The seafaring equivalent of being broke down on the side of the road is never a pleasant experience.
Arming home-owners just means a simple property crime turns into a shootout. It'd be like in America where people shoot suspected trespassers, like some kid coming round to get his ball, or some minority you thought walked over your lawn. The problem with everyone carrying guns in a violent society is that every small incident escalates into a shootout as everyone instinctively pulls out their guns and starts shooting wild west style.
Wow, this is probably the dumbest thing I've read on slashdot all day. Congrats.
I'm from a state and culture that is BIG on gun ownership and usage. I'd say I'm pretty familiar with the habits of gun owners, considering that I know many of them, including my own father who has quite a collection.
You think that just because someone owns a gun, they're liable to just fire it off randomly for any reason at any person who annoys them?
You think that a typical petty criminal who breaks into a home and hears a shotgun being cocked, or has a firearm pointed at him, is going to stand and try to fight it out?
How unbelievably stupid.
And since we are considering how many accidental shootings there are in America...just how many ARE there, any way? According to this link showing the most common causes of death in the US, accidental shootings are in last place with a grand total of 776 in the year sampled, trailing far behind motor vehicle accidents, falls, poisoning, drowning, exposure to fire/smoke/flame, and complications of surgery/medical care.
Intentional firearm deaths are also dwarfed by cardiovascular disease, malignant neuroplasms (whatever the hell that is), lower respiratory disease (i.e. smoking), diabetes, flu, alzheimers, motor vehicle accidents, renal failure, and septicemia. These intentional firearms deaths also include gang warfare (criminals killing criminals), self defense shootings (guns being used as intended), and criminals being killed by police.
You sir, may not be an idiot, but you are EXTREMELY naive and ignorant.
Another thing--alcohol is legal, but if your wife was demonstrably an alcoholic, that could prevent her from gaining custody. Same thing would apply pot were legal, and she were a chronic pot smoker with self control problems.
There are people out there in the world who can get addicted to damn near anything. That doesn't make pot addictive. It's simply not, at least not any more than chocolate, gambling, WoW, or any of the multitudes of other things that people somehow find themselves addicted to. Some people just have addiction problems. And when your knee-jerk reaction is "ban it", you're not only not solving that problem, you're also creating others. Daily deaths and violence in Mexico being one current and relevant example. There's also our huge and growing prison industry, which contains a large percentage of non-violent drug offenders who in many cases were doing nothing more than growing and selling a plant, to customers such as your doctor, your lawyer, your kid's teachers.
Legal aspects aside, you're also trampling all over others' legitimate rights and freedoms. I don't have an addiction problem. I quit cigarettes cold turkey. I dont see a need to use any substance to escape or compensate for a shitty life, or anything like that. I like smoking pot (and participating in other possibly "addictive" activities) simply because it's fun and enjoyable. I'm in the majority. Why should *I*, or the millions of others just like me, be banned from smoking pot, because a few flawed people can't handle their shit? Especially considering the vast *benefits* that come from smoking it--such as enhanced creativity and thought processes, relaxation, better sleep, etc?
But because of people who hold views like yours, people who are operating out of ignorance and misinformation rather than facts and reason, I have to live in fear every day that cops will bust in through the front door and arrest me, and put me in jail, or force me into some bullshit court-mandated "substance abuse" counseling (to become another statistic that will be pointed to by anti-drug activists to reinforce their assertions that marijuana is addictive and harmful. "see, look, millions of people are in treatment for it!"), all because I choose to partake in an activity that harms nobody, not even myself.
How is this right?
Interesting. Thanks for the links.
The reason is that in situations where desperation is high enough, risk of death is not an effective deterrent
No, but ACTUAL death sure is. And in a battle on the high seas with small arms, the ship with more mass and height, i.e. the cargo ship, has the fighting advantage. It's far harder to sink a big, massive cargo ship than a creaky ass little pirate boat, and the cargo ship crew also has the advantage of a high position to fire down from. Once the pirate vessel is sunk or disabled, they can't exactly walk or swim home.
Not according to a quick Google search. Perhaps you could link to a study or some kind of material backing up this assertion? This is the first time I've ever anyone say this, and I've done quite a lot of reading on the subject. If these fertilizers are so toxic, then why are they being used on edible plants?
Yet, when you're dealing with a high stress situation, and really wanting to unwind, the first thing you're probably going to think of is weed.
I don't smoke because of stress. This isn't tobacco. I smoke because I enjoy getting high.
It is not physically addicting, but I'm convinced that there is a strong psychological addictiveness. There's a reason why people are "every day, all day long" types of smokers.
Really? And perhaps you could share that with us and enlighten us all, Mr. Subject Matter Expert.
Funny, but ignorant analogy, since alcohol destroy the body while marijuana does not.
What a coward. "Please don't hurt me Mr. Pirate! Just take whatever you want, we're all a bunch of pussies who won't stand our ground and defend ourselves." As more and more pirates get rich off holding people hostage and stealing their shit, more and more pirates will be created, and the problem will grow larger. If we don't take steps to end this NOW, we'll have to take much larger and more difficult steps later. Do you think the mafia would be as large and as powerful as it is if people had resisted them back in the day when they were first getting started and demanding protection money from people? Do you think WWII would have happened if people had seriously opposed Hitler before he grew strong and powerful and invaded half the world? Use your fucking brain and quit being a PUSSY.
marijuna has far fewer toxins because it is often grown without toxins like fertilizer. If your going to grow it on a grand scale you will need fertilizers and then your introducing harmful toxins to the plant. Tobacco grown as organically as marijuana is now has less toxins too.
I grow marijuana. Everybody uses fertilizer. Fertilizer does not in any way introduce "toxins" to the plant.
....A conclusion I reached after reading the comments to this article.
I thought slashdot was supposed to be full of smart people? Geeks with 130+ IQs? Where's the vision, or intelligence, in comments like "Facebook is just a fad", "I don't see any use for it in my own personal life so therefore it's a useless waste of time for everyone", "why would people use Facebook when they could just use IRC, email, or telnet into a FreeBSD server to set up their own CMS", "myself and my friends are all boring, so everyone else must obviously be boring too, and therefore they are stupid for using Facebook", or the billions of variations or similar idiotic lines of reasoning I've seen posted here?
Facebook is not dying any time soon. It fulfills and enhances real needs in people's lives, which is why it's so damn popular, and why millions of people (myself included) are on there every day. The great thing about it--and any other technology which successfully recruits 500+ million members and is still growing daily--is everybody has their own use for it. Men, women, stay at home moms, professionals, grandmas, grandpas, high school kids, college students, entertainers, politicians, the list is endless, and every one of them finds some kind of value in it that's personally relevant to them. Maybe it's contacting and staying in touch with old friends. Maybe it's sharing pictures of friends and family (especially HUGE amongst women of all ages). Maybe it's attracting supporters to a cause. Maybe it's finding girls to date and fuck. Maybe it's organizing events or parties. Maybe it's keeping others up to date on happenings. Maybe it's playing some time wasting game with friends. There's tons of value that can be had from it, if one is a social creature and wants to easily communicate and stay in touch with other people for any reason. (Which might explain why a site full of antisocial geeks like Slashdot finds particular trouble in understanding why people like it so much.)
Something may eventually come along better to replace it, but it's not happening in the next 5 years, or likely 10, since Facebook continues to do a great job in adding new features and upgrading/improving existing ones. You can take that to the bank and cash it.
If I comment on something, I should be able to avoid the 100 "also commented on" emails which follow. ie. there's no "unsubscribe" for posts and photos. So it becomes a pain.
I agree. I'm sure this feature is commonly requested and will be added.
I don't want to see "is now friends with" posts.
OK, then suggest the feature.
I don't want to see "likes (someone I don't know)'s status"
This was taken out a while back.
I want to turn of, selectively, who can add "likes" shite to my feed, because some people are simply a pain in the ass on the internet and like 5 things a day, or post crap.
If someone is always posting annoying shit, just delete them from your news feed.
The site is evolving and getting better all the time. It's not like it's a static entity and you are just stuck with things the way they are. If that was the case, the site would have never become as popular as it has.