That's not really true. Even after your mother goes through menopause, she will still take care of you and help you out in the (evolutionary) interest of maintaining and propagating her genes. Even after she can no longer have children she can still play a role in ensuring the survival of her already born children. And since a person can only help others (their offspring, relatives) if they are healthy enough to help themselves, surely evolution does care about the old man (or woman) who becomes infirm.
I find it hard to believe that since "seven" has two syllables it is harder to remember than "six". I don't remember phone numbers phonetically, and I don't think most other people do either.
Well, in the real world I consider "infinite" to mean more than you'll ever possibly need. Like, if the IP address had more than 10^80 combinations I would consider that practically infinite since that is about how many atoms there are in the known universe.
Yes, I understand now. Another post explained it very well. He was saying that the internet protocols itself were under a BSD license and that companies just took the code and incorporated it into their own software, without worrying about making the rest of their stuff free. This sort of free copying of code is how the internet came about. Now I understand.
Is it possible you're wrong, and that your impairment level is ALWAYS equal to your blood alcohol level? I'm not sure I buy the idea that some people can "handle" a.11 alcohol level, while others can't even handle.04.
I guess the only way that makes sense is if you take into account that some people have very poor motor skills to begin with. But I think any given blood alcohol level will affect everyone equally.
But yes, just from a legal perspective, they should be enforcing impairment, not BAC. (Also, obviously, to cover impairment from other substances). The only thing is, BAC is a lot easier to prove than "impairment" is. And also, the source of "impairment" is hard to pin down. Maybe when you ask the guy to walk a straight line he's impaired from the nervousness of being pulled over by a cop.
The thing is, under a BSD-license, a lot of people would choose to make it non-free: not instead of not releasing it at all, but instead of releasing it Free! In other words, BSD is allowing them to end the line of "Freeness" (and ending the line of distribution. If it weren't BSD, they would still release it, but they would be forced to continue the line of Free.
You think the choice is between releasing as non-free and not releasing at all. The choice, for many, is probably between releasing as non-free and releasing as Free. Certainly forcing it to be released as Free would be more viral.
Of course, this might not be true under current circumstances. Maybe the cost of bandwidth forces it that way. But if you would imagine infinite bandwidth, GPL would definitely be more viral.
Actually, while we're making fun of CBN and Fox News, I'd like to point out that Al Jazeera is actually acknowledged as being pretty fair. Sure, it shows stories from an Arab, Middle-Eastern perspective, but the don't just lie or make things up, and it's not just a propaganda network. They've often reported truthful things even though it upset the Arab population. In fact, I'd almost say that Al-Jazeera is MORE fair than Fox News.
But I'm sick of people assuming any form of govt information gathering automatically implies a police state
You're right, it might not be a logical or fair assumption, but the conclusion is true: the US government is collecting information to limit our freedoms. If you believe anything otherwise, I think you are deluding yourself.
I saw a very interesting study recently. People are much less likely to properly remember an unfamiliar face (one they've only seen once) from a very clear high resolution picture, than they are to remember a familiar face (one they've seen more than once, separated by a certain amount of time) from a blurry picture.
If you've only seen a face once, the image hasn't really cemented in your mind, and if the person is replaced with someone else with a similar description, you'd just assume it's the same person.
It's like, I put down money on the counter to pay for soup. I put down four singles. Then I went to go grab a soda. When I came back, I saw the woman behind me picking up the four singles and putting it into her wallet. So I'm like "hey that's my money". But I just assumed it was mine, because it was in the same place. Turns out, it was hers, and the cashier had already taken mine.
Okay, the green color threw you off, but what about the fact that brazilians speak Portuguese?
Re:Yeah, thats super. We all need more of this.
on
dB Drag Racing
·
· Score: 1
First of all, notice that I'm not the original poster, so I'm not being "so persistent".
Anyway, yes I do have more questions plus comments.
1) I would have the balls to use it, in fact, so stfu
2) How would the guy know it was me? Say I turn it on, on the train when someone is being annoying on their cellphone. I know you're gonna say it would shut the whole train down, but I think the train has more tolerance than a cell phone, and I'd make sure to put the emitter near the cell phone. (By the way, how about cell phone jammers, how can I get one of those?)
3) How would they know it was me? Also, isn't EMP emission protected speech? (YES I'M JOKING)
4) I wouldn't do it near my car.
Re:Yeah, thats super. We all need more of this.
on
dB Drag Racing
·
· Score: 1
In your defense, since you got to horrible responses, I was wondering the same thing. I'd love to have something like that. I thought it was a good question anyway:)
It's a bargaining chip. Plus, hell, I don't think it's good that they're suing for money. But, I mean, apart from the particulars of this lawsuit, do you think their claim has merit?
I liked what the other guy said in the splinter thread. Would you like it if UPS made you drug-test your mom before sending a package? It's not like sending email or reading a website should REQUIRE that you be able to see, when there's no actual need for it.
I tend to agree with you, and I generally don't understand the point of most of that ADA stuff. But, I dunno, this one just seems to stand out pretty strongly as something that shouldn't happen.
You're totally missing the point. They should just come up with a better system. I'm not saying they should make stereos that work for deaf people too, since, fundamentally, like blind people and cars, they don't go together.
But here with this thing the article was talking about, it's such a minor thing, they need a better system thats all. It just seems so shitty that blind people should be totally locked out because of such a minor thing. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the analogy is fair. This is something that blind people SHOULD be able to participate in, but can't because of some minor thing, as opposed to something that blind people fundamentally can't do, like driving.
And you're right, the example you gave with the housing is just stupid bureacratic shit that shouldn't happen. And a lot of these lawsuits make me sick too. But this seems a lot more legitimate. Okay, maybe a lawsuit isn't legitimate since maybe websites shouldn't be FORCED to do anything. But don't you feel bad for blind people in this kind of situation? I mean, imagine you were blind and you just couldn't sign up for all these websites, just because of some technicality. No way around it.
Most blind people are lonely and cut off as it is. Where's your compassion? I don't think it's so much for the sites to come up with workarounds for the blind.
Fuck that. That's such bullshit. We should make an active effort not to exclude people, especially ones who are so unfortunate as it is. This doesn't have to do with "providing alternatives" this is just common courtesy for people who CAN'T SEE. (You're not supposed to figure your morals with a calculator.)
Slashdot Mirror
That's not really true. Even after your mother goes through menopause, she will still take care of you and help you out in the (evolutionary) interest of maintaining and propagating her genes. Even after she can no longer have children she can still play a role in ensuring the survival of her already born children. And since a person can only help others (their offspring, relatives) if they are healthy enough to help themselves, surely evolution does care about the old man (or woman) who becomes infirm.
(That's were capital punishment comes from--getting the worst bits of humanity out of the gene pool.)
Well then, why not just castrate the offender and let him go?
I find it hard to believe that since "seven" has two syllables it is harder to remember than "six". I don't remember phone numbers phonetically, and I don't think most other people do either.
Well, in the real world I consider "infinite" to mean more than you'll ever possibly need. Like, if the IP address had more than 10^80 combinations I would consider that practically infinite since that is about how many atoms there are in the known universe.
You're really showing only one side of the argument. I mean, don't you understand the value of having well defined standards that everyone followed?
That's exactly his point.
Yes, I understand now. Another post explained it very well. He was saying that the internet protocols itself were under a BSD license and that companies just took the code and incorporated it into their own software, without worrying about making the rest of their stuff free. This sort of free copying of code is how the internet came about. Now I understand.
So, yes, as I see it now, BSD is much more viral.
Is it possible you're wrong, and that your impairment level is ALWAYS equal to your blood alcohol level? I'm not sure I buy the idea that some people can "handle" a .11 alcohol level, while others can't even handle .04.
I guess the only way that makes sense is if you take into account that some people have very poor motor skills to begin with. But I think any given blood alcohol level will affect everyone equally.
But yes, just from a legal perspective, they should be enforcing impairment, not BAC. (Also, obviously, to cover impairment from other substances). The only thing is, BAC is a lot easier to prove than "impairment" is. And also, the source of "impairment" is hard to pin down. Maybe when you ask the guy to walk a straight line he's impaired from the nervousness of being pulled over by a cop.
The thing is, under a BSD-license, a lot of people would choose to make it non-free: not instead of not releasing it at all, but instead of releasing it Free! In other words, BSD is allowing them to end the line of "Freeness" (and ending the line of distribution. If it weren't BSD, they would still release it, but they would be forced to continue the line of Free.
You think the choice is between releasing as non-free and not releasing at all. The choice, for many, is probably between releasing as non-free and releasing as Free. Certainly forcing it to be released as Free would be more viral.
Of course, this might not be true under current circumstances. Maybe the cost of bandwidth forces it that way. But if you would imagine infinite bandwidth, GPL would definitely be more viral.
Troll, you're new at this aren't you? It's gonna take something more clever than that to get me going.
No THAT's Fox News.
Actually, while we're making fun of CBN and Fox News, I'd like to point out that Al Jazeera is actually acknowledged as being pretty fair. Sure, it shows stories from an Arab, Middle-Eastern perspective, but the don't just lie or make things up, and it's not just a propaganda network. They've often reported truthful things even though it upset the Arab population. In fact, I'd almost say that Al-Jazeera is MORE fair than Fox News.
It's longer, but we just fill it in with more commercials here :)
Why not, I thought it worked fine.
But I'm sick of people assuming any form of govt information gathering automatically implies a police state
You're right, it might not be a logical or fair assumption, but the conclusion is true: the US government is collecting information to limit our freedoms. If you believe anything otherwise, I think you are deluding yourself.
I saw a very interesting study recently. People are much less likely to properly remember an unfamiliar face (one they've only seen once) from a very clear high resolution picture, than they are to remember a familiar face (one they've seen more than once, separated by a certain amount of time) from a blurry picture.
If you've only seen a face once, the image hasn't really cemented in your mind, and if the person is replaced with someone else with a similar description, you'd just assume it's the same person.
It's like, I put down money on the counter to pay for soup. I put down four singles. Then I went to go grab a soda. When I came back, I saw the woman behind me picking up the four singles and putting it into her wallet. So I'm like "hey that's my money". But I just assumed it was mine, because it was in the same place. Turns out, it was hers, and the cashier had already taken mine.
Yeah, it is amazing how many people don't understand 1984. By the way, did you read it?
Okay, the green color threw you off, but what about the fact that brazilians speak Portuguese?
First of all, notice that I'm not the original poster, so I'm not being "so persistent".
Anyway, yes I do have more questions plus comments.
1) I would have the balls to use it, in fact, so stfu
2) How would the guy know it was me? Say I turn it on, on the train when someone is being annoying on their cellphone. I know you're gonna say it would shut the whole train down, but I think the train has more tolerance than a cell phone, and I'd make sure to put the emitter near the cell phone. (By the way, how about cell phone jammers, how can I get one of those?)
3) How would they know it was me? Also, isn't EMP emission protected speech? (YES I'M JOKING)
4) I wouldn't do it near my car.
In your defense, since you got to horrible responses, I was wondering the same thing. I'd love to have something like that. I thought it was a good question anyway :)
It's a bargaining chip. Plus, hell, I don't think it's good that they're suing for money. But, I mean, apart from the particulars of this lawsuit, do you think their claim has merit?
I liked what the other guy said in the splinter thread. Would you like it if UPS made you drug-test your mom before sending a package? It's not like sending email or reading a website should REQUIRE that you be able to see, when there's no actual need for it.
I tend to agree with you, and I generally don't understand the point of most of that ADA stuff. But, I dunno, this one just seems to stand out pretty strongly as something that shouldn't happen.
You're totally missing the point. They should just come up with a better system. I'm not saying they should make stereos that work for deaf people too, since, fundamentally, like blind people and cars, they don't go together.
But here with this thing the article was talking about, it's such a minor thing, they need a better system thats all. It just seems so shitty that blind people should be totally locked out because of such a minor thing. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the analogy is fair. This is something that blind people SHOULD be able to participate in, but can't because of some minor thing, as opposed to something that blind people fundamentally can't do, like driving.
And you're right, the example you gave with the housing is just stupid bureacratic shit that shouldn't happen. And a lot of these lawsuits make me sick too. But this seems a lot more legitimate. Okay, maybe a lawsuit isn't legitimate since maybe websites shouldn't be FORCED to do anything. But don't you feel bad for blind people in this kind of situation? I mean, imagine you were blind and you just couldn't sign up for all these websites, just because of some technicality. No way around it.
Most blind people are lonely and cut off as it is. Where's your compassion? I don't think it's so much for the sites to come up with workarounds for the blind.
funny, and number 1 :)
Anyway, I think they don't have solar cells because if you leave it in the sun it may break the ibook, you know if it's too hot.
Umm, if you knew anything about area, or MULTIPLICATION, you'd realize that's not true at all.
Fuck that. That's such bullshit. We should make an active effort not to exclude people, especially ones who are so unfortunate as it is. This doesn't have to do with "providing alternatives" this is just common courtesy for people who CAN'T SEE. (You're not supposed to figure your morals with a calculator.)
Nope, I thought it was funny.