1. surprise 2. act of murderous violence 3. against civilians, not military
i know, there are all sorts of dueling legal definitions. i also know politician and intarwebs ranters have called pretty much every single thing you can think of terrorism. it's the new hitler/ fascist/ nazi overused concept. overused to the point of meaninglessness. it waters down the meaning of the actual idea of what terrorism is to use the word about anything you don't like
the uk is warning assange and ecuador. it is also threatening to remove him not kill him
this means what the uk is not doing is NOT terrorism
i don't like what the uk is doing. you don't have to like what the uk is doing
but when you call what the uk is doing terrorism, you do a disservice to all of those who have died in actual acts of terrorism. most of whom are in the muslim world. show some respect, show some intelligence, show some maturity, and stop reaching for the strongest word you can find without regard as to actual meaning. it just makes you part of the problem in the world: a lot of loud ignorant mouth breathing ranting fools without regard to actual thought
who almost yearly takes the 6 hour drive up i87 to Montreal for R&R, Montreal is a pretty awesome place. I totally dug your pick-up-bike-drive-someplace-drop-it-off thingy, that now NYC is copying. You should make it friendlier for tourists to use though, although I guess there's good reasons against that (liability, transience, getting lost, etc.).
And sorry for not knowing any French or having any desire to learn. But I think you guys are used to us ethnocentric Americans, as I've never encountered brusqueness or hostility about being an outsider, I've always encountered warmth. But this is is in Francophone Quebec. I HAVE encountered less friendly snooty attitudes, only in Anglophone Canada. Which is telling. We got your back Quebecois if you ever try to go independent again. As a descendant of a New England American Revolutionary War soldier who killed redcoats and was shot at by tories, all I have to say is fuck the Queen.
Granted, I've never been there in the winter, and don't really want to go. But I hear you've built lots of interconnected underground malls and live like moles in the 6 month long winter.
I love Vancouver too. Canada is awesome in general, your attitudes towards healthcare, education, social welfare, guns, and financial responsibility is obviously way better than the USA.
Except for the weather, which is a pretty huge ding. That is why I have always maintained that global warming is a Canadian conspiracy.
seems like the payload is not only for a specific machine, but it has a limited window of time in order to work. unless it knows it is some locked up industry or government box used by someone who will never install programs, i guess
In 1991 the Philosopher's Stone became the target of the Dark Wizard Lord Voldemort in his quest for immortality. Voldemort used a human host, Quirinus Quirrell, to seek it out at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, where it was being held. The stone was originally stored at Gringotts Wizarding Bank in Vault 713. However, possibly suspecting a threat, Albus Dumbledore had Rubeus Hagrid retreive the stone the very morning of an attempted robbery.
forever more, you will only have a choice between a handful who weakly appeal to you. pick the one who appeals to you slightly stronger than than the rest: strategic voting
that is as good as it will ever get, that is the best you can ever hope to do with your vote
if you hold it hostage because your hero is not available to vote for, or you vote for your hero to get 1% of the election, you are a moron, and your vote rewards the electability of the guy you like the least
Where is the authority? I see the dollar backed by an army, a government, social institutions. I see bitcoin backed by a lot of feverish fanboys. The bubble will grow. Then pop. Utopianists come and go in this world.
Where you see censorship and fees I see authority, standards, and trust backed by social institutions. I have no doubt the bitcoin economy will grow, there's a sucker born every minute. Who knows when the bubble will pop, but pop it will. Enjoy the ride while it lasts. Have an escape plan.
It is an abstract representation of value that only has meaning in the context of a society.
It has no meaning or value in and of itself: can't do much with a sack of gold in the middle of the Sahara, unless you meet some tauregs, which brings us back to the point: whatever you agree is a medium of exchange has to derive meaning in terms of what other people think of as value.
Gold has ancient meaning, but ones and zeroes have to stand for something else: a sack of gold in a bank somewhere.
Which implies accountability, traceability, authority.
Without those things, no one in their right mind will accept your currency.
You have to know what currency actually means, and you can't design currency that defies those meanings, or what you have isn't really currency. Except amongst other idealistic clueless fanboys of alternacurrency, but this is a fringe group playing silly games, not actually making something that will replace real currency at large.
There is no trust in the parameters you have outlined. And with no trust, no trade.
The value of the bitcoin is backed by nothing. The value is dictated by how many rubes who buy into the scheme only. Eventualy the bubble of empty fantasy collapses.
Gold has historical attraction, national currencies are backed by armies. Bitcoin is backed by the fantasy life of utopianists. It won't last long and it won't be pretty when the fever bubble pops.
their gold lust started a snowballing chain of inquiring efforts that eventually led through the centuries to the accumulation of enough knowledge to do this:
you are correct. it is perhaps natural that we must suffer these loud whining blind ignorant naive fools who will never understand the simple concept. it seems more like an elementary math concept to me though, not a political concept:
1. someone who appeals weakly to a lot 2. someone who appeals strongly to a few
#1 wins the election, obviously. loud dumb boorish fools still glom onto #2s, and pollute internet discussion forums with WHARGARBBBL.
forever, in all democratic systems, our choice will only be between #1s
it is a shame some are just too fucking blinded by their idealism to see the simple point. hopeless stubborn stupidity. but in election like in the year 2000, we see the costs. this is why they anger me. if only a few more had voted for gore rather than nader: no massive deficit, no iraq war
until the end of time, in any democratic political system possible, you will only get a choice between two weakly appealing candidates. it will never, ever, be better than that
because the candidate's job is to appeal to as many people as possible in order to win, and when you spread yourself thin, your appeal becomes weak
but to appeal strongly to only one particular subculture, as require out of your blind idealism, means you automatically lose the election, because a few votes from only a few who you appeal to strongly is not how democracy will ever work, or ever should work
do you understand? or are insults required to get some focus out of your meager iq such that you don't understand this straightforward fucking concept?
if you can't tell the difference between the candidates, this says more about you than the candidates
"I don't vote, but if you're serious about fighting for what's right, I'll meet you in the city square with everyone else. When do we start?"
if you want a revolution, i will fight you myself. because a revolution is full of far greater misery and suffering than the corruption of the plutocracy. furthermore, no one controls a revolution, and what comes out on the other end of that horror and terror could be a system far worse than what you started with
your democracy is a sick patient. CURE IT, YOU FUCKING LOSER, DON'T KILL IT
as long as civilization exists, in whatever democratic political system possible, you will only get a choice between weakly appealing candidates
the point of a candidate is to appeal to as many people as possible. therefore, he or she will have beliefs that appeal broadly to many people, and therefore, as a direct consequence of that fact, also appeal weakly across that spectrum of people he or she appeals to. the alternative is to have a narrow set of beliefs that appeal strongly to a handfu of people. this is what you want. but you want, is for the candidate to lock themselves into a narrow ideology. they will excite a select few who strongly agree with the candidate, and therefore, obviously, the candidate will lose the election
because you are not a realist on this matter, because you are an idealist, you hold your vote hostage to a fantasy existence that will never take place
Slashdot Mirror
is
1. surprise
2. act of murderous violence
3. against civilians, not military
i know, there are all sorts of dueling legal definitions. i also know politician and intarwebs ranters have called pretty much every single thing you can think of terrorism. it's the new hitler/ fascist/ nazi overused concept. overused to the point of meaninglessness. it waters down the meaning of the actual idea of what terrorism is to use the word about anything you don't like
the uk is warning assange and ecuador. it is also threatening to remove him not kill him
this means what the uk is not doing is NOT terrorism
i don't like what the uk is doing. you don't have to like what the uk is doing
but when you call what the uk is doing terrorism, you do a disservice to all of those who have died in actual acts of terrorism. most of whom are in the muslim world. show some respect, show some intelligence, show some maturity, and stop reaching for the strongest word you can find without regard as to actual meaning. it just makes you part of the problem in the world: a lot of loud ignorant mouth breathing ranting fools without regard to actual thought
it's not terrorism, sorry
grow up
"bringing to mind the Arrested Development quote about how Lucille Bluth would rather be dead in California than alive in Arizona"
no, actually, sorry, not at all
And if they are 7 yo? Throw linear algebra at them?
Talk about out of touch.
it's for kids, relax. there has to be an element of fun in it
'And what does "drawing", "animation", and "user interaction" have to do with programming or computer science?'
gee, i dunno. maybe to get KIDS INTERESTED?
maybe you can wait a few fucking days before they get introduced to factory methods?
from your sneering ivory tower, do you even remember what childhood is?
global warming is caused by socialist scientists
not god fearing oil companies
depressing
who almost yearly takes the 6 hour drive up i87 to Montreal for R&R, Montreal is a pretty awesome place. I totally dug your pick-up-bike-drive-someplace-drop-it-off thingy, that now NYC is copying. You should make it friendlier for tourists to use though, although I guess there's good reasons against that (liability, transience, getting lost, etc.).
And sorry for not knowing any French or having any desire to learn. But I think you guys are used to us ethnocentric Americans, as I've never encountered brusqueness or hostility about being an outsider, I've always encountered warmth. But this is is in Francophone Quebec. I HAVE encountered less friendly snooty attitudes, only in Anglophone Canada. Which is telling. We got your back Quebecois if you ever try to go independent again. As a descendant of a New England American Revolutionary War soldier who killed redcoats and was shot at by tories, all I have to say is fuck the Queen.
Granted, I've never been there in the winter, and don't really want to go. But I hear you've built lots of interconnected underground malls and live like moles in the 6 month long winter.
I love Vancouver too. Canada is awesome in general, your attitudes towards healthcare, education, social welfare, guns, and financial responsibility is obviously way better than the USA.
Except for the weather, which is a pretty huge ding. That is why I have always maintained that global warming is a Canadian conspiracy.
thanks, i thought it was hashing all programs together
source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9475307/London-slips-down-list-of-best-cities-despite-glorious-Olympics.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_most_livable_cities
seems like the payload is not only for a specific machine, but it has a limited window of time in order to work. unless it knows it is some locked up industry or government box used by someone who will never install programs, i guess
In 1991 the Philosopher's Stone became the target of the Dark Wizard Lord Voldemort in his quest for immortality. Voldemort used a human host, Quirinus Quirrell, to seek it out at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, where it was being held. The stone was originally stored at Gringotts Wizarding Bank in Vault 713. However, possibly suspecting a threat, Albus Dumbledore had Rubeus Hagrid retreive the stone the very morning of an attempted robbery.
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Philosopher's_Stone
vote strategically, not idealistically
it's that simple
you will never get your hero to win an election
forever more, you will only have a choice between a handful who weakly appeal to you. pick the one who appeals to you slightly stronger than than the rest: strategic voting
that is as good as it will ever get, that is the best you can ever hope to do with your vote
if you hold it hostage because your hero is not available to vote for, or you vote for your hero to get 1% of the election, you are a moron, and your vote rewards the electability of the guy you like the least
understand reality
Where is the authority? I see the dollar backed by an army, a government, social institutions. I see bitcoin backed by a lot of feverish fanboys. The bubble will grow. Then pop. Utopianists come and go in this world.
Where you see censorship and fees I see authority, standards, and trust backed by social institutions. I have no doubt the bitcoin economy will grow, there's a sucker born every minute. Who knows when the bubble will pop, but pop it will. Enjoy the ride while it lasts. Have an escape plan.
What is currency?
It is an abstract representation of value that only has meaning in the context of a society.
It has no meaning or value in and of itself: can't do much with a sack of gold in the middle of the Sahara, unless you meet some tauregs, which brings us back to the point: whatever you agree is a medium of exchange has to derive meaning in terms of what other people think of as value.
Gold has ancient meaning, but ones and zeroes have to stand for something else: a sack of gold in a bank somewhere.
Which implies accountability, traceability, authority.
Without those things, no one in their right mind will accept your currency.
You have to know what currency actually means, and you can't design currency that defies those meanings, or what you have isn't really currency. Except amongst other idealistic clueless fanboys of alternacurrency, but this is a fringe group playing silly games, not actually making something that will replace real currency at large.
There is no trust in the parameters you have outlined. And with no trust, no trade.
Enjoy your silly games, dear utopianist.
Illegal drugs? The authorities are going to do nothing?
I feel like it is 2007 and someone is trying to sell me a mcmansion
Good luck kid
The value of the bitcoin is backed by nothing. The value is dictated by how many rubes who buy into the scheme only. Eventualy the bubble of empty fantasy collapses.
Gold has historical attraction, national currencies are backed by armies. Bitcoin is backed by the fantasy life of utopianists. It won't last long and it won't be pretty when the fever bubble pops.
their gold lust started a snowballing chain of inquiring efforts that eventually led through the centuries to the accumulation of enough knowledge to do this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#Gold
of course, it's not financially worth the effort. but we have realized the dreams of the alchemists
and you are assuming other people care enough about the bitcoin ponzi scheme to have urgent news on the topic
you are correct. it is perhaps natural that we must suffer these loud whining blind ignorant naive fools who will never understand the simple concept. it seems more like an elementary math concept to me though, not a political concept:
1. someone who appeals weakly to a lot
2. someone who appeals strongly to a few
#1 wins the election, obviously. loud dumb boorish fools still glom onto #2s, and pollute internet discussion forums with WHARGARBBBL.
forever, in all democratic systems, our choice will only be between #1s
it is a shame some are just too fucking blinded by their idealism to see the simple point. hopeless stubborn stupidity. but in election like in the year 2000, we see the costs. this is why they anger me. if only a few more had voted for gore rather than nader: no massive deficit, no iraq war
a tragedy of blind stubborn ignorance
listen to me carefully:
until the end of time, in any democratic political system possible, you will only get a choice between two weakly appealing candidates. it will never, ever, be better than that
because the candidate's job is to appeal to as many people as possible in order to win, and when you spread yourself thin, your appeal becomes weak
but to appeal strongly to only one particular subculture, as require out of your blind idealism, means you automatically lose the election, because a few votes from only a few who you appeal to strongly is not how democracy will ever work, or ever should work
do you understand? or are insults required to get some focus out of your meager iq such that you don't understand this straightforward fucking concept?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045075&cid=40973323
if you can't tell the difference between the candidates, this says more about you than the candidates
"I don't vote, but if you're serious about fighting for what's right, I'll meet you in the city square with everyone else. When do we start?"
if you want a revolution, i will fight you myself. because a revolution is full of far greater misery and suffering than the corruption of the plutocracy. furthermore, no one controls a revolution, and what comes out on the other end of that horror and terror could be a system far worse than what you started with
your democracy is a sick patient. CURE IT, YOU FUCKING LOSER, DON'T KILL IT
as long as civilization exists, in whatever democratic political system possible, you will only get a choice between weakly appealing candidates
the point of a candidate is to appeal to as many people as possible. therefore, he or she will have beliefs that appeal broadly to many people, and therefore, as a direct consequence of that fact, also appeal weakly across that spectrum of people he or she appeals to. the alternative is to have a narrow set of beliefs that appeal strongly to a handfu of people. this is what you want. but you want, is for the candidate to lock themselves into a narrow ideology. they will excite a select few who strongly agree with the candidate, and therefore, obviously, the candidate will lose the election
because you are not a realist on this matter, because you are an idealist, you hold your vote hostage to a fantasy existence that will never take place
grow up, you petulant child
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045075&cid=40973323
if you can't tell the difference between the candidates, this says more about you than the candidates