I get as sentimental about the poor as the next guy
Oopsies! That was supposed to read as "I get as sentimental about the poor [insert favoured endangered species here] as the next guy", except I used greater than and less than symbols in the original which was obviously filtered by the slashcode. For the record, I am, *in no way*, suggesting that we hunt the poor to extinction;o).
Although in some cases it's true. Such as over fishing of whales and Marlin.
But if one day lions were to polish off the last of the zebra, would it be any different?
We are just the only creatures on the planet capable of feeling guilty for our evolutionary success. If the ebola virus were to gain some ability that enabled it to infect all living humans, I very much doubt that it would leave the last 100 or so of us alive, keep us in zoos and initiate international breeding programmes.
At what point did the human race go from being a part of these natural systems to being above them? When did we start feeling guilty for the traits that have made us such a successful species?
I get as sentimental about the poor as the next guy, but it is survival of the fittest. A guy could dedicate his whole life to saving the tiger, the tiger doesn't look at him through the wire fence with gratitude, the tiger looks at him with lunch plans.
Yes, the gun crime statistics have increased in recent years. Its a worrying trend. 2005 was the year that the IRA decommisioned many firearms, it is contraversial but I do wonder how many of those guns ended up on the streets around the UK.
It is interesting that you bring up the London bombings, it is a bit of a tangent but perhaps it is interesting to note that, if I put my mind to it, I am certain that I could create a bomb (I can hear the sirens already!). It is possible that I *might* be able to obtain a gun too, I would certainly have an idea of which areas of London I would need to visit to start my enquiries, but I have a feeling that if I turned up in such places, and started asking questions about firearms it is altogether possible that I might end up contributing the the statistics.
Yes, crimes of passion still happen, and I don't have any numbers to hand but my instinct tells me that it takes a little 'more' to go the steak knife route. Conjecture I guess, but it would seem that way to me. If you are going to kill somebody, you will probably find a way, do firearms lower the bar? I would say yes.
The UK has so many CCTV, speed cameras, the possibility of a DNA database and these various other disgusting infringements of the sanctity of our country because the British people are *notorious* for moaning lots and doing little. Lethargy is a national epidemic in the UK, sad but true and if I am honest, I am not much better. I *thought* about writing many a strongly worded objection, *thought* about trying to organise some form of resistance (even at local level) to all that is going on, but I have never done it. Countries that kick up a fuss and actually demonstrate to their government when not happy (and France is one such country that spring immediately to mind), find the progress towards an Orweillian state happens a little bit slower.
Of course, that all rings back to the original ideas of the 'right to bear arms', the ability to overthrow an oppressive government, but in the modern age this idea is significantly flawed and the firearms in the hands of your neighbors are *far* more likely to be used to redistribute your brain matter after making a driving error than they are to replace the government if they try to push through laws such as.... oh I don't know.... something like the PATRIOT act.
now the only two armed groups in the Uk are the military and the criminals.
I wish people would stop perpetuating this nonsense! Every time the difference in gun control is mentioned someone invariably points out... "So only the criminals are armed!".
Firstly, it assumes that every petty criminal in the UK has some access to illegal gun runners. I suspect those that do understand that it is not a wise idea to start handing out guns to every two-bit criminal that wants one. These guy mostly likely understand that arming your enemies or potential enemines is a bit stupid (a lesson our governments have so far failed to pick up on!).
Secondly, it completely ignores the crimes that would not be committed due to lack of firearm access. The ability to kill at at range makes it much easier to instill fear in victims while making the attacker fell nearly invunrable. The ability to put oneself in this position is certain to create criminals. It's not like people are born criminals, they become this way via oppurtunity.
Thirdly, it ignores so called 'crimes of passion', where a wife shoots her husband for being unfaithful etc. A crime that may not have occured if the shotgun wasn't to hand.
In conclusion, as we say over here on this little island.... its bollocks!
It might be the responsibility of the Indian people to stand up against unjust laws, it is not the responsibility of a corporation like google. They are not even an Indian corporation.
Perhaps the employees of Google India don't even consider this law unjust. I would personally consider the punishment to be extremely excessive, and the crime itself to be questionable (the article and the summary seem to differ, one talks about a 'saint' the other a policitian, rarely the same thing), but it seemd to basically amount to libel on some form, which is punished in many other places too, criminally or civally.
At the risk of someone invoking a 21st century 'godwin's law', it is this same kind of interventionist attitude that is causing all kinds of misadventures in the middle-east at the moment. Countries with 'freedom and democracy' of the brand that is being exported out there have such a thing because their citizens made sacrifices to obtain it. You can attempt to export these concepts, but you cannot export the pride that makes us value them. Nobody wants to say, 'we have freedom because some foreign entity came in and gave it to us', you do not value something until you earn it yourself.
Same thing here, even if Google did make an attempt to change the law, they would mostly be seen by the population in India as a foriegn power meddling in their affairs, regardless of how well meaning they are. If the Indian people want and end to this stuff, they will have to fight for it themselves, that way it will be valued and retained. Google provide a web indexing, email and context based ads, not revolution!
the last occasion of note was some play about Jesus being gay that upset Mary Whitehouse (not the porn star, the other one) back in the 70s.
I am fairly certain that there were people trying to invoke these laws when they showed 'Jerry Spring - The opera' on BBC, which had similar content.
it's no place of Google's to assist in the application of unjust law.
It is no place for Google to make judgements on which laws are unjust and which aren't, it is not their responsibility. The only option open to them is not to do business in countries where *they* (asterisked because, 'who are *they* exactly?') believe the laws to be unjust. If they choose to operate in India they must follow the local laws and regulations. If they operate in a country, and then refuse to obey the laws in that country then their directors risk punishment under the local laws.
The real culprit in this case is the Indian government themselves, who consider it acceptable to treat their citizens this way.
Building a house easier for a robot than crossing the atlantic? I have my doubts about that, even if you mean 'low grade' housing for use in the third world. Also, if a robot fails a sinks halfway across the atlantic, a few students get disappointed. If a robot fails, and the house it built a few days earlier falls and kills the family living inside, the implications are orders of magnitude more severe.
Also, I do see robotic ocean crossing as something useful and productive, but in addition, bear in mind that it is often the component parts that make real advancements in challenges like this. Power technology, navigation technology etc. Often the actual goal is secondary.
Seems to me that they should be free to require any identification that they like in order to gain a posting account. If you do not like the policy, then don't post.
It is a little like shrinking the text on your browser, for the first couple of 'notches', there will probably be very little difference in the speed and accuracy of reading for anyone with a reasonable level of eyesite. However, a couple of hours reading at a size you are uncomfortable with and pretty soon the fatigue, frustration and irritation will set it, effects that we refer to collectively as 'stress'.
I could probably carry 10kgs for 20 metres in a very similar time to 1kgs, speed may not be seriously effected over the short term, but do it for long enough and a preference will soon develop;o).
There's no reason why you can't contribute to the community project of your choice without Google's pre-approval.
I really wish I could mod you up and reply at the same time. This is absolutely marvelous advice!
Programming is a very easy field to break into if you are dedicated enough. There are literally thousands of open source projects looking for commited developers. Sure, you don't get paid, but if that bothers you, I would advise against working in the IT industry as you *will* be expected to put in unpaid overtime when projects are reaching deadline time, especially as a junior developer.
Get some good open source work on your CV, make sure you are in a position to speak confidently about the project and your specific input and with the exception of some very high profile companies (google), you will mostly likely be able to pick and choose where you want to work.
Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
I wonder how much of this Microsoft sponsered curriculum with cover public licensing.
Unfortunately, as a true slashdotter I am single with no kids, but if it were one of my kids that were being put through this indoctrination, I will give them a quick overview of the creative commons license and suggest that they applied it to all their uploaded content. Wouldn't that be interesting!
What you seem to have failed to grasp, is that what this process would do is split a single point of view into two. Both 'copies' would believe themselves to be a continuation of the original. The point of contention is whether the "soul" would be copied along with the atoms. We have such a powerful sense of self, it is difficult to imagine a situation like this, it is based on a highly speculative, fictional technology after all.
The core of what is in debate here goes back to a subject that has been under intense discussion for thousands of years, and you are acting like you have all the answers, and getting quite aggresive about it. Frankly, it makes you sound like an ass.
"I googled a little bit and see that Windows capped it at 4GB. Linux had >4GB modes before x86_64 came along, wonder why Windows didn't let you use it, or was it something they reserved artificially for server level OSes?"
For the same reason that each version of Windows seems to have various irritating 'characteristics'. To give the consumer a reason to upgrade. When Microsoft release the perfect version of Windows, they go out of business. Their whole business model depends on users buying upgrades to the same products over and over again. I don't know about you, but if I had a business with this dependency, I would probably build in bugs and shortcomings and then shout.... "FIXED IN THE NEXT VERSION!", when people complained.
It is great when you can benefit yourself personally, and do a greater good at the same time.
My problem is with the person who make the donation for tax purposes, and then runs around telling everyone about the donation in an effort to gain credit for being selfless.
Where's all that cheap oil everyone claims we went to war for?
You miss the point. Its not about providing cheap oil to the masses, its about securing the supply for the oil companies to distribute. The price you pay at the pump has nothing to do with it. The 5 year stock price of any western oil company (go check them out on Yahoo finance) has everything to do with it.
As a Brit I will hold my hands up and publically state that I do, from time to time, engage in some playful anti-americanism. I don't offer any apologises for this however, as I happen to know that many Americans engage in some playful anti-britishness (we do, after all, receive many of your syndicated television programmes here, so get to see some of it first hand).
Having said that, I do appreciate certain benefits that the US provides and, I have visited the states on several occasions (not recently, as I am disturbed by stories I have heard on border policy) and I have found that most Americans that I actually meet to be generally quite nice folks (with some exceptions, but no more than anywhere else in the world).
What irks me, and you do this in your post, is when actions made by the US are made out to be uniquely selfless and benevolent. This simply *does not happen*. No government is a charity, every penny spent must be demonstrated to serve a self interest. What tends to happen is that an action is taken that has some kind of positive secondary effect and that secondary effect is made to look like the primary motivation, but this is nothing more than a bank robber bringing statistcs on how many innocent people that the bank he robbed happened to forclose on in the previous year.
Iraq is a case in point. Weapons of mass destruction, The oppresion of Saddam, or oil revenue/security. One of these things was a primary motivation, the other two were secondary effects spun to look like a primary motivation. Perhaps I am being arrogant myself here, but I am sure that anyone sensible understands that Iraq was a war for resources. Hell, I can even say I understand that motivation (although, the cost has been far too high).
If you are going to praise the US work that goes into protecting trade routes, at least be honest and say that this is done primary to protect the interests of US corporations (and this is true even if the actual goods move between two other states) and that the whole world benefits from the secondary effect of more secure trade routes. For that, I salute you and your culture, but please don't try to make it sound like it is done from the goodness of your hearts.
Re:Ahh crap-DISMANTLE ONE SERVER AT A TIME
on
RIAA Sues Usenet.com
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yup, and computer nerds that new at design-time that an elegant design can solve problems not yet even considered.
It seems that the mechanism built into technologies like usenet that were designed to prevent a single point of failure, will also defend us against a single point of law suit as well.
My grandmother was involved in some secret trials of this technology. I have to say it is marvelous. For years she could hardly remeber a thing, but once we found a doner she can now remember everything up until the motorcylce accident.
Slashdot Mirror
...one line of PERL!
Nobody ever said that the virgins would be cute. Imagine the surprise when the virgins all turn out to be slashdotters.
:)
As if the instant +1 mod wasn't reason enough to keep your karma at a suitable level...
I get as sentimental about the poor as the next guy
;o).
Oopsies! That was supposed to read as "I get as sentimental about the poor [insert favoured endangered species here] as the next guy", except I used greater than and less than symbols in the original which was obviously filtered by the slashcode. For the record, I am, *in no way*, suggesting that we hunt the poor to extinction
Although in some cases it's true. Such as over fishing of whales and Marlin.
But if one day lions were to polish off the last of the zebra, would it be any different?
We are just the only creatures on the planet capable of feeling guilty for our evolutionary success. If the ebola virus were to gain some ability that enabled it to infect all living humans, I very much doubt that it would leave the last 100 or so of us alive, keep us in zoos and initiate international breeding programmes.
At what point did the human race go from being a part of these natural systems to being above them? When did we start feeling guilty for the traits that have made us such a successful species?
I get as sentimental about the poor as the next guy, but it is survival of the fittest. A guy could dedicate his whole life to saving the tiger, the tiger doesn't look at him through the wire fence with gratitude, the tiger looks at him with lunch plans.
Not to mention that their repution for being extremely difficult to mate is second only to.... ...you all know where I headed here right? ;o)
Yes, the gun crime statistics have increased in recent years. Its a worrying trend. 2005 was the year that the IRA decommisioned many firearms, it is contraversial but I do wonder how many of those guns ended up on the streets around the UK.
It is interesting that you bring up the London bombings, it is a bit of a tangent but perhaps it is interesting to note that, if I put my mind to it, I am certain that I could create a bomb (I can hear the sirens already!). It is possible that I *might* be able to obtain a gun too, I would certainly have an idea of which areas of London I would need to visit to start my enquiries, but I have a feeling that if I turned up in such places, and started asking questions about firearms it is altogether possible that I might end up contributing the the statistics.
Yes, crimes of passion still happen, and I don't have any numbers to hand but my instinct tells me that it takes a little 'more' to go the steak knife route. Conjecture I guess, but it would seem that way to me. If you are going to kill somebody, you will probably find a way, do firearms lower the bar? I would say yes.
The UK has so many CCTV, speed cameras, the possibility of a DNA database and these various other disgusting infringements of the sanctity of our country because the British people are *notorious* for moaning lots and doing little. Lethargy is a national epidemic in the UK, sad but true and if I am honest, I am not much better. I *thought* about writing many a strongly worded objection, *thought* about trying to organise some form of resistance (even at local level) to all that is going on, but I have never done it. Countries that kick up a fuss and actually demonstrate to their government when not happy (and France is one such country that spring immediately to mind), find the progress towards an Orweillian state happens a little bit slower.
Of course, that all rings back to the original ideas of the 'right to bear arms', the ability to overthrow an oppressive government, but in the modern age this idea is significantly flawed and the firearms in the hands of your neighbors are *far* more likely to be used to redistribute your brain matter after making a driving error than they are to replace the government if they try to push through laws such as.... oh I don't know.... something like the PATRIOT act.
I wish people would stop perpetuating this nonsense! Every time the difference in gun control is mentioned someone invariably points out... "So only the criminals are armed!".
Firstly, it assumes that every petty criminal in the UK has some access to illegal gun runners. I suspect those that do understand that it is not a wise idea to start handing out guns to every two-bit criminal that wants one. These guy mostly likely understand that arming your enemies or potential enemines is a bit stupid (a lesson our governments have so far failed to pick up on!).
Secondly, it completely ignores the crimes that would not be committed due to lack of firearm access. The ability to kill at at range makes it much easier to instill fear in victims while making the attacker fell nearly invunrable. The ability to put oneself in this position is certain to create criminals. It's not like people are born criminals, they become this way via oppurtunity.
Thirdly, it ignores so called 'crimes of passion', where a wife shoots her husband for being unfaithful etc. A crime that may not have occured if the shotgun wasn't to hand.
In conclusion, as we say over here on this little island.... its bollocks!
It might be the responsibility of the Indian people to stand up against unjust laws, it is not the responsibility of a corporation like google. They are not even an Indian corporation.
Perhaps the employees of Google India don't even consider this law unjust. I would personally consider the punishment to be extremely excessive, and the crime itself to be questionable (the article and the summary seem to differ, one talks about a 'saint' the other a policitian, rarely the same thing), but it seemd to basically amount to libel on some form, which is punished in many other places too, criminally or civally.
At the risk of someone invoking a 21st century 'godwin's law', it is this same kind of interventionist attitude that is causing all kinds of misadventures in the middle-east at the moment. Countries with 'freedom and democracy' of the brand that is being exported out there have such a thing because their citizens made sacrifices to obtain it. You can attempt to export these concepts, but you cannot export the pride that makes us value them. Nobody wants to say, 'we have freedom because some foreign entity came in and gave it to us', you do not value something until you earn it yourself.
Same thing here, even if Google did make an attempt to change the law, they would mostly be seen by the population in India as a foriegn power meddling in their affairs, regardless of how well meaning they are. If the Indian people want and end to this stuff, they will have to fight for it themselves, that way it will be valued and retained. Google provide a web indexing, email and context based ads, not revolution!
the last occasion of note was some play about Jesus being gay that upset Mary Whitehouse (not the porn star, the other one) back in the 70s.
I am fairly certain that there were people trying to invoke these laws when they showed 'Jerry Spring - The opera' on BBC, which had similar content.
it's no place of Google's to assist in the application of unjust law.
It is no place for Google to make judgements on which laws are unjust and which aren't, it is not their responsibility. The only option open to them is not to do business in countries where *they* (asterisked because, 'who are *they* exactly?') believe the laws to be unjust. If they choose to operate in India they must follow the local laws and regulations. If they operate in a country, and then refuse to obey the laws in that country then their directors risk punishment under the local laws.
The real culprit in this case is the Indian government themselves, who consider it acceptable to treat their citizens this way.
Building a house easier for a robot than crossing the atlantic? I have my doubts about that, even if you mean 'low grade' housing for use in the third world. Also, if a robot fails a sinks halfway across the atlantic, a few students get disappointed. If a robot fails, and the house it built a few days earlier falls and kills the family living inside, the implications are orders of magnitude more severe.
Also, I do see robotic ocean crossing as something useful and productive, but in addition, bear in mind that it is often the component parts that make real advancements in challenges like this. Power technology, navigation technology etc. Often the actual goal is secondary.
Seems to me that they should be free to require any identification that they like in order to gain a posting account. If you do not like the policy, then don't post.
Spot on!
;o).
It is a little like shrinking the text on your browser, for the first couple of 'notches', there will probably be very little difference in the speed and accuracy of reading for anyone with a reasonable level of eyesite. However, a couple of hours reading at a size you are uncomfortable with and pretty soon the fatigue, frustration and irritation will set it, effects that we refer to collectively as 'stress'.
I could probably carry 10kgs for 20 metres in a very similar time to 1kgs, speed may not be seriously effected over the short term, but do it for long enough and a preference will soon develop
There's no reason why you can't contribute to the community project of your choice without Google's pre-approval.
I really wish I could mod you up and reply at the same time. This is absolutely marvelous advice!
Programming is a very easy field to break into if you are dedicated enough. There are literally thousands of open source projects looking for commited developers. Sure, you don't get paid, but if that bothers you, I would advise against working in the IT industry as you *will* be expected to put in unpaid overtime when projects are reaching deadline time, especially as a junior developer.
Get some good open source work on your CV, make sure you are in a position to speak confidently about the project and your specific input and with the exception of some very high profile companies (google), you will mostly likely be able to pick and choose where you want to work.
Good luck.
Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957.
I wonder how much of this Microsoft sponsered curriculum with cover public licensing.
Unfortunately, as a true slashdotter I am single with no kids, but if it were one of my kids that were being put through this indoctrination, I will give them a quick overview of the creative commons license and suggest that they applied it to all their uploaded content. Wouldn't that be interesting!
Firstly, you need to calm down.
What you seem to have failed to grasp, is that what this process would do is split a single point of view into two. Both 'copies' would believe themselves to be a continuation of the original. The point of contention is whether the "soul" would be copied along with the atoms. We have such a powerful sense of self, it is difficult to imagine a situation like this, it is based on a highly speculative, fictional technology after all.
The core of what is in debate here goes back to a subject that has been under intense discussion for thousands of years, and you are acting like you have all the answers, and getting quite aggresive about it. Frankly, it makes you sound like an ass.
"I googled a little bit and see that Windows capped it at 4GB. Linux had >4GB modes before x86_64 came along, wonder why Windows didn't let you use it, or was it something they reserved artificially for server level OSes?"
For the same reason that each version of Windows seems to have various irritating 'characteristics'. To give the consumer a reason to upgrade. When Microsoft release the perfect version of Windows, they go out of business. Their whole business model depends on users buying upgrades to the same products over and over again. I don't know about you, but if I had a business with this dependency, I would probably build in bugs and shortcomings and then shout.... "FIXED IN THE NEXT VERSION!", when people complained.
Funny that most airlines have had in-seat phones on planes for over a decade...
Even funnier that these phones are incredibly expensive to use, and the airlines want to prevent people using free VOIP while onboard.
I don't disagree with you.
It is great when you can benefit yourself personally, and do a greater good at the same time.
My problem is with the person who make the donation for tax purposes, and then runs around telling everyone about the donation in an effort to gain credit for being selfless.
Where's all that cheap oil everyone claims we went to war for?
You miss the point. Its not about providing cheap oil to the masses, its about securing the supply for the oil companies to distribute. The price you pay at the pump has nothing to do with it. The 5 year stock price of any western oil company (go check them out on Yahoo finance) has everything to do with it.
As a Brit I will hold my hands up and publically state that I do, from time to time, engage in some playful anti-americanism. I don't offer any apologises for this however, as I happen to know that many Americans engage in some playful anti-britishness (we do, after all, receive many of your syndicated television programmes here, so get to see some of it first hand).
Having said that, I do appreciate certain benefits that the US provides and, I have visited the states on several occasions (not recently, as I am disturbed by stories I have heard on border policy) and I have found that most Americans that I actually meet to be generally quite nice folks (with some exceptions, but no more than anywhere else in the world).
What irks me, and you do this in your post, is when actions made by the US are made out to be uniquely selfless and benevolent. This simply *does not happen*. No government is a charity, every penny spent must be demonstrated to serve a self interest. What tends to happen is that an action is taken that has some kind of positive secondary effect and that secondary effect is made to look like the primary motivation, but this is nothing more than a bank robber bringing statistcs on how many innocent people that the bank he robbed happened to forclose on in the previous year.
Iraq is a case in point. Weapons of mass destruction, The oppresion of Saddam, or oil revenue/security. One of these things was a primary motivation, the other two were secondary effects spun to look like a primary motivation. Perhaps I am being arrogant myself here, but I am sure that anyone sensible understands that Iraq was a war for resources. Hell, I can even say I understand that motivation (although, the cost has been far too high).
If you are going to praise the US work that goes into protecting trade routes, at least be honest and say that this is done primary to protect the interests of US corporations (and this is true even if the actual goods move between two other states) and that the whole world benefits from the secondary effect of more secure trade routes. For that, I salute you and your culture, but please don't try to make it sound like it is done from the goodness of your hearts.
Yup, and computer nerds that new at design-time that an elegant design can solve problems not yet even considered.
It seems that the mechanism built into technologies like usenet that were designed to prevent a single point of failure, will also defend us against a single point of law suit as well.
Temba, his ass laughed off.
Yeah! Say what you like about Disney, their health cover is second to none!
My grandmother was involved in some secret trials of this technology. I have to say it is marvelous. For years she could hardly remeber a thing, but once we found a doner she can now remember everything up until the motorcylce accident.