This is posted under the heading "Your Rights Online". I RTFA, but I didn't see anything about this being an online event. Did I miss something? Are you reading about your rights online? Would the kid be less in trouble if he'd emailed the assignment rather than hand it in on hard paper?
He was arrested for writing something in particular. We still don't know what he wrote. Perhaps we shouldn't rush to judgment (I know this is Slashdot.. stop laughing) until we know more about what he wrote.
He was arrested for looking like the VT shooter and writing that he dreamed he took two guns and shot people in a building (there's a +5 informative link upthread).
He was also instructed to write anything that went through his head and not to censor anything. He is now being punished for following the teacher's instructions. A week after a media frenzy about an event, he's told to write what goes through his head, and he's punished for thinking about recent events.
Sending him to a school shrink? Good idea. Punishing him for his thoughts? Orwellian.
Fuckin' a, buddy. I'm all in favor of helping humanity, that is other humans, in any way possible, but every time someone looks to take on a humanitarian aid project they look to do it overseas.
Our schools here in the US are total shitboxes (most of them, and not as bad as those in some other countries), we have starving people just like everywhere else,
Poor people in the US are too fat. Poor people "overseas" die hungry.
I strongly encourage you to help those less fortunate than you who live close to you: Act locally, but please, think globally.
why aren't we going for: "One desktop per family"? [...] lends itself better to donations of old equipment. Because they're going to people without desks. Because they're going to people without a power grid. Because a child can't lug a desktop to school.
The point is to provide for their computing needs, not to pander to your desire for a tax write off for a donation of your old junker desktop.
I kept seeing those when I traveled to the near future, aka "Japan". Microsoft's solution requires a 4 colour printer, this one is monochromatic... why am I not surprised that Microsoft is pushing their own bloated implementation of an already popular technology through "undisclosed financial terms"?
I guess I don't see what the big deal over what Dr. Phil said. He isn't saying violent games make these people kill. He is saying that mixing violent media with psychopaths is going to set these people off. Really, if gamers are so upset by this, they are over-reacting...probably from having to be on the defensive so much from morons like Jack. DR. PHIL: Well, Larry, every situation is different... The question really is can we spot them. And the problem is we are programming these people as a society. You cannot tell me - common sense tells you that if these kids are playing video games, where they're on a mass killing spree in a video game, it's glamorized on the big screen, it's become part of the fiber of our society. You take that and mix it with a psychopath, a sociopath or someone suffering from mental illness and add in a dose of rage, the suggestibility is too high.
And we're going to have to start dealing with that. We're going to have to start addressing those issues and recognizing that the mass murders of tomorrow are the children of today that are being programmed with this massive violence overdose.
The good people at kotaku have a point: Games HAVE an influence, even if they don't cause us to become mindless killers. But when you say that kids are programmed to kill, you're saying something entirely different.
Oy. So now it makes a difference if I'm using my own computer or not? Or if I'm eating a bagel while logging in? Or if I have a hangover? Because my typing pattern is going to be different in each case. You appear to have a hangover, while you were drunk, I intercepted the email you wrote to
the girl from the office
would you like to read it again before it is sent?
Gee, my bank imposes it on me. (Heck, they don't even support IE7 yet.) So does mine... except if you check their stated reason to do so (encryption support) and email them to point out that firefox supports it too, then the nice webmaster emailed me back to tell me that if firefox has the right level of encryption, then it's fine to use with their website even though they still have a notice that only lists the one browser they tested all those years ago.
So, I was affraid my bank was stupid, turns out they're lazy.
The lesson is, people say IE is required out of habit, not because it actually is.
I'm actually still having trouble with the OP's point that professional athletes don't have many children. Seriously. Pro athletes get all the pussy they want.
Not at mine. We had a couple annoying ones who were despised for being annoying, but that had nothing to do with being computer nerds. I had the tape-glasses nerd cliché running around my classrom... nice guy, too. He helped anyone witht heir computer homework. Then again, that was before instant messaging and all that jazz, back when only nerds knew about email.
What I'm trying to say is if women don't want to enroll, so be it. Why force this 'positive discrimination'?
Because of the negative discrimination that is artificially limiting the number of women in the field in the first place. Discrimination in the form of men assuming that women "don't want to enroll", simply because they're women and thus less interested in our manly computer engineering/sciences. What a load of pure bullshit.
Women don't enroll because men assume they don't want to enroll? Where's the gorram cause and effect in there? Women don't enroll because, guess what, they're not interrested. Some neroll, but there's less women interrested in techie stuff than men, and there's less men interrested in fashion stuff than women. Is that wrong? Is that bad? It's a natural choice.
What's artificial and discriminatory is trying to rewrite the curriculum so that it will focus less on creating competant progrmers and focus more on interresting women. That is artificial, and no good will come of it. If it does attract more women, these will be incompetant programmers, who will augment the perception that women can't do this job, wich will result in less women being employed in the field.
Removing an artificial barrier is one thing, creating an artificial lure is another.
weapons on your friends, cousins, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers. Chances are that a good 90% of the military would refuse those orders Think about that the next time you read about the robot soldiers of the future battlefront.
The question, I think, is if you are more frightened of someone that goes through the process to carry a concealed weapon (and infact does so) than you are of some fuckin' nut who goes around shooting people? What makes you think the nut didn't have the proper paperwork on his weapon? The guy that shot up a college in Montreal last september had all his guns registered.
Despite the fact that people in the Western world are living longer and healthier lives than ever before That trend has stalled, something about the obese not living long nor healthy lives.
How's this set of principles: Automated systems can fire on other automated systems willy-nilly, assuming no people are likely to be in the fire zone. Automated systems can fire on people, but only if that person is pointing a weapon at the machine or at the people the machine is there to protect. You have 15 seconds to comply...
Plus robots are controlled by someone at a terminal...they don't control themselves. I think this whole discussion is pointless until we have AI. There already is an automated, 95% reliable, land-based PHALANX gun. And this year's DARPA grand challenge is to have automated, driverless vehicles capable of navigating urban environments.
Not to mention the korean nightmares... So, I'd like these military robot laws implemented before they start using ED209s for urban law enforcement.
ob quote: "The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you."
My arguement for the evolution of media is for content to free itself from its monetary dependancies on the major studios. Building a whole Shire, Moria, Mordor, etc. That ain't cheap, you know.
I think that the decline of music sales coincides with the rise in internet usage not because of the terrible pirates of music, but because of porn. Bear with me, it makes sense if you think about it:
I used to watch videos for very mediocre music, because the chicks were hot, scantily dressed, and fed this former teenager's fantasies. But today's kids don't need to buy a CD to have fap-fudder, they can get free porn with ease.
I theorize that the so-called decline of the music industry isn't because of music pirates, as they claim, or because their music suddenly sucks (the monkeys sucked, sucking isn't new), but because they were NOT in the music of selling music, but in the business of selling sexually suggestive material.
YouTube is not equal to "freely access and spread". YouTube is a single website. Some media companies are 100% fine with their content being freely accessible on the internet, so long as it is accessible through their servers only. That is, they make the ad revenue, not YouTube. That is all the Viacom/YouTube issue about - who makes the ad revenue. Not about them 'getting that allowing free access is good for them'. Free as in speech, not beer.
I don't care if a media dinosaur has some content on their website, I don't WANT to install real player to see a 100x100px mosaic of slow loading artefacts. The reason why youtube is now a household name is because their system actually works well. They don't make you wait for your clip, like the other guys do (no, I do not want to buy your car, I know that after the one second it takes for me to know I'm watching a car ad, forcing me to sit and wait while you harass me with your car ad makes me want to hurt you, not give you money). Put the ads in non-obtrusive formats around the content, don't interfere with my access to the content, and I'll watch, otherwise I'll close that tab and move along.
I'm pretty sure that youTube is offering a profit sharing scheme with the content owners, and their own 100%-ours website can still offer a competing video service for the same content, this way they'd see which source of revenue is greater. But it's not all about the ad revenue, it's about control. They want it over their revenue, their content, and their public. We want to be free. We clash.
Youtube could be the beginning of the end for exclusive distribution, and that would be the start of something good for the public.
Word of mouth is powerful, because people generally respect a personal opinion more so than a fake corporate one. Which is why the corporate middlemen want it dead. They are fighting for their parasitic jobs.
Is not the greater degree of selfishness to steal from others to insure your own safety, literally at all costs? See, this is exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about. It ensures EVERYONE'S safety, not -mine-. But you automatically reduce it to a selfish and simplistic viewpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
Would the kid be less in trouble if he'd emailed the assignment rather than hand it in on hard paper?
He was arrested for writing something in particular. We still don't know what he wrote. Perhaps we shouldn't rush to judgment (I know this is Slashdot.. stop laughing) until we know more about what he wrote.
He was arrested for looking like the VT shooter and writing that he dreamed he took two guns and shot people in a building (there's a +5 informative link upthread).He was also instructed to write anything that went through his head and not to censor anything. He is now being punished for following the teacher's instructions. A week after a media frenzy about an event, he's told to write what goes through his head, and he's punished for thinking about recent events.
Sending him to a school shrink? Good idea.
Punishing him for his thoughts? Orwellian.
Fuckin' a, buddy. I'm all in favor of helping humanity, that is other humans, in any way possible, but every time someone looks to take on a humanitarian aid project they look to do it overseas.
Our schools here in the US are total shitboxes (most of them, and not as bad as those in some other countries), we have starving people just like everywhere else,
Poor people in the US are too fat.Poor people "overseas" die hungry.
I strongly encourage you to help those less fortunate than you who live close to you: Act locally, but please, think globally.
"One desktop per family"? [...] lends itself better to donations of old equipment. Because they're going to people without desks.
Because they're going to people without a power grid.
Because a child can't lug a desktop to school.
The point is to provide for their computing needs, not to pander to your desire for a tax write off for a donation of your old junker desktop.
I kept seeing those when I traveled to the near future, aka "Japan". Microsoft's solution requires a 4 colour printer, this one is monochromatic... why am I not surprised that Microsoft is pushing their own bloated implementation of an already popular technology through "undisclosed financial terms"?
And we're going to have to start dealing with that. We're going to have to start addressing those issues and recognizing that the mass murders of tomorrow are the children of today that are being programmed with this massive violence overdose.
What videogame programmed the mass murders of the past?
The good people at kotaku have a point: Games HAVE an influence, even if they don't cause us to become mindless killers. But when you say that kids are programmed to kill, you're saying something entirely different.
while you were drunk, I intercepted the email you wrote to
- the girl from the office
would you like to read it again before it is sent?[No] [Ignore] [Cancel]
So, I was affraid my bank was stupid, turns out they're lazy.
The lesson is, people say IE is required out of habit, not because it actually is.
Then again, that was before instant messaging and all that jazz, back when only nerds knew about email.
Because of the negative discrimination that is artificially limiting the number of women in the field in the first place. Discrimination in the form of men assuming that women "don't want to enroll", simply because they're women and thus less interested in our manly computer engineering/sciences. What a load of pure bullshit.
Women don't enroll because men assume they don't want to enroll? Where's the gorram cause and effect in there?
Women don't enroll because, guess what, they're not interrested. Some neroll, but there's less women interrested in techie stuff than men, and there's less men interrested in fashion stuff than women.
Is that wrong? Is that bad? It's a natural choice.
What's artificial and discriminatory is trying to rewrite the curriculum so that it will focus less on creating competant progrmers and focus more on interresting women. That is artificial, and no good will come of it. If it does attract more women, these will be incompetant programmers, who will augment the perception that women can't do this job, wich will result in less women being employed in the field.
Removing an artificial barrier is one thing, creating an artificial lure is another.
The guy that shot up a college in Montreal last september had all his guns registered.
Damn! All this time I was downloading plans of the Enterprise and you had plans to get to the real one?
Got a link?
Automated systems can fire on other automated systems willy-nilly, assuming no people are likely to be in the fire zone.
Automated systems can fire on people, but only if that person is pointing a weapon at the machine or at the people the machine is there to protect. You have 15 seconds to comply...
Not to mention the korean nightmares...
So, I'd like these military robot laws implemented before they start using ED209s for urban law enforcement.
ob quote:
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you."
I think that the decline of music sales coincides with the rise in internet usage not because of the terrible pirates of music, but because of porn. Bear with me, it makes sense if you think about it:
I used to watch videos for very mediocre music, because the chicks were hot, scantily dressed, and fed this former teenager's fantasies. But today's kids don't need to buy a CD to have fap-fudder, they can get free porn with ease.
I theorize that the so-called decline of the music industry isn't because of music pirates, as they claim, or because their music suddenly sucks (the monkeys sucked, sucking isn't new), but because they were NOT in the music of selling music, but in the business of selling sexually suggestive material.
The popularity of a tv-show therefore only matters if you get people to watch ads. Youtube does NOT run NBC ads, therefore it don't help NBC.
Bad example, dude.I don't care if a media dinosaur has some content on their website, I don't WANT to install real player to see a 100x100px mosaic of slow loading artefacts. The reason why youtube is now a household name is because their system actually works well.
They don't make you wait for your clip, like the other guys do (no, I do not want to buy your car, I know that after the one second it takes for me to know I'm watching a car ad, forcing me to sit and wait while you harass me with your car ad makes me want to hurt you, not give you money). Put the ads in non-obtrusive formats around the content, don't interfere with my access to the content, and I'll watch, otherwise I'll close that tab and move along.
I'm pretty sure that youTube is offering a profit sharing scheme with the content owners, and their own 100%-ours website can still offer a competing video service for the same content, this way they'd see which source of revenue is greater.
But it's not all about the ad revenue, it's about control. They want it over their revenue, their content, and their public. We want to be free.
We clash.
Youtube could be the beginning of the end for exclusive distribution, and that would be the start of something good for the public.
They are fighting for their parasitic jobs.
Cell phone buyers, or releasing the preview to Microsoft's next OS features?
...and you know the end product never lives up to the previews ;-)
It ensures EVERYONE'S safety, not -mine-. But you automatically reduce it to a selfish and simplistic viewpoint.