I think you're on the right track, but maybe it needs to be a little more well defined. Magic/religion/superstition is about skipping steps in logic and jumping to unfounded conclusions. One way in which we all suffer from this fault is perhaps during social interaction. For example, when we perceive judgmental behavior or unkindness from another person, do we think "well, maybe he/she had a bad day, maybe he/she is dealing with some frustrating burden at work/school/home, I can't make assumptions about this person's character" or do we think "he/she is a jerk/bitch"? There may well be some extraordinarily magnanimous people on this earth who never think the latter, but I think it's safe to say the vast majority of people will, at one time or another, come to that conclusion without pondering the other possible explanations. So to the GP, when it comes to self-critique, never say never:)
Free speech is a right like any other. There is no such thing as a "more important right" or "less important right", they are equally so. To think less of one is to invite abuse upon it. Perhaps that's what we're seeing -- if people in China place greater value upon their lives and their ability to do business and make money within the Chinese system than on the right to speech, then things like this are able to occur as they are.
I invite you to make this same post entitled "Free speech stuff", which belittles free speech in favor of some other unspecified right, in future threads about copyright, OWS, wikileaks, net neutrality, etc. Well-reasoned thought should be able to assert itself in any context.
For many creative people, a physical connection with the medium is essential to their creativity. I can't explain it, but I've felt the same way before -- the designs which began as rough sketches and refined on paper always turn out to be more thoughtful than those that begin in CAD. Maybe it's because there's no quick way to delete something on a whim, and those things that you thought were mistakes a moment ago come back to inspire you later on.
Since people are already using brick and mortar stores as showrooms to try before buying online, maybe that's what BB needs to embrace in order to survive. Stop holding vast inventory, trade in big stores for smaller spaces that focus on social events centered around technology, and affiliate themselves with online merchants rather than fight them to their inevitable death. Imagine a place where you get to experience the future high tech house/bar/coffee shop/office. It's slicker than an Apple store, and everything you touch is a product you can buy. Snap a barcode with your phone and you're taken to a BB site where you can post your reaction/experience to facebook along with a link to buy (with BB taking commission). Couple hundred clicks/likes and you get a discount to any of their authorized affiliates.
This is a load of banal aphorisms masquerading as insight, and again the mods are easily fooled. First, the real tech secrets, those that are strategically important to industry and military, and thus targeted by spies, are NOT patented. You know why? Because you can figure out what they are by RTFPatent. Do you think chemical composition of ingredients necessary for advanced chip manufacturing are patented? Do you think radar reflective paint is patented? Do you think the composite materials for Boeing 787 are patented? Bringing patents into a spying debate shows a lack of comprehension. Secondly, the "latest gizmos" are not of strategic concern because they are not MADE in China, they are ASSEMBLED in China. The components are shipped in and then electrically connected. Knowing how to make motherboards does not naturally lead to knowing how to make an i7-3770.
The shooter should be on trial for murder if there is probable cause to believe he was the one who started the fight.
The shooter should be registered with the police and given notice that an investigation is under way, and should a strong enough case be built against him, be charged and brought to trial.
Probable cause is enough initiate searches and investigations, but not enough to keep a person under arrest or to bring him to trial. It's so very strange that the often pro civil liberty slashdot is suddenly in favor of police and government overreach.
Pointing out hypocrisy in Christian/Catholic institutions would make sense in the context of this thread if those people and institutions were using the Taliban's online presence as a point of argument to lay criticism on their extreme flanks, or to create a moral distinction between them and Christians. If Catholic/Christian members had used this opportunity to speak out against the inconsistency in Islamic teaching, then I would agree with the desire to point out hypocrisy. Yet, that wasn't what happened. Christians/Catholics weren't part of the story at hand, and pointing out their hypocrisy, however deserved that may be, in a story about the Taliban is just as out of place as pointing out Muslim hypocrisy in a story about, say, Westboro Baptist Church. (imagine a story about WBC boycotting a soldier's funeral, and someone makes a post about the cruel treatment of gays in the Islamic world. I imagine that post would be regarded as a troll or off-topic)
Now, you might get the impression that I'm pro-Christianity here, but that's far from the truth. As an atheist, I want clear and unhindered criticism of all religions. Unfortunately, the degree of self-flagellation and extreme cultural sensitivity among Western atheists makes the act of criticizing Islam much more complex and hazardous than the act of criticizing Christianity.
Something to ponder: if examples were reversed, and fuzzyfuzzyfungus had been pointing out ill-reason in bible thumpers (in pushing creationism for instance), would a post that responded with something like "oh goodness there are muslims on our public school boards?!" be modded so highly or would it be labeled flamebait/troll/off-topic?
Slashdot needs to decide once and for all, is shifting focus in response to fair criticism welcomed or unwelcomed?
Is it possible to downgrade your warranty in the EU? I think the 2 year mandatory warranty is only useful to make companies with less than stellar brand recognition invest in the quality of their products. For well-established companies, their image is too important to not strive for high quality.
This actually highlights the difference between democratic societies and undemocratic societies. In every country there will be those who desire isolation and secrecy, and those who desire openness and transparency, along with everyone in the continuum between. In democratic societies in which power is shared, opposing forces hold each other in check, with a constantly shifting balance of power. In undemocratic societies however, the dominant force has the final say and nothing holds it in check.
You can say that the latter country is only more "obvious" than the former, but that ignores the tremendous structural differences in government and law.
no, it would be like closing twitter because too many people were talking about Obama's hot mic incident unless you equate sharing copyrighted content with open access to news and interpersonal communication, there is no similarity
This is the first time that I'm made aware of this. It seems a bit pedantic since we commonly refer to party members as Democrats and not Democratics, so there's already precedence for such usage (compare with Americans / 'the American side' / 'the American nation'). In any case, I think my motivation in not adding the -ic was to avoid conflating the party with the adjective since I think there's too much semantic spin on either side anyway. It was kind of a split second decision, and I meant no disrespect.
Exactly, you can trust the scientific method, but scientists would be the first people to distrust the results of that process (not to imply that creationists are better at it than scientists, there's a distinction between irrational/rational distrust). I think you've boiled it down very well.
I think this grew from the surge in grass-roots political activism from the conservative side. Well, not just the surge, but also the comparative ineffectiveness of that surge vs those on the liberal side. Take creationists for example, there has been an effort from the bottom up to put dressed-up religiosity back into schools. So when they get shot down by the coalition of atheists and those who are religious-but-also-adamantly-adherent-to-the-constitution, they start to grow that victim mentality where it feels like there's a conspiracy behind every corner.
After reading the article, you can tell submitter left off a significant portion of the context in the summary. Even in the Republican's statement of opposition to the amendment, it's clear that they don't want employers access to employee passwords. It's probably useful to also look up the bill that the amendment tries to fix. H.R. 3309 is a bill that outlines new procedure for the FCC in its rule making process. It mostly has to do with transparency, 30-day public overview of new regulations, etc. You can read it here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3309/text
So in a bill that is altogether unrelated to pro-privacy legislation, some rep proposes a highly specific instance where the FCC would be immune to the outlined procedure. It's kind of like adding an amendment to a general police powers bill that suspends proper procedure in a highly specific instance like when they catch a carjacker. Sure that sounds good to people who have suffered from car jacking or are afraid of what carjackers can do, but does it make sense to be in this bill or would it be better in a separate bill? I understand the sense of urgency that people feel, and I'd probably agree with those who want some federal rules on what employers can demand of their workers. However, it's also not unreasonable when you read the amendment to think that it doesn't really belong in this particular bill.
The more I think about the context, the more it looks like a way for a rep on one side to embarrass the other side without trying to do anything significant. You can probably put this in the same category as "think of the children" amendments that come from the Republican side meant to embarrass their opposition politically in the realm of public opinion. Only this time it comes from the Democrat side. What saddens me is that since the summary puts Republicans in a bad light, we at/. are more willing to take the summary at face value, and don't get as many nitpickers willing to pore through the context to find the bullshit.
Flight uses a LOT more energy, and wings/rotors can get damaged on landing. Besides the obvious "wait for terrorists to walk by and jump on their backs and stab them in the neck", you can also use this for maybe roof inspection (suddenly no more personal injury), or maybe a cheap way to spread an area with fire retardant, or bring food to people trapped atop buildings by roaming zombies.
Well doing that would still be anti-competitive, less so than directly subsidizing the manufacturers since it doesn't really affect exports, but anti-competitive nonetheless. If the US did it, I'm sure other countries would definitely complain, but if it did it as a retreat from direct subsidies, it may be seen as an easier pill to swallow (hmm, that's giving me evil conspiracy ideas haha). In the US, Japanese hybrid cars are the most popular. This is because rebates are less biased, and they stimulate a sector without picking favorites within it.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, I was into solipsism BEFORE it was popular!
I think you're on the right track, but maybe it needs to be a little more well defined. Magic/religion/superstition is about skipping steps in logic and jumping to unfounded conclusions. One way in which we all suffer from this fault is perhaps during social interaction. For example, when we perceive judgmental behavior or unkindness from another person, do we think "well, maybe he/she had a bad day, maybe he/she is dealing with some frustrating burden at work/school/home, I can't make assumptions about this person's character" or do we think "he/she is a jerk/bitch"? There may well be some extraordinarily magnanimous people on this earth who never think the latter, but I think it's safe to say the vast majority of people will, at one time or another, come to that conclusion without pondering the other possible explanations. So to the GP, when it comes to self-critique, never say never :)
Free speech is a right like any other. There is no such thing as a "more important right" or "less important right", they are equally so. To think less of one is to invite abuse upon it. Perhaps that's what we're seeing -- if people in China place greater value upon their lives and their ability to do business and make money within the Chinese system than on the right to speech, then things like this are able to occur as they are.
I invite you to make this same post entitled "Free speech stuff", which belittles free speech in favor of some other unspecified right, in future threads about copyright, OWS, wikileaks, net neutrality, etc. Well-reasoned thought should be able to assert itself in any context.
She's crazy as hell, but basically harmless.
Well, not if you care about cats. Or if you are a cat.
For many creative people, a physical connection with the medium is essential to their creativity. I can't explain it, but I've felt the same way before -- the designs which began as rough sketches and refined on paper always turn out to be more thoughtful than those that begin in CAD. Maybe it's because there's no quick way to delete something on a whim, and those things that you thought were mistakes a moment ago come back to inspire you later on.
Slashdot, where yesterday's technophiles become today's luddites.
Since people are already using brick and mortar stores as showrooms to try before buying online, maybe that's what BB needs to embrace in order to survive. Stop holding vast inventory, trade in big stores for smaller spaces that focus on social events centered around technology, and affiliate themselves with online merchants rather than fight them to their inevitable death. Imagine a place where you get to experience the future high tech house/bar/coffee shop/office. It's slicker than an Apple store, and everything you touch is a product you can buy. Snap a barcode with your phone and you're taken to a BB site where you can post your reaction/experience to facebook along with a link to buy (with BB taking commission). Couple hundred clicks/likes and you get a discount to any of their authorized affiliates.
*inb4 crappy 5 minute ideas get ripped apart :)
This is a load of banal aphorisms masquerading as insight, and again the mods are easily fooled. First, the real tech secrets, those that are strategically important to industry and military, and thus targeted by spies, are NOT patented. You know why? Because you can figure out what they are by RTFPatent. Do you think chemical composition of ingredients necessary for advanced chip manufacturing are patented? Do you think radar reflective paint is patented? Do you think the composite materials for Boeing 787 are patented? Bringing patents into a spying debate shows a lack of comprehension. Secondly, the "latest gizmos" are not of strategic concern because they are not MADE in China, they are ASSEMBLED in China. The components are shipped in and then electrically connected. Knowing how to make motherboards does not naturally lead to knowing how to make an i7-3770.
The shooter should be on trial for murder if there is probable cause to believe he was the one who started the fight.
The shooter should be registered with the police and given notice that an investigation is under way, and should a strong enough case be built against him, be charged and brought to trial.
Probable cause is enough initiate searches and investigations, but not enough to keep a person under arrest or to bring him to trial. It's so very strange that the often pro civil liberty slashdot is suddenly in favor of police and government overreach.
Pointing out hypocrisy in Christian/Catholic institutions would make sense in the context of this thread if those people and institutions were using the Taliban's online presence as a point of argument to lay criticism on their extreme flanks, or to create a moral distinction between them and Christians. If Catholic/Christian members had used this opportunity to speak out against the inconsistency in Islamic teaching, then I would agree with the desire to point out hypocrisy. Yet, that wasn't what happened. Christians/Catholics weren't part of the story at hand, and pointing out their hypocrisy, however deserved that may be, in a story about the Taliban is just as out of place as pointing out Muslim hypocrisy in a story about, say, Westboro Baptist Church. (imagine a story about WBC boycotting a soldier's funeral, and someone makes a post about the cruel treatment of gays in the Islamic world. I imagine that post would be regarded as a troll or off-topic)
Now, you might get the impression that I'm pro-Christianity here, but that's far from the truth. As an atheist, I want clear and unhindered criticism of all religions. Unfortunately, the degree of self-flagellation and extreme cultural sensitivity among Western atheists makes the act of criticizing Islam much more complex and hazardous than the act of criticizing Christianity.
Something to ponder: if examples were reversed, and fuzzyfuzzyfungus had been pointing out ill-reason in bible thumpers (in pushing creationism for instance), would a post that responded with something like "oh goodness there are muslims on our public school boards?!" be modded so highly or would it be labeled flamebait/troll/off-topic?
Slashdot needs to decide once and for all, is shifting focus in response to fair criticism welcomed or unwelcomed?
Is it possible to downgrade your warranty in the EU? I think the 2 year mandatory warranty is only useful to make companies with less than stellar brand recognition invest in the quality of their products. For well-established companies, their image is too important to not strive for high quality.
This actually highlights the difference between democratic societies and undemocratic societies. In every country there will be those who desire isolation and secrecy, and those who desire openness and transparency, along with everyone in the continuum between. In democratic societies in which power is shared, opposing forces hold each other in check, with a constantly shifting balance of power. In undemocratic societies however, the dominant force has the final say and nothing holds it in check.
You can say that the latter country is only more "obvious" than the former, but that ignores the tremendous structural differences in government and law.
no, it would be like closing twitter because too many people were talking about Obama's hot mic incident
unless you equate sharing copyrighted content with open access to news and interpersonal communication, there is no similarity
Plus, street numbers in the US typically go odd/even on either side of the street, so they can extrapolate most of the time.
All the more reason to hate politics :(
This is the first time that I'm made aware of this. It seems a bit pedantic since we commonly refer to party members as Democrats and not Democratics, so there's already precedence for such usage (compare with Americans / 'the American side' / 'the American nation'). In any case, I think my motivation in not adding the -ic was to avoid conflating the party with the adjective since I think there's too much semantic spin on either side anyway. It was kind of a split second decision, and I meant no disrespect.
Something tells me you didn't read my post all the way through...
Exactly, you can trust the scientific method, but scientists would be the first people to distrust the results of that process (not to imply that creationists are better at it than scientists, there's a distinction between irrational/rational distrust). I think you've boiled it down very well.
I think this grew from the surge in grass-roots political activism from the conservative side. Well, not just the surge, but also the comparative ineffectiveness of that surge vs those on the liberal side. Take creationists for example, there has been an effort from the bottom up to put dressed-up religiosity back into schools. So when they get shot down by the coalition of atheists and those who are religious-but-also-adamantly-adherent-to-the-constitution, they start to grow that victim mentality where it feels like there's a conspiracy behind every corner.
After reading the article, you can tell submitter left off a significant portion of the context in the summary. Even in the Republican's statement of opposition to the amendment, it's clear that they don't want employers access to employee passwords. It's probably useful to also look up the bill that the amendment tries to fix. H.R. 3309 is a bill that outlines new procedure for the FCC in its rule making process. It mostly has to do with transparency, 30-day public overview of new regulations, etc. You can read it here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3309/text
So in a bill that is altogether unrelated to pro-privacy legislation, some rep proposes a highly specific instance where the FCC would be immune to the outlined procedure. It's kind of like adding an amendment to a general police powers bill that suspends proper procedure in a highly specific instance like when they catch a carjacker. Sure that sounds good to people who have suffered from car jacking or are afraid of what carjackers can do, but does it make sense to be in this bill or would it be better in a separate bill? I understand the sense of urgency that people feel, and I'd probably agree with those who want some federal rules on what employers can demand of their workers. However, it's also not unreasonable when you read the amendment to think that it doesn't really belong in this particular bill.
The more I think about the context, the more it looks like a way for a rep on one side to embarrass the other side without trying to do anything significant. You can probably put this in the same category as "think of the children" amendments that come from the Republican side meant to embarrass their opposition politically in the realm of public opinion. Only this time it comes from the Democrat side. What saddens me is that since the summary puts Republicans in a bad light, we at /. are more willing to take the summary at face value, and don't get as many nitpickers willing to pore through the context to find the bullshit.
Flight uses a LOT more energy, and wings/rotors can get damaged on landing. Besides the obvious "wait for terrorists to walk by and jump on their backs and stab them in the neck", you can also use this for maybe roof inspection (suddenly no more personal injury), or maybe a cheap way to spread an area with fire retardant, or bring food to people trapped atop buildings by roaming zombies.
Robot fleas launched from Big Dog motherships (motherdogs, motherbots?)
Well doing that would still be anti-competitive, less so than directly subsidizing the manufacturers since it doesn't really affect exports, but anti-competitive nonetheless. If the US did it, I'm sure other countries would definitely complain, but if it did it as a retreat from direct subsidies, it may be seen as an easier pill to swallow (hmm, that's giving me evil conspiracy ideas haha). In the US, Japanese hybrid cars are the most popular. This is because rebates are less biased, and they stimulate a sector without picking favorites within it.