And perhaps we wouldn't have so many economic problems if instead of always blaming "the man", we took responsibility for not being a savings culture, living always on credit and always ready to jump into the next speculative thing
If people have the chance to make a quick buck by exploiting the holes in the system, they will. The only thing we can do is to plug the holes.
I think people are responsible for their own, personal misery resulting from taking too big loans, but the misery on a large scale (economic recession) and the indirect effects it has on people, is the responsibility of the government.
I work at a Danish multi-national corporation. It has English as its official language, but most of the top-level bosses are Danes. I've noticed that people here are using some peculiar English phrases, and I'm guessing they're based on grammatical misconceptions from one of the bosses which have then spread throughout the organisation. For example, at our company, we don't "reply" to e-mails; we "revert" to them. I haven't seen this particular error anywhere else.
According to a high school teacher of mine, odd dialects among the upper class, like speaking with a lisp or through your nose, were historically often the result of a speech impediment with one of the royals, which was copied by those below him.
It also reminds me of the American president who made people pronounce "nuclear" "nukular".
Here's a hint on how to use it: the dropping of "to be" only applies to the specific verb "need".
It's probably a mix of "It needs to be changed" and "It needs a change".
No, "ironically" is correct. In the sentence "Ironically Hotz wasn't the first school-aged hacker who...", "ironically" modifies the predicate ("wasn't"), not the subject ("Hotz"), so it's an adverb, not an adjective. It's not Hotz who's ironic; it's him being "the first school-aged hacker..."
And what you said about Sony settling because they couldn't win could just as easily be said about Geohot.
No, because Geohot doesn't have the money for a lawsuit from a large multinational corporation. As an ordinary private citizen, you'd better agree to the settlement, even if you're innocent. Even if you come out winning a decade later, you'll have lost ten years of your life and amassed legal fees you'll never be able to pay back.
The situation is not symmetrical. It's nothing strange or unusual for a large corporation to come out ahead in a settlement against a private person even if their legal position is weak.
Geohot hasn't committed any crime. He hasn't even been accused of one. Sony sued him (i.e, a civil trial, not a criminal one) for publishing information that allowed people to modify their own PS3 consoles. It's highly doubtful he broke any law by publishing the information, and the parties eventually settled out of court.
It's kind of worrying that people think there's anything illegal about what these hackers do, just because multinational corporations try to scare them with dubious lawsuits. Does something automatically become illegal or immoral because a large corporation doesn't like what you do?
Oh, and the OP's point is that you have to work for good looks... those who want to belong to the most attractive 1% usually have to be lucky and work for it. Much like the most intellectually successful 1%.
Those are things which have been shown to affect perception of attractiveness in scientific studies, but that's just because they're easy to measure. I don't think it has been shown how important they are in relation to other factors.
But I agree inborn factors like bone structure are important if your goal is to belong to the most attractive 1%, as opposed to, say, the most attractive 10%.
How much of looks depends on bone structure? Even someone with unattractive facial features can become much more attractive by working out, spending time on clothes and hair, caring for their skin, working on their posture, etc. And that goes for both men and women.
Re:BitCoins are simply a hobby, not a currency
on
Bitcoin Price Crashes
·
· Score: 1
About those anomalous 30% swings... those were manufactured by the private central bank at the time, for the purpose of bankrupting debtors in order to snatch up their property.
That's possible; I'm not that familiar with US-American history. But the same fluctuations have occurred in other countries with gold currencies throughout history.
Like every other commodity, the value of gold currency goes up and down depending on supply and demand. When people need gold - for example, when they cash in their investments - there'll be a shortage, and the price will go up. When people try to trade gold for other commodities - for example, when they invest - there'll be a surplus, and the price will go down.
Re:BitCoins are simply a hobby, not a currency
on
Bitcoin Price Crashes
·
· Score: 1
I'm still missing your point. Why do we have to inflate our money? If we wanted zero inflation, the Federal bank could just stop lending out money.
The state doesn't finance it's activities with loans; countries with fiat currency who pay back their debts still have inflation.
Re:BitCoins are simply a hobby, not a currency
on
Bitcoin Price Crashes
·
· Score: 1
You're missing the point... with fluctuations as high as +/- 30% per year, the net effect over long periods may be close to zero, but it's the short-term fluctuations which are dangerous. They make every loan and investment into a much bigger risk than they need to be. The money lenders need to take out a premium interest to cover their risks (i.e, borrowing money gets more expensive), while the money borrowers, on their end, need a higher potential profit to make the risk worthwhile. The net effect is that fewer investments are deemed worthwhile, and fewer of them get made.
A steady, predictable inflation of +2% per year, is much preferable to a wildly fluctuating inflation with a zero average.
That money loses its value over time is not a problem. Money is just a circulatory aid; it eases the exchange of goods and services. The real value lies in the goods and services themselves, and that value doesn't disappear because of inflation. Any sensible person doesn't hoard cash in their mattress; they invest it or buy goods for it, so inflation can't touch it.
Many activists are more interested in making grand gestures and gaining status within their own organisation, than bringing about actual change. Even terrorist organisations tend to follow this pattern.
... a federal court just ruled that a gun fired with your gloves on is not "lethal", finally exonerating O.J. Simpson from the murder he was found guilty of in a civil trial.
I haven't seen a MS sales rep in person, so I have no opinion on their feelings. But product-wise, they should have no fear. MS Office is very much entrenched and the newcomer has to offer something drastically better to have a chance.
For home users, the lower price of OpenOffice/Libreofice is often enough.
Well, the article did clearly specify this was a different type of detector, which worked by emitting neutrons, exciting nearby fissionable material, and measuring the radiation given off by it after excitation. Still, it's unlikely the boy has has a portable nuclear reactor. Perhaps some of the article is true, and the journalist confused that part.
I know the difference; I just used the wrong word. And I don't deny WebGL has huge security issues; it's still hypocritical to dismiss WebGL when you promote even more unsafe technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
Agree, it's lazy journalism.
And perhaps we wouldn't have so many economic problems if instead of always blaming "the man", we took responsibility for not being a savings culture, living always on credit and always ready to jump into the next speculative thing
If people have the chance to make a quick buck by exploiting the holes in the system, they will. The only thing we can do is to plug the holes.
I think people are responsible for their own, personal misery resulting from taking too big loans, but the misery on a large scale (economic recession) and the indirect effects it has on people, is the responsibility of the government.
Well, the grandparent may just have wished to point out that Geohot was technically breaking the law, even if it was justified.
I highly doubt Geohot did even that, though. I haven't seen any evidence of it.
P.S. There should be a comma after "Ironically", though.
I work at a Danish multi-national corporation. It has English as its official language, but most of the top-level bosses are Danes. I've noticed that people here are using some peculiar English phrases, and I'm guessing they're based on grammatical misconceptions from one of the bosses which have then spread throughout the organisation. For example, at our company, we don't "reply" to e-mails; we "revert" to them. I haven't seen this particular error anywhere else.
According to a high school teacher of mine, odd dialects among the upper class, like speaking with a lisp or through your nose, were historically often the result of a speech impediment with one of the royals, which was copied by those below him.
It also reminds me of the American president who made people pronounce "nuclear" "nukular".
Here's a hint on how to use it: the dropping of "to be" only applies to the specific verb "need".
It's probably a mix of "It needs to be changed" and "It needs a change".
No, "ironically" is correct. In the sentence "Ironically Hotz wasn't the first school-aged hacker who...", "ironically" modifies the predicate ("wasn't"), not the subject ("Hotz"), so it's an adverb, not an adjective. It's not Hotz who's ironic; it's him being "the first school-aged hacker..."
What's with this aversion against "ironically"?
And what you said about Sony settling because they couldn't win could just as easily be said about Geohot.
No, because Geohot doesn't have the money for a lawsuit from a large multinational corporation. As an ordinary private citizen, you'd better agree to the settlement, even if you're innocent. Even if you come out winning a decade later, you'll have lost ten years of your life and amassed legal fees you'll never be able to pay back.
The situation is not symmetrical. It's nothing strange or unusual for a large corporation to come out ahead in a settlement against a private person even if their legal position is weak.
Hacking iOS and hacking the PS3 is quite different from developing end-user apps for it.
But the skills needed to hack iOS and PS3 are very useful when you're trying to build a secure system.
Interpretation 4: He's a guy who loves programming and doesn't care much for politics.
It's higly doubtful he broke any of the criminal provisions of the DMCA. Sony only sued him; they didn't file any criminal charges.
Geohot hasn't committed any crime. He hasn't even been accused of one. Sony sued him (i.e, a civil trial, not a criminal one) for publishing information that allowed people to modify their own PS3 consoles. It's highly doubtful he broke any law by publishing the information, and the parties eventually settled out of court.
It's kind of worrying that people think there's anything illegal about what these hackers do, just because multinational corporations try to scare them with dubious lawsuits. Does something automatically become illegal or immoral because a large corporation doesn't like what you do?
Oh, and the OP's point is that you have to work for good looks... those who want to belong to the most attractive 1% usually have to be lucky and work for it. Much like the most intellectually successful 1%.
Those are things which have been shown to affect perception of attractiveness in scientific studies, but that's just because they're easy to measure. I don't think it has been shown how important they are in relation to other factors.
But I agree inborn factors like bone structure are important if your goal is to belong to the most attractive 1%, as opposed to, say, the most attractive 10%.
How much of looks depends on bone structure? Even someone with unattractive facial features can become much more attractive by working out, spending time on clothes and hair, caring for their skin, working on their posture, etc. And that goes for both men and women.
About those anomalous 30% swings... those were manufactured by the private central bank at the time, for the purpose of bankrupting debtors in order to snatch up their property.
That's possible; I'm not that familiar with US-American history. But the same fluctuations have occurred in other countries with gold currencies throughout history.
Like every other commodity, the value of gold currency goes up and down depending on supply and demand. When people need gold - for example, when they cash in their investments - there'll be a shortage, and the price will go up. When people try to trade gold for other commodities - for example, when they invest - there'll be a surplus, and the price will go down.
I'm still missing your point. Why do we have to inflate our money? If we wanted zero inflation, the Federal bank could just stop lending out money.
The state doesn't finance it's activities with loans; countries with fiat currency who pay back their debts still have inflation.
You're missing the point... with fluctuations as high as +/- 30% per year, the net effect over long periods may be close to zero, but it's the short-term fluctuations which are dangerous. They make every loan and investment into a much bigger risk than they need to be. The money lenders need to take out a premium interest to cover their risks (i.e, borrowing money gets more expensive), while the money borrowers, on their end, need a higher potential profit to make the risk worthwhile. The net effect is that fewer investments are deemed worthwhile, and fewer of them get made.
A steady, predictable inflation of +2% per year, is much preferable to a wildly fluctuating inflation with a zero average.
That money loses its value over time is not a problem. Money is just a circulatory aid; it eases the exchange of goods and services. The real value lies in the goods and services themselves, and that value doesn't disappear because of inflation. Any sensible person doesn't hoard cash in their mattress; they invest it or buy goods for it, so inflation can't touch it.
Many activists are more interested in making grand gestures and gaining status within their own organisation, than bringing about actual change. Even terrorist organisations tend to follow this pattern.
The murder itself wasn't unusual. The fact that O.J got away with it, with all the evidence against him, was.
Can you help me find a better phrase?
... a federal court just ruled that a gun fired with your gloves on is not "lethal", finally exonerating O.J. Simpson from the murder he was found guilty of in a civil trial.
I haven't seen a MS sales rep in person, so I have no opinion on their feelings. But product-wise, they should have no fear. MS Office is very much entrenched and the newcomer has to offer something drastically better to have a chance.
For home users, the lower price of OpenOffice/Libreofice is often enough.
Well, the article did clearly specify this was a different type of detector, which worked by emitting neutrons, exciting nearby fissionable material, and measuring the radiation given off by it after excitation. Still, it's unlikely the boy has has a portable nuclear reactor. Perhaps some of the article is true, and the journalist confused that part.
I know the difference; I just used the wrong word. And I don't deny WebGL has huge security issues; it's still hypocritical to dismiss WebGL when you promote even more unsafe technologies.
Not much into humour, are we?