"but you won't find a lot of 18 year olds hanging out with 12 year olds"
I wouldn't make that assumption. I come from a rural environment and know a lot of homeschooling families, and people from these two groups do tend to make friends from a fairly wide spectrum of age groups. That's probably at least partly because homeschoolers aren't segregated with their own age group nearly as much as the rest of the population, and country folks don't have a dense population from which to make friends in the first place.
Of course, these are also small populations in which everyone knows everyone else, for the most part, and there's less risk of kids getting mixed up with the wrong crowd in the first place, so parents probably aren't as leery about their younger kids hanging out with older ones. Whatever the reasons, I do see it happening quite a bit around here.
"MAC banning is ineffective since nearly every card these days can have it's MAC address reprogramed. Real solutions are tied to the student's university login account which is associated with their other student records."
If they're not savvy enough to keep their computer clean of viruses, they probably aren't savvy enough to change their MAC address either.
" Drug jokes aside , the game does have some ideas pulled from life. Turn a map of Hyrule over and you have the state of Washington. I gotta hunch Gannons castle sits where the city of Redmont is."
While the irony would be delicious, unfortunately Ganon's hideout is closer to where Spokane would be.
"If, as the creationists claim, evolution doesn't happen, then Noah had to have taken at least two of every species that currently exists on earth. If he didn't, then they evolved."
Very well. They evolved. All of the varietes of cattle we see today evolved from one pair of some sort of bovine that walked off the ark. It's just a word. I'm a creationist, and I don't have a problem with that. A lot of creationists will go wild at any mention of the word "evolution", but some of us draw a distinction between a reconstruction of the entire history of life, and an explanation of how animals change and develop on a scale we can observe. If the latter is properly described as "evolution", then I believe in evolution without believing that all life arose from a single-celled organism. That much isn't contradictory.
"I mean, generally speaking, most people agree that any form of racist supremacy is bad, but if it doesn't have anything to do with the charges against him, then mentioning it just incites the audience unfairly. If his political views do have something to do with his actions, then they should have let us know instead of leaving us hanging."
I agree with you. But when I read the article I sort of assumed that the content of the spam he sent out included offensive racial content. It might possibly be relevant in that such content coming from the email addresses of reputable journalist could cause them quite a bit of emotional distress as they try to explain the situation.
If that's the case, though, the article probably should have mentioned it.
"I love to know why a source code leak cost them four months?"
One major reason is that they're trying to make it difficult to cheat. Cheating has been a major problem in the original half-life. If the cheaters have the source code, they can likely come up with more efficient or less obvious ways to cheat.
If you contaminate Europa with Earth organisms, and later send a probe to Europa to attempt to detect signs of life, you might detect the contaminants and mistake them for alien life.
And then of course you have the whole "Prime Directive" debate: do we want to alter the course of development of whatever alien life there may be?
Conservative?
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Liberals often are flummoxed by the way conservatives seem to love big business (including, of course, big media). Yet the reason is simple: they love winners, literally. They like to reward strength and achievement. They hate rewarding weakness for the same reason a parent hates rewarding kids' poor grades. This, more than anything else, is what makes conservatives so radically different from liberals. It's why favorite liberal buzzwords like "fairness" and "opportunity" are fingernails on the chalkboards of conservative minds. To conservatives, those words are code-talk for punishing the strong and rewarding the weak."
I'm a hardcore conservative, and I'm not sure how much I agree with this definition. To my way of thinking, it's not a matter of "rewarding the strong". It's a matter of incentive --- if people are going to be taken care of no matter whether or not they do any useful work, they simply aren't likely to do any useful work. It's more a matter of rewarding effort than of rewarding strength. Granted, there are some serious problems with the way capitalism works too, and it does often turn out that the "stronger" ones do better. But I think that's the nature of freedom. You can't truly have freedom without the possibility of great success or great failure.
On a side note, as a conservative, I'm very strongly against the modern notion of "intellectual property". I'm all for property rights, capitalism, and the free market. But as the article mentions, copyright isn't a property right and shouldn't be treated as one. I believe in the Constitution above everything else, as far as politics go. And in the thinking of the founders, copyright cannot be a property right. Property is a right that the founders envisionsed as being inherent to mankind --- right up there with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights like that cannot be infringed by the state. They are not granted by the state. They are inherent to the people. But, the Constitution allows Congress to GRANT and LIMIT copyright. If copyright were an inherent right, they would have protected it as such --- they certainly wouldn't have given Congress the authority to "grant" it. Therefore I must conclude that the notion of "intellectual property" is thoroughly unconstitutional, and thus I cannot support it.
You can get rid of them, too. Just draw a chalk outline of a body outside your door/cave/whatever, and scatter some JW pamphlets around. Then you can sleep all day if you want to.
"I can always waste the telemarketer's time (let them go thru their entire pitch and then say something like "What's that? Could you speak up a little?") and cost the telemarketing company money."
I save the time. I just put the phone down and let them talk to empty air, and then eventually hang up the phone when it starts making the "Hey stupid, you left your phone off the hook" sound.
"If you buy a can opener and it breaks, do you expect to get another can opener for free"
A can opener or a book is a physical item. When you buy a can opener, you're buying one can opener. You actually posses that item. This is not so with DVDs, according to the MPAA and their cronies: instead, you are buying the right to watch the movie contained in that DVD. Therefore it's reasonable to claim that this right persists regardless of what happens to the physical medium the movie is contained on.
The movie is an abstract concept (i.e. "intellectual property"); the can opener is a physical item. The two are inherently different.
"That first plate of ribs you order is out real quick. The ribs you get are meaty and juicy. The second plate is usually kinda fatty and takes a lot longer to get out of the kitchen."
It's not anything new. They were doing this 2,000 years ago. Read the Biblical story of Jesus turning water into wine sometime --- the guy who tasted the transformed wine was surprised at its quality because the normal practice was to serve the best wine first and then bring out the crappy wine later, when the guests were too drunk to know the difference.
Right, we would have a much better society if we spent all our tax money on welfare instead of defense --- and then the next psychotic petty dictator to come along would come and kick our butt because we wouldn't have any military with which to deter him.:)
Well, I'd guess it would be fairly effective. Just call the number and say "YES! I'd like to enlarge my (well, you know) by five inches like you said in the ad!"
If they say "Get lost, you pervert!" and hang up, you know somebody was framing them.
I have a Gateway with a 15.7" screen too, at 1280x1024, and I couldn't be happier with it. Maybe I COULD read text at a smaller size, but I certainly wouldn't be comfortable doing so. To my way of thinking, 1280x1024 is plenty of resolution for this size screen, and unless you'd going to do like Apple and make notebooks with 17" screens, I can't really see using a resolution much higher than that.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't make that assumption. I come from a rural environment and know a lot of homeschooling families, and people from these two groups do tend to make friends from a fairly wide spectrum of age groups. That's probably at least partly because homeschoolers aren't segregated with their own age group nearly as much as the rest of the population, and country folks don't have a dense population from which to make friends in the first place.
Of course, these are also small populations in which everyone knows everyone else, for the most part, and there's less risk of kids getting mixed up with the wrong crowd in the first place, so parents probably aren't as leery about their younger kids hanging out with older ones. Whatever the reasons, I do see it happening quite a bit around here.
That's amazing! I have the same combination on my luggage!
If they're not savvy enough to keep their computer clean of viruses, they probably aren't savvy enough to change their MAC address either.
"I slaughtered this horse last Tuesday. I'm 'fraid she's startin' to turn..."
While the irony would be delicious, unfortunately Ganon's hideout is closer to where Spokane would be.
Very well. They evolved. All of the varietes of cattle we see today evolved from one pair of some sort of bovine that walked off the ark. It's just a word. I'm a creationist, and I don't have a problem with that. A lot of creationists will go wild at any mention of the word "evolution", but some of us draw a distinction between a reconstruction of the entire history of life, and an explanation of how animals change and develop on a scale we can observe. If the latter is properly described as "evolution", then I believe in evolution without believing that all life arose from a single-celled organism. That much isn't contradictory.
Mother Brain: Fool! No man may destroy me!
Samus (removing helmet): I am no man! *blows up Mother Brain*
I agree with you. But when I read the article I sort of assumed that the content of the spam he sent out included offensive racial content. It might possibly be relevant in that such content coming from the email addresses of reputable journalist could cause them quite a bit of emotional distress as they try to explain the situation.
If that's the case, though, the article probably should have mentioned it.
One major reason is that they're trying to make it difficult to cheat. Cheating has been a major problem in the original half-life. If the cheaters have the source code, they can likely come up with more efficient or less obvious ways to cheat.
If you contaminate Europa with Earth organisms, and later send a probe to Europa to attempt to detect signs of life, you might detect the contaminants and mistake them for alien life. And then of course you have the whole "Prime Directive" debate: do we want to alter the course of development of whatever alien life there may be?
I'm a hardcore conservative, and I'm not sure how much I agree with this definition. To my way of thinking, it's not a matter of "rewarding the strong". It's a matter of incentive --- if people are going to be taken care of no matter whether or not they do any useful work, they simply aren't likely to do any useful work. It's more a matter of rewarding effort than of rewarding strength. Granted, there are some serious problems with the way capitalism works too, and it does often turn out that the "stronger" ones do better. But I think that's the nature of freedom. You can't truly have freedom without the possibility of great success or great failure.
On a side note, as a conservative, I'm very strongly against the modern notion of "intellectual property". I'm all for property rights, capitalism, and the free market. But as the article mentions, copyright isn't a property right and shouldn't be treated as one. I believe in the Constitution above everything else, as far as politics go. And in the thinking of the founders, copyright cannot be a property right. Property is a right that the founders envisionsed as being inherent to mankind --- right up there with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights like that cannot be infringed by the state. They are not granted by the state. They are inherent to the people. But, the Constitution allows Congress to GRANT and LIMIT copyright. If copyright were an inherent right, they would have protected it as such --- they certainly wouldn't have given Congress the authority to "grant" it. Therefore I must conclude that the notion of "intellectual property" is thoroughly unconstitutional, and thus I cannot support it.
You can get rid of them, too. Just draw a chalk outline of a body outside your door/cave/whatever, and scatter some JW pamphlets around. Then you can sleep all day if you want to.
I save the time. I just put the phone down and let them talk to empty air, and then eventually hang up the phone when it starts making the "Hey stupid, you left your phone off the hook" sound.
A can opener or a book is a physical item. When you buy a can opener, you're buying one can opener. You actually posses that item. This is not so with DVDs, according to the MPAA and their cronies: instead, you are buying the right to watch the movie contained in that DVD. Therefore it's reasonable to claim that this right persists regardless of what happens to the physical medium the movie is contained on.
The movie is an abstract concept (i.e. "intellectual property"); the can opener is a physical item. The two are inherently different.
Dude, after it's been dipped in raw sewage, I don't freakin' CARE if it still works or not...
It's not anything new. They were doing this 2,000 years ago. Read the Biblical story of Jesus turning water into wine sometime --- the guy who tasted the transformed wine was surprised at its quality because the normal practice was to serve the best wine first and then bring out the crappy wine later, when the guests were too drunk to know the difference.
Of course, the odds of that happening are probably about the same as the odds of Strong Sad developing a sense of optimism, but hey, one can hope.
Right, we would have a much better society if we spent all our tax money on welfare instead of defense --- and then the next psychotic petty dictator to come along would come and kick our butt because we wouldn't have any military with which to deter him. :)
Is this real science, or the results of this year's Rube Goldberg contest?
Oh, George, not the livestock!
Even then, there will be people who are allergic to Retinax.
Well, I'd guess it would be fairly effective. Just call the number and say "YES! I'd like to enlarge my (well, you know) by five inches like you said in the ad!"
If they say "Get lost, you pervert!" and hang up, you know somebody was framing them.
Um, you can't carbon date an asteroid. You can only carbon date organic material, and that only up to maybe 10,000 years old or so.
If you want to date rocks, you have to use other forms of radiometric dating, which is what I assume you were referring to.
I have a Gateway with a 15.7" screen too, at 1280x1024, and I couldn't be happier with it. Maybe I COULD read text at a smaller size, but I certainly wouldn't be comfortable doing so. To my way of thinking, 1280x1024 is plenty of resolution for this size screen, and unless you'd going to do like Apple and make notebooks with 17" screens, I can't really see using a resolution much higher than that.
The fly's dead. He doesn't care.