Using ur argument against you, why is it any of your business to post your opinion on slashdot ?
Attacked, I return fire.
Its amazing so see thugs like you make use of rights for yourselves and then want others to be denied the same rights.
You illustrate my point even as you attempt to dispute it. Thinking like a democrat, you mistakenly assume that my disapproval equals a call for censorship.
It is his business to the degree that he can talk about it, like everybody else can.
Hmm. No, it isn't his business. There's a world of difference between "the right to free speech" (a protection against forcibly imposed silence) and "minding your own business" (a moral constraint on civilised behavior).
As an anarchist, I see one of the biggest faults of democracy to be the way that (1) it encourages everyone to opine about everything (2) it presents a real threat that those nosy and unwarranted opinions will be enforced. Discourse becomes politicised, and rival opinion becomes not something with which to debate reasonably, but an enemy to fear. Thus when I hear of a doctor proclaiming "fast food is bad for you" I fear for my choice in food, and when I hear a rocket scientist opining "end manned space flight", I fear I will be trapped dirtside.
There's a huge proportion of the human brain devoted to picking out faces (which is why so many things look facelike) and recognising emotions. Those parts of your mind are ridiculously rapid, letting you see and interpret microsecond flickers of body langauge.
In effect, like moving graphics procesing out of the CPU and onto a graphics card, this is handing off processing of some part of road conditions from (slow) learned analysis onto (fast) instinctive response. It will probably reduce real distraction.
...you'd report it to quality control, or whatever level of management is responsible. You almost certainly have no need to circumvent normal procedures and talk straight to Mr Big. If you do have a need that's pressing enough, chances are $1000 to catch his attention is cheap at the price.
Frankly I think it would be simpler to just use "pay per email". Something could probably be rigged up with paypal in short order, and if your time/attention is important enough that all this fuss is worth people's bother, they'd find it simpler to just pay you up front and no messing.
For example, I can easily imagine major CEOs having publicly accessible emails with a $1000 reading charge. Those who ought to contact them, or who really care to be heard, could afford to pay.
Short summary: it's an intermediated version of "pay me to read, and I'll pay you back if it's not spam"
Bug summary: - too many people will keep the money regardless - the services of escrow agents are not freebies - nobody will bother to use it when regular email is cheaper, already deployed, and infinitely less fuss
...mostly the government uses "one time pads". They're immune to any decryption because for an encrypted message of length N, any plaintext of length N is identically plausible. The way to break govenment encryption is to copy the pads, or subvert the guy who gets to read the plaintext.
It's not genetic evolution if a bunch of monkeys find a purely cutural reason to go bipedal, but Evolution will from then onward begin to alter their shape according to the pressures of bepedality. In this way, evolution could "lock in" what was originally a cultural change.
I thought that about IBM, and deeper... It seems to the tech industry patent situation is a powder keg just waiting for a match. Every major company which has been in the field for awhile has enough critical patents to utterly strangle everyone else. If real patent war broke out, the tech industry would be smashed back to the level of ENIAC. Thus, patents are like thermonukes: everybody wants them, everybody hopes never to use them.
This is, I think, a part of the reason IBM is not wielding its patent portfolio against SCO. It absolutely does not want to touch off "patent war one".
All people on my ISP get catch-all email to a "personal domain". It seems pretty harmless to me. Most spam is correctly adressed. I assume that's because random probes are inefficient next to address spidering.
Regardless, my Bayesian filter munches up 99.9% of it anyhow. Spam is basically a solved problem for me.
${1} is ${2}! Youth is being corrupted! We should ${3}
Where: $1 is in (music, movies, games, websites, theater,...) $2 is in (violent, sexual, political, heretical,...) $3 is in (ban it, regulate it, age restrict it, burn them at the stake, make him drink hemlock,...)
The python syntax is un-python-ish, it looks like it was cloned straight out of some other programming language.
The ruby syntax is dead standard:
n.each <== method call { |f| <== create a closure with one formal parameter f<4 <== lt operator, obviously } <== and end the closure, passing it as a parameter to the method "n.each"
...you can sensibly implement ALL the good ideas in people's answers, and let them pick which ones they care for. You don't have to trade off "how useful will this be" versus "how badly will this bloat the browser".
...the second half of the 21st century, when the FCC is a historical encyclopedia entry (file next to "copyright, repeal of"), TV is a playback tool for streamed video, and "broadcast" means their wifi has a bigger aerial.
Do you really think that women don't mind if their husband/boyfriend enjoys looking at other naked women?
You have a wierdly victorian idea of women. Some of them will get jealous, sure. Some of them will help you pick out the porn. Depends on the woman. Women don't come with standard prepackaged attitudes anymore than men do.
Porn is the great enemy of faithful marriages
Depends on the marriage.
To teach anything more is to degrade sex
No, to cram it into an itty bitty little box marked "only after marriage, only with one partner, everything else is a sin" degrades it.
Furthermore, if I "repress" my child's urge to fling themselves off a cliff to their death, is that wrong?
When porn will give him a broken neck (or even a broken ankle!) your analogy will hold water.
...then you can hardly blame them for seeking out, and making much of, what little light they can find.
If they already know "the birds and the bees", and what is or isn't acceptable around the house, and that dogs are germy, if they know they can ask stuff, then I doubt there would be a problem. They'd snicker over the porn, maybe ask awkward questions, but I think Fido would be safe.
It's a convenient place where societal scapegoats can be aggregated, isolated, degraded, blamed, hassled, and when the expedient time arrives, rounded up and shot.
Some home truths for yall muricans:
- Porn is harmless. Sex is harmless. Repression is harmful.
- All kids get to see porn eventually. You didn't think your stash was hidden in that sock drawer, did you?
Slashdot Mirror
Designate one code as "never used", test that first, if it succeeds then thow an exception.
There is long precedent for "easy, cheap and adequate" squeezing out "rare, expensive and tailored".
I think 5 years is about right, timewise. That's long enough for knowledge of wikipedia to percolate through to the limits of non-technical society.
You will know you need to change careers when "to wiki" becomes a verb like "to google".
Using ur argument against you, why is it any of your business to post your opinion on slashdot ?
Attacked, I return fire.
Its amazing so see thugs like you make use of rights for yourselves and then want others to be denied the same rights.
You illustrate my point even as you attempt to dispute it. Thinking like a democrat, you mistakenly assume that my disapproval equals a call for censorship.
It is his business to the degree that he can talk about it, like everybody else can.
Hmm. No, it isn't his business. There's a world of difference between "the right to free speech" (a protection against forcibly imposed silence) and "minding your own business" (a moral constraint on civilised behavior).
As an anarchist, I see one of the biggest faults of democracy to be the way that (1) it encourages everyone to opine about everything (2) it presents a real threat that those nosy and unwarranted opinions will be enforced. Discourse becomes politicised, and rival opinion becomes not something with which to debate reasonably, but an enemy to fear. Thus when I hear of a doctor proclaiming "fast food is bad for you" I fear for my choice in food, and when I hear a rocket scientist opining "end manned space flight", I fear I will be trapped dirtside.
He can end government spaceflight for all I care.
But, private spaceflight, that's none of his business. If he doesn't want a ride, nobody's forcing him to buy a ticket.
There's a huge proportion of the human brain devoted to picking out faces (which is why so many things look facelike) and recognising emotions. Those parts of your mind are ridiculously rapid, letting you see and interpret microsecond flickers of body langauge.
In effect, like moving graphics procesing out of the CPU and onto a graphics card, this is handing off processing of some part of road conditions from (slow) learned analysis onto (fast) instinctive response. It will probably reduce real distraction.
So far as The Man is concerned, both vice (not doing as you're told) and virtue (not thinking as you're told) are rebellious and undesirable.
...you'd report it to quality control, or whatever level of management is responsible. You almost certainly have no need to circumvent normal procedures and talk straight to Mr Big. If you do have a need that's pressing enough, chances are $1000 to catch his attention is cheap at the price.
Frankly I think it would be simpler to just use "pay per email". Something could probably be rigged up with paypal in short order, and if your time/attention is important enough that all this fuss is worth people's bother, they'd find it simpler to just pay you up front and no messing.
For example, I can easily imagine major CEOs having publicly accessible emails with a $1000 reading charge. Those who ought to contact them, or who really care to be heard, could afford to pay.
Short summary: it's an intermediated version of "pay me to read, and I'll pay you back if it's not spam"
Bug summary:
- too many people will keep the money regardless
- the services of escrow agents are not freebies
- nobody will bother to use it when regular email is cheaper, already deployed, and infinitely less fuss
What is the actual pragmatic purpose of that flying tin can?
Detect those areas that show as fake, and perturb them until they don't. Iterate until the image passes the "authenticity" test.
If you can identify why something looks fake, that information should imply a solution for non-fakeness.
...mostly the government uses "one time pads". They're immune to any decryption because for an encrypted message of length N, any plaintext of length N is identically plausible. The way to break govenment encryption is to copy the pads, or subvert the guy who gets to read the plaintext.
It's not genetic evolution if a bunch of monkeys find a purely cutural reason to go bipedal, but Evolution will from then onward begin to alter their shape according to the pressures of bepedality. In this way, evolution could "lock in" what was originally a cultural change.
I thought that about IBM, and deeper... It seems to the tech industry patent situation is a powder keg just waiting for a match. Every major company which has been in the field for awhile has enough critical patents to utterly strangle everyone else. If real patent war broke out, the tech industry would be smashed back to the level of ENIAC. Thus, patents are like thermonukes: everybody wants them, everybody hopes never to use them.
This is, I think, a part of the reason IBM is not wielding its patent portfolio against SCO. It absolutely does not want to touch off "patent war one".
Microsoft probably has similar inhibitions.
All people on my ISP get catch-all email to a "personal domain". It seems pretty harmless to me. Most spam is correctly adressed. I assume that's because random probes are inefficient next to address spidering.
Regardless, my Bayesian filter munches up 99.9% of it anyhow. Spam is basically a solved problem for me.
${1} is ${2}! Youth is being corrupted! We should ${3}
...) ...) ...)
Where:
$1 is in (music, movies, games, websites, theater,
$2 is in (violent, sexual, political, heretical,
$3 is in (ban it, regulate it, age restrict it, burn them at the stake, make him drink hemlock,
...you just reinvented thin client. Again.
Thin client is always so appealing to The Man, because you can charge rent forever, and because it centralizes all the power.
That's why thin client will never sell, except to The Man.
The ruby syntax is dead standard:
...you can sensibly implement ALL the good ideas in people's answers, and let them pick which ones they care for. You don't have to trade off "how useful will this be" versus "how badly will this bloat the browser".
...the second half of the 21st century, when the FCC is a historical encyclopedia entry (file next to "copyright, repeal of"), TV is a playback tool for streamed video, and "broadcast" means their wifi has a bigger aerial.
This will all look so amusingly dated...
...it at least deserved to be called java 3. It's different enough for that.
...then you can hardly blame them for seeking out, and making much of, what little light they can find.
If they already know "the birds and the bees", and what is or isn't acceptable around the house, and that dogs are germy, if they know they can ask stuff, then I doubt there would be a problem. They'd snicker over the porn, maybe ask awkward questions, but I think Fido would be safe.
It's a convenient place where societal scapegoats can be aggregated, isolated, degraded, blamed, hassled, and when the expedient time arrives, rounded up and shot.
Some home truths for yall muricans:
- Porn is harmless. Sex is harmless. Repression is harmful.
- All kids get to see porn eventually. You didn't think your stash was hidden in that sock drawer, did you?
- Get the heck over it already.