Exactly. And it doesn't have to be the final drum track. The drummer can always lay a new more meaty track down after the rest of the sound starts filling in.
A drummer trying to match up a new drum track to a pre-recorded set of guitar and bass tracks will sound like garbage if there isn't a click track to maintain the underlying tempo. What you're describing is exactly the situation where a click track is most needed.
Something has to be a constant in the process. If it's not the drum track, it needs to be a click track.
Click tracks are not inherently evil. A good drummer doesn't absolutely need one, but is likely to want to use one. A good drummer is also willing to deviate from the click track if the urge to do so arises.
after all, if you've already decided that the statement is defamatory enough to identify the writer, then you're right on the edge of deciding that the writer is guilty, too.
I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but it seems to me that courts work this way all the time. In criminal trials there is a probable cause hearing, where a judge decides whether the prosecution has a case worth taking to trial. Finding probable cause doesn't prejudice the case against the defendant — people do still get acquitted.
This is similar to that situation. A judge decides whether there is enough of a case to sacrifice the defendant's anonymity and proceed with a trial, while recognizing that the defendant may still be innocent.
Besides, even if the judge decides the defendant is probably guilty before the trial even begins, isn't it ultimately up to the jury to make that decision at trial?
The general issue of secure documents found to be available on P2P networks is a serious issue, and not even remotely close to being something new. Slashdot has talked about it before, so this is old news.
This particular case is notably non-newsworthy. I mean, seriously, it's a freakin' helicopter. WTF are "the ter'rists" going to get out of looking at its blueprints?
First Terrorist: I've analyzed the blueprints for Obama's helicopter and discovered that if we fire a rocket launcher at it, we could blow it up.
Second Terrorist: No fucking shit, Sherlock. I'm glad you're here to tell us these things.
TFA even says:
"Clark told WPXI that he doesn't know how sensitive this information is..."
So did I (actually, it was subLOGIC Flight Simulator back then, before Microsoft bought it). It's what got me excited about flying in the first place (I have a private pilot license now so I can fly for real). I still have my photocopy of the manual (of course I didn't actually buy the game), which is incredibly detailed and even teaches some cool aerobatic maneuvers.
Looking at Flight Sim X, the game has come a long way since those days. Hopefully it at least gets sold so it can continue.
Sorry, I guess I forgot that all black people add the tag [BLACK] to their nicks online!
But seriously, -EVERY- difference is invisible on the tubes unless you tell someone about it...so...I guess I don't get your point!
I was talking about how people identify themselves in general, not just on the tubes. How they identify themselves on the tubes will merely be an extension of how they identify in the real world. So, if one feels the need to break through the "don't ask, don't tell" cloak that society tries to impose on them, then it's only logical that they're going to do that on the tubes, too.
The fact that simply putting "I'm gay" on a profile actually causes such a controversy — not to mention some heated debate right here on Slashdot — is reason enough to want to rise up against such stupidity. You and I both know that if someone did put "I'm black" on their profile, there would be no controversy, no discussion on Slashdot, and certainly no banning.
The practical solution, one employed by heterosexuals every day, is not to wear your sexuality on your sleeve.
You missed GP's point. Heterosexuals do wear their sexuality on their sleeves. It's not just assumed as a default, it's obvious by any conversation they have in which they mention a boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wide. It's obvious if they're wearing a wedding ring in a country/state that doesn't allow same-sex marraige.
GP's point was that all it takes is for a man to mention his girlfriend in public and you know he's straight, and no one will think anything of it. But if a man mentions his boyfriend in public, suddenly he's "flaunting his sexuality" and making everyone around him uncomfortable.
Your identity is more than your sexual preference.
True. However, when you have a character trait that is not visible (unlike, say, being black), and you live in a world where people openly attack those who possess that trait, and where it's considered something shameful that should be hidden away "in a closet", but you recognize that it's simply who you are and nothing to be ashamed of, then it's only logical to proudly reveal it, if for no other reason than to finally get it through the thick skulls of all the asshats you meet that it is normal, it is okay, and you are a person of value just like everyone else.
This is precisely why they have things like gay pride parades, whereas a straight pride parade is a completely ludicrous prospect. Nobody tries to force straightness in the closet. Nobody tells straight people "don't ask, don't tell". Nobody gets disgusted when a straight couple walk down the street holding hands. As a straight person, there's nothing to have hidden away and want to reveal. There's no oppression to fight against by standing up and declaring your straightness. But, for a gay person, there is.
Openly saying "I'm straight" has no real value, but openly saying "I'm gay" is, really, a subversive act. I see no reason for a gay person who wants the world to change for the better to not wear their sexual orientation on their sleeve.
Actually, in this case, the attacks have mainly been directed at specific targets. Nevertheless, if someone does decide to add the old "email to everyone in contact list" functionality to this, you're still safe as long as you ignore any strange emails with spreadsheets attached, even if they come from someone you know.
Either way, as an Excel user, I can't say I'm going to lose any sleep over this one.
Here's what you said, completely without evidence:
arguably, because the danger is greater if we're wrong
The danger of being wrong in either direction is great. How do you know one is greater than the other?
I was responding to someone who was basically saying "we should be sceptical of predictions of future disasters". In that context, if we choose to not act due to this scepticism, there are two possible outcomes: we are right in our scepticism, and everything is fine, or we are wrong and the future disaster does in fact occur. Clearly, the second scenario is the greater danger. That is what I was referring to.
Also, I used the word "arguably" because I was really just interjecting a point for the sake of argument. I don't need any "evidence" for that.
Before I vote for anything drastic, I really need to see a compelling case that takes into account a variety of factors including the cost of doing something.
Absolutely. But you'd better also consider the cost of doing nothing.
I know that a U.S. based bank where I was contracting at the time would have had a meltdown if we had not spent the cash.
Others that I know tell me similar stories. It is maybe too bad we did such a good job, now many think it was all a farce.
I tend to agree with you. However, there are some interesting arguments on the other side of this that suggest it's not so cut and dried. Wikipedia has a decent summary of some of them.
You are explicitly ignoring the costs and proclaiming that only benefits exist.
No I'm not. Of course there are costs. Was the Y2K fix free? My entire original point was that we can't just ignore what could potentially be an enormous (and, ironically enough, costly) problem just because we're afraid of the cost of fixing the problem.
But we're not talking about small costs here. In the case of drastic reductions in CO2 output, the costs could be huge. You can't just brush those costs under the rug and expect me to take you seriously.
And in the case of not reducing CO2 output, the costs could be even bigger. You can't just brush those costs under the rug and expect me to take you seriously.
I'm not predicting doom here, and I agree that we need to be thorough in understanding the problem and its possible solutions, and not just act for the sake of "doing something". But I'm sceptical of those who downplay the problem based on perceived psychological factors, as the original poster to which I replied did, or based on economic considerations, as you do, or based on looking selectively at the science, as so many others do.
This is how ideas like blood letting became fashionable in medicine.
On the other hand, there's a more modern example: Y2K.
Was Y2K a real threat, or a bunch of hype? Hard to say. Maybe nothing happened because we fixed the problem. Maybe nothing would have happened even if we'd done nothing.
Did we crumble the economy, collapse businesses, and ruin lives in our attempts to fix it? Nope. Life has been pretty normal after all the Y2K efforts.
Would we have been better off if we'd done nothing? Certainly not better off, although possibly about the same. But also possibly in a much, much worse situation.
Obviously, we have to be cautious about what we choose to do, as we do want our efforts to be useful, not just doing something for the sake of doing something.
Because this psychological factor is so prevalent we need to be especially skeptical of predictions of future disasters.
Or, arguably, because the danger is greater if we're wrong, we need to be especially sceptical of attempts to downplay predictions of future disasters.
I'm pretty sure that, no matter what, you can't authorize anything other than another human adult to act on your behalf.
It has nothing to do with authorization. It's simply a matter of initiating an action for the sole intended purpose of clicking the "I Agree" button. The cat in this case is merely being used as a prop to that end. No judge would have any problem recognizing this for what it is — stupid theatrics.
The thing is, in any field besides theoretical physics, he has no more credibility than you or I.
Actually, given his much broader and more extensive life experience and his actual work with world leaders, I would consider him to be more informed and credible than myself.
If you've read any of his non-physics work, and don't find it to be filled with any insight and wisdom, well, that's fine by me. You're not required to agree with everyone on everything.
To be honest, I'm really not interested in getting into an in-depth discussion of eight words that someone else wrote that I happen to like and stuck in my sig on a whim. Go ahead and re-read your own post and contemplate what you've argued. You've simply redefined every single act as "preparing for war", whether or not that act actually has anything whatsoever to do with preparing for war.
Why don't you track down the context in which Mr. Einstein's eight words were originally found and perhaps you'll find the answer you're looking for.
Since we can't do anything else, I suggest everyone who is sick of this crap exclude articles posted by kdawson in their preferences
For years I've left my preferences untouched, preferring to just take the good with the bad, but now I have finally resorted to filtering kdawson's articles out of the front page.
For new Slashdot users, however, I wouldn't recommend this tactic. If you're looking to quickly build up your karma, there's no better way than to just browse the kdawson stories and be the first to point out how horribly distorted and flawed they are.
(assuming, of course, that kdawson isn't just a puppet Taco uses to post the asinine anti-Microsoft stuff which always gets plenty of adviews)
It would be a poorly managed casino that didn't ask you to leave long before your card-counting winnings were $200,000.
Cheers.
At a $5 table, this is true. At a $5000 table, not so much.
Admittedly, $200,000 is a bit high (I was simply adding zeros to his number to make the point), but Andy Bloch has claimed to have made as much as $100,000 in a single card counting session at the Blackjack table.
It has nothing to do with your willingness to comply. A player caught counting cards at a high-stakes table, who has made a large sum of money, will generally be banned for life from playing Blackjack at that casino, or any others owned by the same company.
Just ask Andy Bloch or any of the other MIT players.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. And it doesn't have to be the final drum track. The drummer can always lay a new more meaty track down after the rest of the sound starts filling in.
A drummer trying to match up a new drum track to a pre-recorded set of guitar and bass tracks will sound like garbage if there isn't a click track to maintain the underlying tempo. What you're describing is exactly the situation where a click track is most needed.
Something has to be a constant in the process. If it's not the drum track, it needs to be a click track.
Click tracks are not inherently evil. A good drummer doesn't absolutely need one, but is likely to want to use one. A good drummer is also willing to deviate from the click track if the urge to do so arises.
after all, if you've already decided that the statement is defamatory enough to identify the writer, then you're right on the edge of deciding that the writer is guilty, too.
I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but it seems to me that courts work this way all the time. In criminal trials there is a probable cause hearing, where a judge decides whether the prosecution has a case worth taking to trial. Finding probable cause doesn't prejudice the case against the defendant — people do still get acquitted.
This is similar to that situation. A judge decides whether there is enough of a case to sacrifice the defendant's anonymity and proceed with a trial, while recognizing that the defendant may still be innocent.
Besides, even if the judge decides the defendant is probably guilty before the trial even begins, isn't it ultimately up to the jury to make that decision at trial?
The general issue of secure documents found to be available on P2P networks is a serious issue, and not even remotely close to being something new. Slashdot has talked about it before, so this is old news.
This particular case is notably non-newsworthy. I mean, seriously, it's a freakin' helicopter. WTF are "the ter'rists" going to get out of looking at its blueprints?
First Terrorist: I've analyzed the blueprints for Obama's helicopter and discovered that if we fire a rocket launcher at it, we could blow it up.
Second Terrorist: No fucking shit, Sherlock. I'm glad you're here to tell us these things.
TFA even says:
"Clark told WPXI that he doesn't know how sensitive this information is..."
It's not. Nothing to see here. Move along.
I had Microsoft's Flight Simulator on my C=64...
So did I (actually, it was subLOGIC Flight Simulator back then, before Microsoft bought it). It's what got me excited about flying in the first place (I have a private pilot license now so I can fly for real). I still have my photocopy of the manual (of course I didn't actually buy the game), which is incredibly detailed and even teaches some cool aerobatic maneuvers.
Looking at Flight Sim X, the game has come a long way since those days. Hopefully it at least gets sold so it can continue.
$4,446 worth of flowers might not seem like much, but don't forget, that was before the article got posted to Slashdot.
Sorry, I guess I forgot that all black people add the tag [BLACK] to their nicks online!
But seriously, -EVERY- difference is invisible on the tubes unless you tell someone about it...so...I guess I don't get your point!
I was talking about how people identify themselves in general, not just on the tubes. How they identify themselves on the tubes will merely be an extension of how they identify in the real world. So, if one feels the need to break through the "don't ask, don't tell" cloak that society tries to impose on them, then it's only logical that they're going to do that on the tubes, too.
The fact that simply putting "I'm gay" on a profile actually causes such a controversy — not to mention some heated debate right here on Slashdot — is reason enough to want to rise up against such stupidity. You and I both know that if someone did put "I'm black" on their profile, there would be no controversy, no discussion on Slashdot, and certainly no banning.
The practical solution, one employed by heterosexuals every day, is not to wear your sexuality on your sleeve.
You missed GP's point. Heterosexuals do wear their sexuality on their sleeves. It's not just assumed as a default, it's obvious by any conversation they have in which they mention a boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wide. It's obvious if they're wearing a wedding ring in a country/state that doesn't allow same-sex marraige.
GP's point was that all it takes is for a man to mention his girlfriend in public and you know he's straight, and no one will think anything of it. But if a man mentions his boyfriend in public, suddenly he's "flaunting his sexuality" and making everyone around him uncomfortable.
That's fucked up.
Your identity is more than your sexual preference.
True. However, when you have a character trait that is not visible (unlike, say, being black), and you live in a world where people openly attack those who possess that trait, and where it's considered something shameful that should be hidden away "in a closet", but you recognize that it's simply who you are and nothing to be ashamed of, then it's only logical to proudly reveal it, if for no other reason than to finally get it through the thick skulls of all the asshats you meet that it is normal, it is okay, and you are a person of value just like everyone else.
This is precisely why they have things like gay pride parades, whereas a straight pride parade is a completely ludicrous prospect. Nobody tries to force straightness in the closet. Nobody tells straight people "don't ask, don't tell". Nobody gets disgusted when a straight couple walk down the street holding hands. As a straight person, there's nothing to have hidden away and want to reveal. There's no oppression to fight against by standing up and declaring your straightness. But, for a gay person, there is.
Openly saying "I'm straight" has no real value, but openly saying "I'm gay" is, really, a subversive act. I see no reason for a gay person who wants the world to change for the better to not wear their sexual orientation on their sleeve.
... is a reliable indicator of who sent the email... ;-)
Well, even if it appears to come from someone you know, it's not that difficult to avoid.
Here's a test. Would you open the attachment if you received the following email from your mom?
From: Mom
Subject: info
Attachment: morgage.xls
here is the info you reqeusted
Actually, in this case, the attacks have mainly been directed at specific targets. Nevertheless, if someone does decide to add the old "email to everyone in contact list" functionality to this, you're still safe as long as you ignore any strange emails with spreadsheets attached, even if they come from someone you know.
Either way, as an Excel user, I can't say I'm going to lose any sleep over this one.
Does this mean that OpenOffice is the workaround for the moment?
Well, that, or not opening unexpected spreadsheets emailed to you by random strangers.
Here's what you said, completely without evidence:
arguably, because the danger is greater if we're wrong
The danger of being wrong in either direction is great. How do you know one is greater than the other?
I was responding to someone who was basically saying "we should be sceptical of predictions of future disasters". In that context, if we choose to not act due to this scepticism, there are two possible outcomes: we are right in our scepticism, and everything is fine, or we are wrong and the future disaster does in fact occur. Clearly, the second scenario is the greater danger. That is what I was referring to.
Also, I used the word "arguably" because I was really just interjecting a point for the sake of argument. I don't need any "evidence" for that.
Before I vote for anything drastic, I really need to see a compelling case that takes into account a variety of factors including the cost of doing something.
Absolutely. But you'd better also consider the cost of doing nothing.
No, it is not hard to say.
I know that a U.S. based bank where I was contracting at the time would have had a meltdown if we had not spent the cash.
Others that I know tell me similar stories. It is maybe too bad we did such a good job, now many think it was all a farce.
I tend to agree with you. However, there are some interesting arguments on the other side of this that suggest it's not so cut and dried. Wikipedia has a decent summary of some of them.
You are explicitly ignoring the costs and proclaiming that only benefits exist.
No I'm not. Of course there are costs. Was the Y2K fix free? My entire original point was that we can't just ignore what could potentially be an enormous (and, ironically enough, costly) problem just because we're afraid of the cost of fixing the problem.
But we're not talking about small costs here. In the case of drastic reductions in CO2 output, the costs could be huge. You can't just brush those costs under the rug and expect me to take you seriously.
And in the case of not reducing CO2 output, the costs could be even bigger. You can't just brush those costs under the rug and expect me to take you seriously.
I'm not predicting doom here, and I agree that we need to be thorough in understanding the problem and its possible solutions, and not just act for the sake of "doing something". But I'm sceptical of those who downplay the problem based on perceived psychological factors, as the original poster to which I replied did, or based on economic considerations, as you do, or based on looking selectively at the science, as so many others do.
This is how ideas like blood letting became fashionable in medicine.
On the other hand, there's a more modern example: Y2K.
Was Y2K a real threat, or a bunch of hype? Hard to say. Maybe nothing happened because we fixed the problem. Maybe nothing would have happened even if we'd done nothing.
Did we crumble the economy, collapse businesses, and ruin lives in our attempts to fix it? Nope. Life has been pretty normal after all the Y2K efforts.
Would we have been better off if we'd done nothing? Certainly not better off, although possibly about the same. But also possibly in a much, much worse situation.
Obviously, we have to be cautious about what we choose to do, as we do want our efforts to be useful, not just doing something for the sake of doing something.
Because this psychological factor is so prevalent we need to be especially skeptical of predictions of future disasters.
Or, arguably, because the danger is greater if we're wrong, we need to be especially sceptical of attempts to downplay predictions of future disasters.
So go out and get some sunshine or something.
Pfft. Who needs to go out to get sunshine?
I'm pretty sure that, no matter what, you can't authorize anything other than another human adult to act on your behalf.
It has nothing to do with authorization. It's simply a matter of initiating an action for the sole intended purpose of clicking the "I Agree" button. The cat in this case is merely being used as a prop to that end. No judge would have any problem recognizing this for what it is — stupid theatrics.
The thing is, in any field besides theoretical physics, he has no more credibility than you or I.
Actually, given his much broader and more extensive life experience and his actual work with world leaders, I would consider him to be more informed and credible than myself.
If you've read any of his non-physics work, and don't find it to be filled with any insight and wisdom, well, that's fine by me. You're not required to agree with everyone on everything.
To be honest, I'm really not interested in getting into an in-depth discussion of eight words that someone else wrote that I happen to like and stuck in my sig on a whim. Go ahead and re-read your own post and contemplate what you've argued. You've simply redefined every single act as "preparing for war", whether or not that act actually has anything whatsoever to do with preparing for war.
Why don't you track down the context in which Mr. Einstein's eight words were originally found and perhaps you'll find the answer you're looking for.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Ah, yes, Albert Einstein, the great statesman. Truly the one to turn to for theories of diplomacy, and not such paltry matters as physics.
Yes, because a man with such a brilliant mind for theoretical physics can't possibly have any insights into anything else.
Since we can't do anything else, I suggest everyone who is sick of this crap exclude articles posted by kdawson in their preferences
For years I've left my preferences untouched, preferring to just take the good with the bad, but now I have finally resorted to filtering kdawson's articles out of the front page.
For new Slashdot users, however, I wouldn't recommend this tactic. If you're looking to quickly build up your karma, there's no better way than to just browse the kdawson stories and be the first to point out how horribly distorted and flawed they are.
(assuming, of course, that kdawson isn't just a puppet Taco uses to post the asinine anti-Microsoft stuff which always gets plenty of adviews)
Allegedly, "kdawson" is this guy.
Just accept that Slashdot needs at least one masturbatory Microsoft bashing article every day and let the geeks get on with the wanking.
What, kdawson's previous "some guy tried to pirate Photoshop and then failed to understand how reparse points work so therefore Windows 7 is full of evil DRM" pseudo-article wasn't enough for today?
It would be a poorly managed casino that didn't ask you to leave long before your card-counting winnings were $200,000.
Cheers.
At a $5 table, this is true. At a $5000 table, not so much.
Admittedly, $200,000 is a bit high (I was simply adding zeros to his number to make the point), but Andy Bloch has claimed to have made as much as $100,000 in a single card counting session at the Blackjack table.
No, it wouldn't.
They asked, he complied.
The problems start when you refuse to comply.
It has nothing to do with your willingness to comply. A player caught counting cards at a high-stakes table, who has made a large sum of money, will generally be banned for life from playing Blackjack at that casino, or any others owned by the same company.
Just ask Andy Bloch or any of the other MIT players.