I've noticed that many people who preach a lot about liberty, gun rights, due process, the rule of law and the government having a monopoly on force are curiously quick to defend the use of lethal force in defense of properties (typically valuable enough to already be insured) that the self-appointed defender may not even own.
The not-too-subtle romanticisation of having a free pass to shoot someone is unnerving. I think people should be able to own guns, but I also think you've got some serious self-examination to do if you believe it's moral to execute people because they have stolen something or aren't documented as citizens.
Access to cheap energy for the last 150 years has allowed our population to explode while creating economies that can grow despite mass complacency, ignorance, and greed.
When faced with difficult decisions there is a large contingent of people who have never learned the value of taking a principled stance ahead of time, so they simply evaluate every issue as it relates to themselves, and if no one ever raises the issues, so much the better.
Last month I got a phone call from a Comcast robot telling me my account was past due. At the time I did not realize that an autopayment had gone through 7 days earlier, so I immediately went and paid my balance online.
A few days later my bank calls and tells me one of my accounts is overdrawn. Not Comcast's fault, but I ask the bank rep--did the autopayment actually go through? Yes it did.
So I got on a live chat with a Comcast support agent who tells me that I was not double-billed, I was just charged twice for the same amount successfully. He was not authorized to issue a credit from his "location" so I called the billing department, where a rep told me the billing department does not have the ability to change autopayment settings.
When I mentioned the robot call that I should never have received and asked if he could tell a manager to look into it, his tone of voice conveyed such disbelief and confusion that at first I thought I'd misspoke and asked him what kind of underwear he had on or something. Then he tried to sell me phone service.
Insightful? That's funny, I thought we were endowed with certain inaliable rights by our creator, not the magnanimity of GI IHC Navistar who courageously takes orders and carries a gun with his Balls.
Let me get this straight, as we stop needing to use our brains, somehow those born without them will produce more viable offspring? Actually, the reproduction part sounds pretty reasonable. Our brains have been holding us back this whole time!
Actually, that's both immoral and unethical, but thanks for playing. If someone chooses to repeatedly break a law, the fact that they represent a business doesn't mean they're not culpable, nor does paying a fine absolve you of your moral transgression.
Yeah, I'm shaking in my shoes thinking that eBay might steal my identity and sell my files to the government because their software might theoretically be able to read my bus speed and AGP window size.
This is the centrist fallacy in action. "Well, both sides have lied (or have been wrong on some points) so the truth must be somewhere in the middle." Except, you take it one step further and cast doubt on the efficacy of the pursuit of clarity. You use the fact that the issue is political to write people off as "tools" and despair of ever having access to unbiased truth, when it is in fact staring you in the face. Like with any issue, insight is gained through the critical examination of the claims presented, and the merits on which they attempt to be relevant. Inventing an unknown median state of "truthiness" based on some notion of intellectual responsibility to maintain doubt and respect "both sides" is simply avoiding the responsibility to actually think critically altogether.
This is the same thing that bugs me about "South Park Republicans", whose basic M.O. is to ridicule both parties for the worst behavior of their respective adherents, and then pat themselves on the back for reaching some kind of moral compromise.
I'm a republican*, and it pains me to see you crying foul that the headline mentioned this guy's party affiliation. Would you be complaining about bias if he was a democrat? No? Then shut the fuck up, it just makes us look like insecure partisan whiners.
* not a republican
Glad to see I'm not the only one who remembers this. Anyone that likes these kinds of stories should look into Neuroplasticity research. The brain's capacity for reorganization is enormous.
While it's true that BT doesn't send you the bits sequentially, I don't see any reason why the protocol couldn't prioritize on a chunk level instead of a file level. Most clients already let you specify which files in a set to download, and with what priority. While this wouldn't always make streaming possible, in the cases where there are enough seeds to sustain the necessary aggregate transfer rate, you could start watching before the file has finished downloading.
There's probably a reason why this goes against the philosophy of BT, so please educate me rather than flame me for being an idiot.
Your first mate informs you that you're headed towards an iceberg. He recommends navigating by sight and sonar to prevent a potential disaster (i.e. maintain a state where a problem DOESN'T CURRENTLY EXIST). But, since there's no ACTUAL problem now, we shouldn't consider sensible preventitive measures, because they might have "unintended consequences".
If there are hazards in passing legislation, let's attend to them too. We should never be discouraged by shortcomings in systems we are supposed to control. It's foolish to ignore or overlook a problem and expect it to go away.
My supervisor recently fork-bombed my home PC to "get my attention" after not being able to get ahold of me for a few hours on a Sunday evening. I hope he reads this and freaks out and does it again:)
Slashdot Mirror
DIYers have long made use of sunlight so that we can "green up".
I've noticed that many people who preach a lot about liberty, gun rights, due process, the rule of law and the government having a monopoly on force are curiously quick to defend the use of lethal force in defense of properties (typically valuable enough to already be insured) that the self-appointed defender may not even own. The not-too-subtle romanticisation of having a free pass to shoot someone is unnerving. I think people should be able to own guns, but I also think you've got some serious self-examination to do if you believe it's moral to execute people because they have stolen something or aren't documented as citizens.
Access to cheap energy for the last 150 years has allowed our population to explode while creating economies that can grow despite mass complacency, ignorance, and greed. When faced with difficult decisions there is a large contingent of people who have never learned the value of taking a principled stance ahead of time, so they simply evaluate every issue as it relates to themselves, and if no one ever raises the issues, so much the better.
Last month I got a phone call from a Comcast robot telling me my account was past due. At the time I did not realize that an autopayment had gone through 7 days earlier, so I immediately went and paid my balance online.
A few days later my bank calls and tells me one of my accounts is overdrawn. Not Comcast's fault, but I ask the bank rep--did the autopayment actually go through? Yes it did.
So I got on a live chat with a Comcast support agent who tells me that I was not double-billed, I was just charged twice for the same amount successfully. He was not authorized to issue a credit from his "location" so I called the billing department, where a rep told me the billing department does not have the ability to change autopayment settings.
When I mentioned the robot call that I should never have received and asked if he could tell a manager to look into it, his tone of voice conveyed such disbelief and confusion that at first I thought I'd misspoke and asked him what kind of underwear he had on or something. Then he tried to sell me phone service.
Coincidence?Insightful? That's funny, I thought we were endowed with certain inaliable rights by our creator, not the magnanimity of GI IHC Navistar who courageously takes orders and carries a gun with his Balls.
It may be adaptive for women to let men entertain notions of sexual potential as long as possible.
That is pretty standard boilerplate. Hardly reason to "be ware"
Let me get this straight, as we stop needing to use our brains, somehow those born without them will produce more viable offspring? Actually, the reproduction part sounds pretty reasonable. Our brains have been holding us back this whole time!
Mod parent up, GP down.
Actually, that's both immoral and unethical, but thanks for playing. If someone chooses to repeatedly break a law, the fact that they represent a business doesn't mean they're not culpable, nor does paying a fine absolve you of your moral transgression.
Yeah, I'm shaking in my shoes thinking that eBay might steal my identity and sell my files to the government because their software might theoretically be able to read my bus speed and AGP window size.
This is the centrist fallacy in action. "Well, both sides have lied (or have been wrong on some points) so the truth must be somewhere in the middle." Except, you take it one step further and cast doubt on the efficacy of the pursuit of clarity. You use the fact that the issue is political to write people off as "tools" and despair of ever having access to unbiased truth, when it is in fact staring you in the face. Like with any issue, insight is gained through the critical examination of the claims presented, and the merits on which they attempt to be relevant. Inventing an unknown median state of "truthiness" based on some notion of intellectual responsibility to maintain doubt and respect "both sides" is simply avoiding the responsibility to actually think critically altogether.
This is the same thing that bugs me about "South Park Republicans", whose basic M.O. is to ridicule both parties for the worst behavior of their respective adherents, and then pat themselves on the back for reaching some kind of moral compromise.
This can't be true. I refuse to believe that you picked up a broadcast that had been bouncing around the atmosphere for hours, let alone decades.
Supplies for colonization? Like, say, an atmosphere? How exactly do we bring that?
I'm a republican*, and it pains me to see you crying foul that the headline mentioned this guy's party affiliation. Would you be complaining about bias if he was a democrat? No? Then shut the fuck up, it just makes us look like insecure partisan whiners. * not a republican
Do I really need to point out the tired fact that copying mp3s doesn't deprive anyone of anything whereas stealing their car does?
Glad to see I'm not the only one who remembers this. Anyone that likes these kinds of stories should look into Neuroplasticity research. The brain's capacity for reorganization is enormous.
While it's true that BT doesn't send you the bits sequentially, I don't see any reason why the protocol couldn't prioritize on a chunk level instead of a file level. Most clients already let you specify which files in a set to download, and with what priority. While this wouldn't always make streaming possible, in the cases where there are enough seeds to sustain the necessary aggregate transfer rate, you could start watching before the file has finished downloading. There's probably a reason why this goes against the philosophy of BT, so please educate me rather than flame me for being an idiot.
Because nobody with a name lies or is wrong.
Red Rackham, is that you?
I declare this /. thread the official stopgap forums for all the displaced users. What's going on guys?
Your first mate informs you that you're headed towards an iceberg. He recommends navigating by sight and sonar to prevent a potential disaster (i.e. maintain a state where a problem DOESN'T CURRENTLY EXIST). But, since there's no ACTUAL problem now, we shouldn't consider sensible preventitive measures, because they might have "unintended consequences".
If there are hazards in passing legislation, let's attend to them too. We should never be discouraged by shortcomings in systems we are supposed to control. It's foolish to ignore or overlook a problem and expect it to go away.
"Wouldn't-be" taxpayers?
Fires occur in nature too, so I guess we ought to just disban the fire department and let everyone buy aerial fireworks every day of the year, right?
My supervisor recently fork-bombed my home PC to "get my attention" after not being able to get ahold of me for a few hours on a Sunday evening. I hope he reads this and freaks out and does it again :)