And even if there is causation, it doesn't tell the direction. Bad social skills may well lead some to compensate through game playing, which surely increases the probability of becoming addicted to games.
There's a difference between avoiding stacking the dishwasher because you'd rather watch your favourite TV show, and never doing any washing because there's always another TV show to watch.
But if he doesn't stack the dishwasher because of the TV show, then doesn't stack the dishwasher because he wants to play that video game, then he doesn't stack the dishwasher because he reads Slashdot, and then he doesn't stack the dishwasher because he just found this comic book,... is he then addicted to TV, to the internet, to games, to comic books, to all of them at once, or is he maybe just too lazy to stack the dishwasher?
Not everyone who has money on a Swiss bank account is guilty of tax evasion. Since I assume WikiLeaks doesn't have the tax forms of the people on this list, they can't know who of them are tax evaders, and who simply hold their money there for other reasons (maybe they want to hide it from some near relative, and maybe even for good reason).
It's one thing to give the tax office this data. It's another thing to make it public.
Again: Just having money on a Swiss bank account isn't a crime, nor proof of a crime. Publishing it however invades the privacy also of law-abiding beople who just happen to have money there for legitimate reasons.
If the govt prints money and gives it to ppl, standard of living rises
That's a fallacy: If the government prints money and gives it to the people, the value of the money shrinks. Basically printing more money is a tax on all existing money. So in the end printing new money doesn't raise the standard of living, but just transfers value from the people owning money to the government. This is the money that can then be distributed.
If the government prints too much money, the value of the money will shrink too much, and confidence in the money will go away.
But a phone is dangerous. You can use it for coordinating terrorist attacks, or even to remotely trigger a bomb. You can use it to contact a professional killer. Oh, and there's of course that dangerous mobile phone radiation...:-)
You could actually make a DoS attack on a company by installing an anger detection algorithm in those robots, and add a genetic algorithm which alters the robot's behaviour in small, individually unnoticeable steps optimizing for maximal anger. Over time, the robots would start misbehaving in subtle ways... and once the employees are constantly angry at those robots not much work will get done. Moreover, since the differences to wanted behaviour are so subtle, it will be sometimes hard to argue that it's a malfunction; after all, the robots still do their jobs, just in a way that makes people angry. Maybe just a few small delays at specific points...
My main gripe with the site is that tends to be content weighted towards hero worship of currently popular entertainers, athletes and other celebrities. Some articles read like they were written by a publicist's or agent's office and others by obsessed fans.
Maybe that is because they were written by a publicist's or agent's office, or by obsessed fans. Remember, everyone can write an article, and most articles are written by people who particularly care about the subject, i.e. in this case the celebrity. Now who cares about celebrities? Well, usually either those who live from them (publicists, agents) or those who are fans of them.
Except that you are not forced to sell your Android app on Amazon. If you want to distribute it for free, then you are free to choose another shop, or just distribute it over your own homepage.
Slashdot Mirror
And even if there is causation, it doesn't tell the direction. Bad social skills may well lead some to compensate through game playing, which surely increases the probability of becoming addicted to games.
But if he doesn't stack the dishwasher because of the TV show, then doesn't stack the dishwasher because he wants to play that video game, then he doesn't stack the dishwasher because he reads Slashdot, and then he doesn't stack the dishwasher because he just found this comic book, ... is he then addicted to TV, to the internet, to games, to comic books, to all of them at once, or is he maybe just too lazy to stack the dishwasher?
Not everyone who has money on a Swiss bank account is guilty of tax evasion. Since I assume WikiLeaks doesn't have the tax forms of the people on this list, they can't know who of them are tax evaders, and who simply hold their money there for other reasons (maybe they want to hide it from some near relative, and maybe even for good reason).
It's one thing to give the tax office this data. It's another thing to make it public.
Again: Just having money on a Swiss bank account isn't a crime, nor proof of a crime. Publishing it however invades the privacy also of law-abiding beople who just happen to have money there for legitimate reasons.
01010100011010000 11001010111100100100
00001110100011011 11011011110110101100
10000001101101011 00001011010000010000
00110101001101111 0110001000100001
(added spaces/linebreaks for lameness filter)
010 110 010 110 111 101 110 101 001
000 000 110 110 101 101 001 011 100
110 111 001 101 110 000 011 001 010
110 110 001 110 100 001 000 000 010
001 001 101 101 011 110 010 010 001
000 100 001 001 000 000 011 000 100
101 101 001 010 010 000 101 0
That's a fallacy: If the government prints money and gives it to the people, the value of the money shrinks. Basically printing more money is a tax on all existing money. So in the end printing new money doesn't raise the standard of living, but just transfers value from the people owning money to the government. This is the money that can then be distributed.
If the government prints too much money, the value of the money will shrink too much, and confidence in the money will go away.
Nothing annoys me more than someone who uses the term "Droid" to refer to Android based phones.
I think this topic requires an article itself.
Well, you've got a journal, so feel free to write that article.
But a phone is dangerous. You can use it for coordinating terrorist attacks, or even to remotely trigger a bomb. You can use it to contact a professional killer. Oh, and there's of course that dangerous mobile phone radiation ... :-)
Well, I've kept my profile nonexistent. I can live quite well without a Facebook account.
Maybe the moderator considered it funny that someone thinks if he removes all his data from Facebook, it is no longer stored there?
Just wait until the robots themselves start to sue their programmers. :-)
You could actually make a DoS attack on a company by installing an anger detection algorithm in those robots, and add a genetic algorithm which alters the robot's behaviour in small, individually unnoticeable steps optimizing for maximal anger. Over time, the robots would start misbehaving in subtle ways ... and once the employees are constantly angry at those robots not much work will get done. Moreover, since the differences to wanted behaviour are so subtle, it will be sometimes hard to argue that it's a malfunction; after all, the robots still do their jobs, just in a way that makes people angry. Maybe just a few small delays at specific points ...
It will be high-tech paper, of course.
Just call them consultants.
Well, until the robots get intelligent enough that they fight for their rights ...
But then the paper-moving robots would lose their job! You cannot do that! Doesn't anyone think of the robots?
It would be funny if it turned out that management jobs are the easiest ones to be replaced with machines ...
Actually Wikipedia started out with GFDL content. RMS even made a special exception in the new version of the GFDL to allow Wikipedia to switch to CC.
In this case, the bugs are the feature.
Just look for the Microsoft logo on the mosquito.
Thanks to Windows, they have plenty experience with virus and worm infections :-)
What's their source on the age of Wikipedia? A Wikipedia article?!
I read that, in the last six months, the Wikipedia's age has tripled.
In that case, Wikipedia must be nine months now.
My main gripe with the site is that tends to be content weighted towards hero worship of currently popular entertainers, athletes and other celebrities. Some articles read like they were written by a publicist's or agent's office and others by obsessed fans.
Maybe that is because they were written by a publicist's or agent's office, or by obsessed fans.
Remember, everyone can write an article, and most articles are written by people who particularly care about the subject, i.e. in this case the celebrity. Now who cares about celebrities? Well, usually either those who live from them (publicists, agents) or those who are fans of them.
Other people on Wikipedia?
I am really not a grammar nazi, but I couldn't resit correcting your correction.
And I couldn't resist correcting your correction of his correction. :-)
Except that you are not forced to sell your Android app on Amazon. If you want to distribute it for free, then you are free to choose another shop, or just distribute it over your own homepage.