So the purpose of a password is to prevent being framed for possessing kiddie porn?
You keep using that word 'hypocritical', but you don't seem to know what it means. Thompson is vilifying Weiner for attempting to frame him and ruin his life. It would only be hypocrisy were Thompson doing the same thing. Since Weiner actually did what Thompson says he did, and Thompson never did what Weiner said HE did, these aren't congruent enough to warrant hypocrisy. Thompson, as a victim, has the right to speak out about it. Weiner, as the villain, has a similar right, but is in no way protected from the scorn of his accusers.
Both are using the media, true, but that's where the similarity stops. That alone isn't a strong enough similarity to make the logical leap to hypocrisy.
Coming from you, I can safely take no offense at that label. Have a nice day!
Depending on the circumstances, killing someone could easily be a lesser crime. Manslaughter, negligence, crime of passion, etc, would all be far, far, far less vile than what this case is about.
i have no problem with anything until the victim attempts to exploit the media to further harm a convicted and sentenced man.
that is a hypocritical act of malice and vengeance, and can only serve to discredit the justice system.
we'll all see how the show ends in <12 years, and whether or not continued agitation of the situation was the "good" move.
So even though he's been exonerated and the true criminal was successfully convicted, the innocent has no right to publicize his innocence? He was FRAMED for crying out loud. Who, if not he, should be allowed to vilify his attacker?
You'd be just as well off asking a rape victim to be respectful and grateful to her rapist.
So, how long HAVE you and the convicted been chums??
Is Google 'supporting' them if they allow pedophiles to use gmail? Is KMart supporting them by selling them KY-Jelly? Are you supporting them by exhaling the carbon dioxide used by the plant matter they will eventually consume?
The tone that the author of the article asserts simply doesn't exist in the original blog post. She's offering lighthearted advice and never once even implied that women cannot learn these things. Indeed, she offers as a balance point that these women would likewise not need to learn sports - like they might with a more traditional male. They, in her mind, are clearly able to learn these things, but if they're not interested in it, they don't have to...
But there is a fundamental barrier between that and the current state of automatic german->english translations (remember that article some time ago?), with error rates unacceptable for anything but personal usage.
Yes and no. They translations are unlikely to be perfect, that's true. But with a human reading them at the other end, do they really need to be perfect? Or are we simply nit-picking the imperfections?
Don't get me wrong, there are places for nit-picking: safety issues, measurements, papers to be graded. It's just that these don't regularly come into play for most of us. Especially not in a world that seems to be accepting text-message shorthand in place of proper spelling...
In other words, I disagree with this guy. Emotions, happy or sad, are not necessary. I have in my library a non-fictional account of a girl who was missing certain chemical receptors in her brain, and she never felt happy. It didn't stop her from acting like a normal human being, the only trouble she had was understanding what other people felt like when they were happy.
Consider the possibility that that's bullshit. Either it is a complete fabrication or lots of details are missing from the account. She might be missing some emotions but not all of them, she may be afraid of losing her job, or she might enjoy her job if only marginally better than watching the grass grow.
You present an intriguing point of view. You might want to look into Autism, because I'd be very interested to understand your viewpoint in that context.
My son is among them, and as I understand the condition, the autistic are simply not wired the same way the rest of us are. The baser emotions are all there (anger, fear, pleasure, etc) but some of the complex emotions are noticeably absent (shame, awkwardness, empathy, anxiety). So while my boy may someday learn to emulate these things, he'll likely never actually feel them.
The condition goes back to the topic, actually, because while the computer can output the desired responses, will it ever actually 'feel' the emotions? Because if not, you're effectively arguing that robots (and to a lesser extent autistics) will never exhibit true intelligence.
How, then, does a free market violate the freedoms of others? Because I'm not seeing where you illustrated that point. You seem to just have stated it as fact, and in defiance of dogma, that's rather ironic.
It means only one thing: "We find it extremely unlikely this person will revel secret information given to them."
...
...and in making sure you have no skeletons in your closet or bad habits that could be used as leverage to make you betray your country.
It likely means that this person has good enough judgement to remain that way as well, does it not? I mean if it were apparent that the guy were a total whackjob, who only hadn't screwed up so far, do we really think the clearance would be granted?
From an anthropological point of view, those weapons are the single greatest thing invented, in terms of their impact on human culture.
Why would an outsider NOT be interested in them??
Especially if they hadn't ever had that particular flash of innovation before? It could well be like chocolate to Cortez. Nothing beyond their current capabilities, yet still novel enough to inspire great enthusiasm about it.
Captain Salas notes, "The U.S. Air Force is lying about the national security implications of unidentified aerial objects at nuclear bases and we can prove it."
This isn't news until they present their supposed "proof".
If you'd made it to the second page, you might have noted that this is to take place on Monday. This is an announcement of the press conference, containing the topic, who will be presenting, who will be permitted, and when it will take place.
But don't let me stop you from doubting it before you've seen it.:)
Right, but if YOU think that no company, ever, will persist beyond the relevance of the content they're currently peddling, then your stock portfolio must be absolutely dismal.
Might happen, might not. On the whole, it is rare. However, if anyone can do it, Steam is likely to do it.
That was the case well before he was dead, and he did it himself. The rest of this is latent greed, just like all the inevitable "Michael Jackson Xth Anniversary Greatest Hits" album to be released every 5 years from here on out.
Eh, maybe, but I see this as distinct. They're making an MMO. This doesn't appear to be a product that would appeal to Michael fans NOR to MMO fans. It appears to be a blatant cash grab, with little-to-no actual reason for it to exist.
At least with the every-5-year CD's you're getting music on a disc that you might actually enjoy.
Steve Jobs' motto should be, "Compressed media, through earbuds, it's good enough."
He is right, though, isn't he?
I mean you're already making compromises by not seeing it live. How many/few people care that it is compressed, particularly when compared to the convenience and/or cost advantages?
Slashdot Mirror
Just so long as you're being rational about it. Or as much as you can be, anyway.
One more try.
Imagine that I might go home tonight and sleep with my wife. When you wish to do so, I'll deny you that right.
Hypocrisy?
These are nuanced, but I'm confident you're able to reason it out if you try.
Again, I don't care whether you think whomever is an idiot, myself included. Your judgement clearly isn't solid enough for your opinion to count.
Also, again, the right to act here is what's salient.
Not hardly. It is the right of the wronged to assail their attacker with the truth of what they did.
So the purpose of a password is to prevent being framed for possessing kiddie porn?
You keep using that word 'hypocritical', but you don't seem to know what it means. Thompson is vilifying Weiner for attempting to frame him and ruin his life. It would only be hypocrisy were Thompson doing the same thing. Since Weiner actually did what Thompson says he did, and Thompson never did what Weiner said HE did, these aren't congruent enough to warrant hypocrisy. Thompson, as a victim, has the right to speak out about it. Weiner, as the villain, has a similar right, but is in no way protected from the scorn of his accusers.
Both are using the media, true, but that's where the similarity stops. That alone isn't a strong enough similarity to make the logical leap to hypocrisy.
Coming from you, I can safely take no offense at that label. Have a nice day!
Ignorant, how? He is uninformed on exactly which facts?
Hypocritical how? He is planting kiddie porn exactly which computers?
Depending on the circumstances, killing someone could easily be a lesser crime. Manslaughter, negligence, crime of passion, etc, would all be far, far, far less vile than what this case is about.
i have no problem with anything until the victim attempts to exploit the media to further harm a convicted and sentenced man.
that is a hypocritical act of malice and vengeance, and can only serve to discredit the justice system.
we'll all see how the show ends in <12 years, and whether or not continued agitation of the situation was the "good" move.
So even though he's been exonerated and the true criminal was successfully convicted, the innocent has no right to publicize his innocence? He was FRAMED for crying out loud. Who, if not he, should be allowed to vilify his attacker?
You'd be just as well off asking a rape victim to be respectful and grateful to her rapist.
So, how long HAVE you and the convicted been chums??
Not all 'support' is financial.
Is Google 'supporting' them if they allow pedophiles to use gmail? Is KMart supporting them by selling them KY-Jelly? Are you supporting them by exhaling the carbon dioxide used by the plant matter they will eventually consume?
Where does it stop?
The tone that the author of the article asserts simply doesn't exist in the original blog post. She's offering lighthearted advice and never once even implied that women cannot learn these things. Indeed, she offers as a balance point that these women would likewise not need to learn sports - like they might with a more traditional male. They, in her mind, are clearly able to learn these things, but if they're not interested in it, they don't have to...
That's not anything close to article linked.
I also believe that we can condition our emotional responses through practice and mental discipline.
But I'm confident that the response needs to be there in the first place. Otherwise there'd be no motivation to change it.
I don't think it can be completely faked.
But there is a fundamental barrier between that and the current state of automatic german->english translations (remember that article some time ago?), with error rates unacceptable for anything but personal usage.
Yes and no. They translations are unlikely to be perfect, that's true. But with a human reading them at the other end, do they really need to be perfect? Or are we simply nit-picking the imperfections?
Don't get me wrong, there are places for nit-picking: safety issues, measurements, papers to be graded. It's just that these don't regularly come into play for most of us. Especially not in a world that seems to be accepting text-message shorthand in place of proper spelling...
In Soviet Russia, %EMOTION% felt %NOUN% for you!
Watch it buddy! I don't think that's legal, even over there!!
In other words, I disagree with this guy. Emotions, happy or sad, are not necessary. I have in my library a non-fictional account of a girl who was missing certain chemical receptors in her brain, and she never felt happy. It didn't stop her from acting like a normal human being, the only trouble she had was understanding what other people felt like when they were happy.
Consider the possibility that that's bullshit. Either it is a complete fabrication or lots of details are missing from the account. She might be missing some emotions but not all of them, she may be afraid of losing her job, or she might enjoy her job if only marginally better than watching the grass grow.
You present an intriguing point of view. You might want to look into Autism, because I'd be very interested to understand your viewpoint in that context.
My son is among them, and as I understand the condition, the autistic are simply not wired the same way the rest of us are. The baser emotions are all there (anger, fear, pleasure, etc) but some of the complex emotions are noticeably absent (shame, awkwardness, empathy, anxiety). So while my boy may someday learn to emulate these things, he'll likely never actually feel them.
The condition goes back to the topic, actually, because while the computer can output the desired responses, will it ever actually 'feel' the emotions? Because if not, you're effectively arguing that robots (and to a lesser extent autistics) will never exhibit true intelligence.
Again, it's an intriguing point of view.
How, then, does a free market violate the freedoms of others? Because I'm not seeing where you illustrated that point. You seem to just have stated it as fact, and in defiance of dogma, that's rather ironic.
It means only one thing: "We find it extremely unlikely this person will revel secret information given to them."
It likely means that this person has good enough judgement to remain that way as well, does it not? I mean if it were apparent that the guy were a total whackjob, who only hadn't screwed up so far, do we really think the clearance would be granted?
If so, someone please go fix that ASAP...
From an anthropological point of view, those weapons are the single greatest thing invented, in terms of their impact on human culture.
Why would an outsider NOT be interested in them??
Especially if they hadn't ever had that particular flash of innovation before? It could well be like chocolate to Cortez. Nothing beyond their current capabilities, yet still novel enough to inspire great enthusiasm about it.
Captain Salas notes, "The U.S. Air Force is lying about the national security implications of unidentified aerial objects at nuclear bases and we can prove it."
This isn't news until they present their supposed "proof".
If you'd made it to the second page, you might have noted that this is to take place on Monday. This is an announcement of the press conference, containing the topic, who will be presenting, who will be permitted, and when it will take place.
But don't let me stop you from doubting it before you've seen it. :)
Right, but if YOU think that no company, ever, will persist beyond the relevance of the content they're currently peddling, then your stock portfolio must be absolutely dismal.
Might happen, might not. On the whole, it is rare. However, if anyone can do it, Steam is likely to do it.
Just like Disney died with Walt?
You know it IS OKAY to just come out and say you don't like them. You'll be in excellent company around here.
He was a parody, king of of pedophiles. He was a good musician, but respect is not something he deserved.
I'm not arguing, per se, but there was an opportunity to 'change' that perception towards his legacy at least. Squandered it though, didn't they?
That was the case well before he was dead, and he did it himself. The rest of this is latent greed, just like all the inevitable "Michael Jackson Xth Anniversary Greatest Hits" album to be released every 5 years from here on out.
Eh, maybe, but I see this as distinct. They're making an MMO. This doesn't appear to be a product that would appeal to Michael fans NOR to MMO fans. It appears to be a blatant cash grab, with little-to-no actual reason for it to exist.
At least with the every-5-year CD's you're getting music on a disc that you might actually enjoy.
Now that he's dead the owners of his 'brand' will sell, sell, sell his image until it becomes a mere parody of someone famous.
I imagine he would have wanted better. Respect, for example.
Steve Jobs' motto should be, "Compressed media, through earbuds, it's good enough."
He is right, though, isn't he?
I mean you're already making compromises by not seeing it live. How many/few people care that it is compressed, particularly when compared to the convenience and/or cost advantages?
"Xbox Head Crying: Blu-ray Dying"??