Perhaps you could point me to an example of a serious Republican debate over policy, where Republicans differ, and their differences are not stifled immediately as they are forced to tow the party line.
So you're not familiar with the Tea Party? Look specifically into the issues they avoid, and you'll find what you're claiming doesn't exist. A big one is defense spending. Many Red Team players insist on writing a blank check and killing everyone who isn't an American. Others want to see the MIC reduced to a mere National Guard. Religion is also a wedge issue. Racism, too.
On the Blue Team, you'll find similar woes. Note how every Amendment that Liberals like is a natural right given to 'all people', except the Second.
Partisanship is a disease of the mind, and should be purged.
I refuse to acknowledge magical-thinking. I refuse to do so in both outlandish claims AND in rebuttals of those claims.
The answer is, it can’t. Unless it’s a magical one made of pixie shoes. After all, if a SATA cable was so poor as to cause errors in the transmission of data, you wouldn’t be able to listen to the music in the first place: your operating system wouldn’t boot, and in the case of a NAS device, well, it just wouldn’t work. And as for poor SATA cables adding noise to the music? It’s simply impossible. The SATA cable would need to physically alter the sequence of 0s and 1s, and would be as likely to add noise to a JPEG image file as it would be an audio file. And regardless, error correction does not allow for such an eventuality.
Read more: Can SATA cables make your music sound better?
Oh, I see. It can't because you said it can't. That TOTALLY shows him. Well played.
I think the point you're missing is that if you can't motivate people to do a given thing in a natural, sustainable way, then pursuit of it is largely going to be folly.
Profit makes the business owner open new branches and in turn employ more people. If he or she were only ever going to get one slice of the pie at a fixed size, this wouldn't occur. It is a natural motivator that needs no campaigning and no education.
Imagine that we could flip a switch and move the entire nation to solar overnight. We'd have an instant, zero-emissions nation, and the birds and bees would all breathe a sigh of relief. The people though, who used to mine coal, fix downed power lines, pump gas, and the like - they'd all be pretty pissed to wake up without a job.
In order to make that sort of a thing happen, you'll require an unnatural motivator, like government action.
Maybe at present, but not always. They put them in tires, do they not? And tires have stickers, not tags. Further this could change at any time with the simple excuse of 'sometimes tags fall off', so I'm not seeing that as a meaningful rebuttal.
And how often do you walk across networked RFID transceivers, anyway?
Is RFID, as described in the article really all that scary? No, not really. E.g.
30 to 40 million people carry RFID tags on their windshields to allow them to cross bridges, and more carry them in their wallets, and there is not a single example of anyone who had their privacy infringed because of the tags.
So the fear that the government would use RFID to gain data that they already have is likely debunked. Also the tracking is largely moot. They can do that in all sorts of other ways...
This is the part that scares me:
Taken as a whole, Roberti asserts, the benefits of RFID tags -- to track merchandise and packages, and keep track of drugs and food -- far outweigh any downside.
Where I bought my specific pair of shoes for today likely is not in a database anywhere. With RFID it wouldn't need to be. You just scan the tag and ask the shoes. This potential privacy issue also lacks an implementation, but still represents more information than anyone specifically needs to have. I fear the unintended (or secretly-intended) consequences of all this consumerist stuff in our lives suddenly having a history.
So do you assume that ArsonSmith is not a republican, or that he is merely lying to appear as though he disagrees? Because we can assume, at least, that you read his post, and he's voicing dissent.
"The bike program in it of itself, if that's all it is, I wouldn't be opposed to it," Maes told 9NEWS. "What I am opposed to is if it's part of a bigger program that the mayor has signed on to as part of a UN program. That I would be opposed to."
"It's all part of this population control mentality that we as humans are the disease," Strauch said. "He never said that biking is inherently wrong."
Question - Why can't people just own their own bikes? What's with all the government involvement at the actual bike level? These devices are often less than $200, which is relatively very little. The plan costs at least $65/year, and that's before whatever these 'usage fees' are. These are close to equivalent, except B-cycle needs facilities, a web presence, and a less-than-trivial number of staff members to make it efficient.
If the city wanted to leverage funds to make people ride more bikes, why not simply subsidize their purchase? Particularly in this economy, this would certainly be welcomed by the local bike retailers. As the plan stands, they will probably hurt sales of bikes.
So here we have a plan that is probably not economical, hurts local business, and adds complexity to the government.
He goes on to argue that the bicycle program is only a gateway into bigger policies including, but not limited to, forced abortions and population control. I understand that bike seats are uncomfortable, but I had no idea it was on purpose."
The link says....
Nate Strauch told The Associated Press that Maes was trying to say that the biking initiative is a "gateway program" being pushed by ICLEI on cities that eventually lead to extreme measures, such as the promotion of abortions and population control
its actually much higher than that. What you're quoting is that 1 in 10 people with autism and given a false negative.
Its actually much worse. Out of 10,000 children, 1980 would be found positive, out of which only 90 would have the disease.
So only about 5% of people who tested postive would actually be autistic.
It says this in TFA.
What, though, if the bolded assumption above is false? We're simply making an assumption here, aren't we? I mean, there's not any non-behavioral criteria being used to specifically state that the 'disease' isn't present, right?
What if, somehow, those 1900 or so other people do have the 'disease', but they are somehow coping with it as to not have any discernible symptoms? Take as an example the number of people with Type II diabetes who are unaware of it. It isn't as if the blood sugar counts are somehow all incorrect just because the people don't yet have symptoms severe enough to cause them to seek treatment. This could be the same thing!!
And if it is, therein lies the CURE.
Correlation Causation, but not in either direction, folks.
First, please allow me to complain that the first two links go to the same place. Second, from what I have access to here, there isn't a single identical page in either of the previews featured for either book. The fonts are different, the images are off-color, etc. Finally...
This book is designed to be the perfect replacement for the popular calculus textbook "Calculus: Early Transcendentals" by James Stewart. Despite the humorous name, it is actually a serious attempt at creating a cheap substitute to that book. The contents match up chapter by chapter so that you can use this book as an alternative if your calc course has that book as a requirement. We also aim to provide exercises, including some solved exercises, which are just as good as in the original. This book is much cheaper than Stewart's Calculus, so if you are studying calc on a budget, why not give us a try and see if we can live up to your expectations? We promise you won't be disappointed. This is the first volume, corresponding to chapters 1-9 of the 6th edition of Stewart.
Any similarity here is entirely intentional as the 'stolen' work is intended as a drop-in replacement. Sure they copied the book word-for-word, but it seems they intended to do that. TFS implies tom-foolery, whereas instead we have what amounts to a protest over the cost of the original book...
It is even worse. How do you distinguish browsing history from one person between another. By IP?
This depends on the system, but generally, yes IP alone is enough to begin taking action.
What if:
You are given false records by an IT department?
Then you're utterly screwed. Same as if the police were falsifying police reports. You'll have to prove malfeasance in order to invalidate the false evidence against you. There's a reason 'thou shalt not bear false witness' makes the top ten list.
This issue, though, exists with or without IP addresses.
You are tracking not a person but everyone who has access to his router?
If you plug in a router, you're responsible for controlling everything that's done on it. If you can't handle that responsibility, don't plug one in... Same as if you leave a loaded weapon, or rat poison, etc, out on the counter where your kids can get to it. If you want to be responsible about use of a potentially dangerous thing, secure it as best you possibly can.
You are tracking not a person but everyone who has access to his computer?
As above. Owner of said computer is ultimately responsible for defining and enforcing policy over it.
You are tracking not a person but everyone who has remote access to his hacked browser?
As above. Computers can have malware on them, this is not new. Take appropriate measures. Proving that someone put software on your PC without consent might obviate your responsibility, and it might not.
The only manner in which browsing can have any legal standing is someone was there and actually saw you do it.
Just like the only gunshot evidence is when people see the bullet impact the target? No, I think not.
I.e. I used to be a teacher on a college. How many students or even colleagues do you think are up to a prank and just start downloading Nikki Underwear's finest from your computer? And that is without even going into the many reasons people might have some sick attempt to damage another.
Computer use carries with it responsibilities, sir. Maybe your IT Pro's didn't train you properly, or maybe you weren't listening, but your log on credentials are usually equivalent to your signature, and everything done under your account, or on your equipment, tracks back to you.
The new criteria is pretty simple. The victim defines the crime. If someone says something is sexual harrassment, it is.
Yes, us old white men feel a bit put upon because we can't make dirty blonde jokes. But the upside is that the whole place works better and everyone can better contribute up to their potential.
In this light, you're sexually harassing me, and I demand you delete your post! Since this is slashdot and you cannot yourself delete your post, I demand that you pay restitution in the amount of $1,000,000/minute that the post offends me. I'll let you know once it has stopped offending me.
FTA: "When faced with dangerously incompetent management, it's best to just look for another job."
I found this a very telling statement. If your management are bozos, don't try to change them or point out their bozo-ness. Just pack up and move on. They hold all the cards. You will be punished for trying to fix anything that makes them look bad.
How very sad and defeatist.
- Jasen.
Very sad, very defeatist, and usually, very, very true.
Making the point, winning the battle, etc, will all cause you to lose the war. People in positions of power tend to enjoy appearing as though they deserve to be there. Demonstrate the opposite and watch your life become more difficult.
Back to Childs, well, unfortunately he chose the high road. Civil disobedience carries a punitive cost, and it seems he'll be paying a while longer. The rest of us elect instead self-preservation, whether that be to feed our kids or to simply make our lives more comfortable.
Time will tell which choice was 'best'. Meanwhile, God's speed to you, Mr Childs, and I hope your sentence flies by...
... but there was a reason it was left on the cutting room floor. Maybe it added too much of a somber tone, or maybe it was deemed redundant when vader later notes that skywalker had created a lightsaber.
Actually I think I would have cut it because opening the movie with the droids is better. You have the brief illusion that 3PO really doesn't know why he's been given to Jabba, etc. If you see them all together at the start of the film, Luke's entrance later is robbed of a lot of the impact it has.
I do apologize for coming to this so late, but you've missed the only salient point about 'who shot first'...
As far as Han losing his edge because Greedo shoots first, meh. It's not like Lucas axed him storming his way through the Death Star or fighting his way off of Jabba's Sail Barge, or evading the Imperial Fleet by blending in with the trash. Him not shooting first isn't a big deal.
Han's story in the first film is that of the scoundrel swept into a war. He starts off as a hardened criminal with questionable judgement, prone to rash action. The middle of the film is full of his protests in the form of 'what about my money' and the like. The final scenes show him, money in hand, turning around and risking everything because he had a change of heart.
Him storming through the Death Star is absolutely irrelevant to the story of who this character was.
Imagine the Hobbit opening with Gandalf visiting the home of 'Bilbo the stalwart veteran of dwarven wars'. In this context you can start to see the change that Lucas wrought with that simple 'fix' of Greedo forcing Han to shoot him. Much like this would have made Bilbo's story 'Been there, Done that', it made Han's doubt in the end pathetically shallow, rather than symptomatic of his transformation.
You can still 'meh' that if you'd like, but Star Wars before 'Greedo shot first' was a wild and dangerous place. Afterwards it was a spaghetti western. That's enough of a loss to mourn, in my book.
You do realize that fully two thirds of Americans are technically obese, don't you? Look left. Now look right. Those are the two fatties that are going to lazily kick your ass. Or, if you didn't find any fatties one one side or the other, then I guess that makes you the fatty.
What 'points' are being scored here, exactly? And aren't you establishing a false dichotomy between bad situations where 'points' are scored and good situations where no 'points' are scored? Because it would seem that the latter doesn't exist.
You'll need to expound upon this greatly, because as it stands it is exceedingly thin.
You're playing on all the right emotional cords, and I respect the effort behind your post, but please understand that I am not feeling those same emotions. You'll have to use words, logic, and the like, if you still have the desire to make your point.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is a fine thought, and could stand some actual proof backing it up.
Perhaps you could point me to an example of a serious Republican debate over policy, where Republicans differ, and their differences are not stifled immediately as they are forced to tow the party line.
So you're not familiar with the Tea Party? Look specifically into the issues they avoid, and you'll find what you're claiming doesn't exist. A big one is defense spending. Many Red Team players insist on writing a blank check and killing everyone who isn't an American. Others want to see the MIC reduced to a mere National Guard. Religion is also a wedge issue. Racism, too.
On the Blue Team, you'll find similar woes. Note how every Amendment that Liberals like is a natural right given to 'all people', except the Second.
Partisanship is a disease of the mind, and should be purged.
I refuse to acknowledge magical-thinking. I refuse to do so in both outlandish claims AND in rebuttals of those claims.
The answer is, it can’t. Unless it’s a magical one made of pixie shoes. After all, if a SATA cable was so poor as to cause errors in the transmission of data, you wouldn’t be able to listen to the music in the first place: your operating system wouldn’t boot, and in the case of a NAS device, well, it just wouldn’t work.
And as for poor SATA cables adding noise to the music? It’s simply impossible. The SATA cable would need to physically alter the sequence of 0s and 1s, and would be as likely to add noise to a JPEG image file as it would be an audio file. And regardless, error correction does not allow for such an eventuality.
Read more: Can SATA cables make your music sound better?
Oh, I see. It can't because you said it can't. That TOTALLY shows him. Well played.
I think the point you're missing is that if you can't motivate people to do a given thing in a natural, sustainable way, then pursuit of it is largely going to be folly.
Profit makes the business owner open new branches and in turn employ more people. If he or she were only ever going to get one slice of the pie at a fixed size, this wouldn't occur. It is a natural motivator that needs no campaigning and no education.
Imagine that we could flip a switch and move the entire nation to solar overnight. We'd have an instant, zero-emissions nation, and the birds and bees would all breathe a sigh of relief. The people though, who used to mine coal, fix downed power lines, pump gas, and the like - they'd all be pretty pissed to wake up without a job.
In order to make that sort of a thing happen, you'll require an unnatural motivator, like government action.
Mark seems to live in a world where,
"Guns don't kill people - no one does".
The tags are in the tags, not the shoes.
Maybe at present, but not always. They put them in tires, do they not? And tires have stickers, not tags. Further this could change at any time with the simple excuse of 'sometimes tags fall off', so I'm not seeing that as a meaningful rebuttal.
And how often do you walk across networked RFID transceivers, anyway?
Not very often. Not yet, anyway.
So even when they're being different, they're being the same?
Hardly.
You're taking the latter position, 'anyone on the Red Team is always lying.'
Is RFID, as described in the article really all that scary? No, not really. E.g.
30 to 40 million people carry RFID tags on their windshields to allow them to cross bridges, and more carry them in their wallets, and there is not a single example of anyone who had their privacy infringed because of the tags.
So the fear that the government would use RFID to gain data that they already have is likely debunked. Also the tracking is largely moot. They can do that in all sorts of other ways...
This is the part that scares me:
Taken as a whole, Roberti asserts, the benefits of RFID tags -- to track merchandise and packages, and keep track of drugs and food -- far outweigh any downside.
Where I bought my specific pair of shoes for today likely is not in a database anywhere. With RFID it wouldn't need to be. You just scan the tag and ask the shoes. This potential privacy issue also lacks an implementation, but still represents more information than anyone specifically needs to have. I fear the unintended (or secretly-intended) consequences of all this consumerist stuff in our lives suddenly having a history.
So do you assume that ArsonSmith is not a republican, or that he is merely lying to appear as though he disagrees? Because we can assume, at least, that you read his post, and he's voicing dissent.
Better idea? Park on the outskirts and use public transit.
"The bike program in it of itself, if that's all it is, I wouldn't be opposed to it," Maes told 9NEWS. "What I am opposed to is if it's part of a bigger program that the mayor has signed on to as part of a UN program. That I would be opposed to."
"It's all part of this population control mentality that we as humans are the disease," Strauch said. "He never said that biking is inherently wrong."
Question - Why can't people just own their own bikes? What's with all the government involvement at the actual bike level? These devices are often less than $200, which is relatively very little. The plan costs at least $65/year, and that's before whatever these 'usage fees' are. These are close to equivalent, except B-cycle needs facilities, a web presence, and a less-than-trivial number of staff members to make it efficient.
If the city wanted to leverage funds to make people ride more bikes, why not simply subsidize their purchase? Particularly in this economy, this would certainly be welcomed by the local bike retailers. As the plan stands, they will probably hurt sales of bikes.
So here we have a plan that is probably not economical, hurts local business, and adds complexity to the government.
Why?
TFS says...
He goes on to argue that the bicycle program is only a gateway into bigger policies including, but not limited to, forced abortions and population control. I understand that bike seats are uncomfortable, but I had no idea it was on purpose."
The link says....
Nate Strauch told The Associated Press that Maes was trying to say that the biking initiative is a "gateway program" being pushed by ICLEI on cities that eventually lead to extreme measures, such as the promotion of abortions and population control
Are we to believe there's no difference?
In the meantime, playing the classic version over a private VPN it is.
Why?
its actually much higher than that. What you're quoting is that 1 in 10 people with autism and given a false negative.
Its actually much worse. Out of 10,000 children, 1980 would be found positive, out of which only 90 would have the disease.
So only about 5% of people who tested postive would actually be autistic.
It says this in TFA.
What, though, if the bolded assumption above is false? We're simply making an assumption here, aren't we? I mean, there's not any non-behavioral criteria being used to specifically state that the 'disease' isn't present, right?
What if, somehow, those 1900 or so other people do have the 'disease', but they are somehow coping with it as to not have any discernible symptoms? Take as an example the number of people with Type II diabetes who are unaware of it. It isn't as if the blood sugar counts are somehow all incorrect just because the people don't yet have symptoms severe enough to cause them to seek treatment. This could be the same thing!!
And if it is, therein lies the CURE.
Correlation Causation, but not in either direction, folks.
First, please allow me to complain that the first two links go to the same place. Second, from what I have access to here, there isn't a single identical page in either of the previews featured for either book. The fonts are different, the images are off-color, etc. Finally...
This book is designed to be the perfect replacement for the popular calculus textbook "Calculus: Early Transcendentals" by James Stewart. Despite the humorous name, it is actually a serious attempt at creating a cheap substitute to that book. The contents match up chapter by chapter so that you can use this book as an alternative if your calc course has that book as a requirement. We also aim to provide exercises, including some solved exercises, which are just as good as in the original. This book is much cheaper than Stewart's Calculus, so if you are studying calc on a budget, why not give us a try and see if we can live up to your expectations? We promise you won't be disappointed. This is the first volume, corresponding to chapters 1-9 of the 6th edition of Stewart.
Any similarity here is entirely intentional as the 'stolen' work is intended as a drop-in replacement. Sure they copied the book word-for-word, but it seems they intended to do that. TFS implies tom-foolery, whereas instead we have what amounts to a protest over the cost of the original book...
It is even worse. How do you distinguish browsing history from one person between another. By IP?
This depends on the system, but generally, yes IP alone is enough to begin taking action.
What if:
You are given false records by an IT department?
Then you're utterly screwed. Same as if the police were falsifying police reports. You'll have to prove malfeasance in order to invalidate the false evidence against you. There's a reason 'thou shalt not bear false witness' makes the top ten list.
This issue, though, exists with or without IP addresses.
You are tracking not a person but everyone who has access to his router?
If you plug in a router, you're responsible for controlling everything that's done on it. If you can't handle that responsibility, don't plug one in... Same as if you leave a loaded weapon, or rat poison, etc, out on the counter where your kids can get to it. If you want to be responsible about use of a potentially dangerous thing, secure it as best you possibly can.
You are tracking not a person but everyone who has access to his computer?
As above. Owner of said computer is ultimately responsible for defining and enforcing policy over it.
You are tracking not a person but everyone who has remote access to his hacked browser?
As above. Computers can have malware on them, this is not new. Take appropriate measures. Proving that someone put software on your PC without consent might obviate your responsibility, and it might not.
The only manner in which browsing can have any legal standing is someone was there and actually saw you do it.
Just like the only gunshot evidence is when people see the bullet impact the target? No, I think not.
I.e. I used to be a teacher on a college. How many students or even colleagues do you think are up to a prank and just start downloading Nikki Underwear's finest from your computer? And that is without even going into the many reasons people might have some sick attempt to damage another.
Computer use carries with it responsibilities, sir. Maybe your IT Pro's didn't train you properly, or maybe you weren't listening, but your log on credentials are usually equivalent to your signature, and everything done under your account, or on your equipment, tracks back to you.
The new criteria is pretty simple. The victim defines the crime. If someone says something is sexual harrassment, it is.
Yes, us old white men feel a bit put upon because we can't make dirty blonde jokes. But the upside is that the whole place works better and everyone can better contribute up to their potential.
In this light, you're sexually harassing me, and I demand you delete your post! Since this is slashdot and you cannot yourself delete your post, I demand that you pay restitution in the amount of $1,000,000/minute that the post offends me. I'll let you know once it has stopped offending me.
Cheers!
FTA: "When faced with dangerously incompetent management, it's best to just look for another job."
I found this a very telling statement. If your management are bozos, don't try to change them or point out their bozo-ness. Just pack up and move on. They hold all the cards. You will be punished for trying to fix anything that makes them look bad.
How very sad and defeatist.
- Jasen.
Very sad, very defeatist, and usually, very, very true.
Making the point, winning the battle, etc, will all cause you to lose the war. People in positions of power tend to enjoy appearing as though they deserve to be there. Demonstrate the opposite and watch your life become more difficult.
Back to Childs, well, unfortunately he chose the high road. Civil disobedience carries a punitive cost, and it seems he'll be paying a while longer. The rest of us elect instead self-preservation, whether that be to feed our kids or to simply make our lives more comfortable.
Time will tell which choice was 'best'. Meanwhile, God's speed to you, Mr Childs, and I hope your sentence flies by...
Nah, not quite enough. If you'll recall the end of ESB, his fake hand looks reasonably realistic when the droid is poking his fingers.
... but there was a reason it was left on the cutting room floor. Maybe it added too much of a somber tone, or maybe it was deemed redundant when vader later notes that skywalker had created a lightsaber.
Actually I think I would have cut it because opening the movie with the droids is better. You have the brief illusion that 3PO really doesn't know why he's been given to Jabba, etc. If you see them all together at the start of the film, Luke's entrance later is robbed of a lot of the impact it has.
I do apologize for coming to this so late, but you've missed the only salient point about 'who shot first'...
As far as Han losing his edge because Greedo shoots first, meh. It's not like Lucas axed him storming his way through the Death Star or fighting his way off of Jabba's Sail Barge, or evading the Imperial Fleet by blending in with the trash. Him not shooting first isn't a big deal.
Han's story in the first film is that of the scoundrel swept into a war. He starts off as a hardened criminal with questionable judgement, prone to rash action. The middle of the film is full of his protests in the form of 'what about my money' and the like. The final scenes show him, money in hand, turning around and risking everything because he had a change of heart.
Him storming through the Death Star is absolutely irrelevant to the story of who this character was.
Imagine the Hobbit opening with Gandalf visiting the home of 'Bilbo the stalwart veteran of dwarven wars'. In this context you can start to see the change that Lucas wrought with that simple 'fix' of Greedo forcing Han to shoot him. Much like this would have made Bilbo's story 'Been there, Done that', it made Han's doubt in the end pathetically shallow, rather than symptomatic of his transformation.
You can still 'meh' that if you'd like, but Star Wars before 'Greedo shot first' was a wild and dangerous place. Afterwards it was a spaghetti western. That's enough of a loss to mourn, in my book.
While you make an excellent point, I'm relatively certain that they don't have a trademark within the 'breaking' market.
The logo on the side of the Beetle is pretty close, IMHO. I don't think it's overzealous. It's pretty blatant.
So is it your opinion that confused customers will be contacting the 'God Squad' for help with their computers?
You do realize that fully two thirds of Americans are technically obese, don't you? Look left. Now look right. Those are the two fatties that are going to lazily kick your ass. Or, if you didn't find any fatties one one side or the other, then I guess that makes you the fatty.
Enjoy!
What 'points' are being scored here, exactly? And aren't you establishing a false dichotomy between bad situations where 'points' are scored and good situations where no 'points' are scored? Because it would seem that the latter doesn't exist.
You'll need to expound upon this greatly, because as it stands it is exceedingly thin.
You're playing on all the right emotional cords, and I respect the effort behind your post, but please understand that I am not feeling those same emotions. You'll have to use words, logic, and the like, if you still have the desire to make your point.