Then how would you explain the discrepancy between the distance of male-male and male-female pairs? Why would pepople take such pains, either consciously or unconsciously, in such a grainy environment?
IIRC, Jackson and New Line got into a disagreement over payment after the first LOTR movie. New Line took a risk, and when it looked like LOTR was going to be successful, they wanted to keep the lion's share of the money (BTW movie studios are notorious for 'not making money' off of movies -- in order to avoid paying taxes on profits). Jackson stood up to the studio; I don't think that he was as concerned with the money, but also what the actors were getting paid was an issue. I think he even refused to finish the last two until more agreeable terms were found. Of course New Line had to cave -- the remaining two movies were almost guaranteed to be hits, too.
But each new movie is a risk. Just because you have made hits in the past, doesn't mean that you are a hit-maker. The next movie can still flop, despite what your last movie did. I think the studios were even wary of Jackson's King Kong remake, after the smashing success of LOTR.
"People simply let go all safeguards when going online. Why, I don't know, but they do."
Your average, nuerotypical person is good at reading body language and understanding the signs of authenticity, such as clothing, vehicle, dialect, etc. However, they aren't the best readers, and their skeptical tools aren't as refined as they are for sniffing out con artists. They've been lied to and heard BS stories hundreds of times from all sorts of people all throughout their life. However, they've very rarely encountered a situation where they've needed to think critically about information they encountered in writing. They've never encountered written BS. Most people, when encountering conflicting information in text, think that they simply don't understand the text. Also, the punishments for ignoring official letters are far greater than telling a real bureaucrat who you thought was a con artist to f*ck off.
Ever since its invention, writing is the defacto sign of authority. The very first writings were receipts for business transactions. Literate people were a rare commodity, and only the aristocracy could afford to train and employ them. The village idiot didn't have an independent paper or a blog. He just ranted out loud in the square. Anything written was official, simply by the fact that it was written. Also, we have 3 of the world's major religions based on a Holy Book that was dictated by God Himself. That lends an 'aura' of authenticity to writing.
Unfortunately, the internet is primarily a written medium, and people tend to take anything that's written as gospel, just as they have for thousands of years.
OK, TOR doesn't keep logs, but is it possible to set up a honey-net TOR router that does keep logs? If I were law enforcement, that's what I would be doing.
I didn't say that one failure destroys your credit history. The problem as I see it is that if companies are looking at the credit scores of job candidates, a single failure, or some failures, make you less attractive than other candidates. I would argue that that doesn't really reflect on the person's ability to do the job. Some people have just been more fortunate than others by pure chance -- born to wealthier families, not getting sick, not having genetic pre-dispositions, etc. Again my point is how relevant this is to job performance -- sooner or later, everyone is going to have their personal life come into contact with their professional life. You're dealing with a whole person, not segments.
Maybe he didn't have enough money to make minimum payments. Sometimes, when people hit hard financial times, they have to decide where to allocate limited resources. He may have chosen to buy food or pay the gas bill this month instead of making the minimum payment on the credit card.
It's not a given that you will have enough resources to meet all your demands in life. Some people seem to have the naive idea that everyone gets just enough, and the people who are bad off simply chose to spend their income foolishly. The obvious conclusion to this line of reasoning is that malnourished children should have chosen better parents.
You can make the best possible decisions given the situation you find yourself in in life, but still not meet all of your obligations. Not everyone who is poor is poor because they made bad decisions. Some of them are, but some of them aren't. If you assume that someone who is bad off is some kind of slacker or goof-off, you are certain to overlook some people who will really succeed, and benefit your company, when enough resources become available to them.
OK, but what's to discriminate bad choices from least worst choices? It's not like life is a series of forks in the road, one being paved with gold and angels singing, the other a muddy path with devils dancing about. Take the scenario of the wife who needs chemo -- what husband wouldn't max out his credit cards for that? If they have no other resources to rely on -- no health insurance, no wealthy relatives, no government assistance -- he has made the best choice.
In that instance, you're looking at the guy who made the best choice, given the situation, and saying he made a bad choice. What a great way to evaluate potential employees.
"Interesting. Whenever there's a trace of disagreement or problem then there is no such thing as a "community". When everything is going great and there's a "common enemy" like Microsoft or whatever, then the "community" comes together and fights like a team.
You really can't have it both ways."
Why can't we have it both ways? When faced with a common enemy, people put aside their petty differences and work co-operatively towards a common goal. Then, when there is no longer a larger threat, they return to arguing with their friends/neighbors. It's the same in every human community, from the village, to the state, to the corporation, to the OSS community.
I think that the idea is that plastics in the ground aren't valuable/now/, but 100 years from now, when there's no more petroleum to pump out of the ground, it will be profitable to 'mine' plastics from old landfills.
I don't see any way out of the party system. People naturally tend to form groups. The only improvements I see are either a direct democracy, where everyone could propose and vote on law over the internet, or a parliamentary system, where there are more parties, and thus a wider ranges of views.
I would have agreed with you, before I found out that almost every significant feature from Vista has been dropped. At some point, the customer really is going to realize that they are paying for nothing -- the computer doesn't wear out as fast MS would want you to buy a new one, and their existing, paid-for computer does everything they want it to.
Maybe it won't be with Vista, but with the next years-late, overhyped, and nearly-identical version of Windows, people might say "Hey, this is the same crap." Especially since BSOD stopped with Win2k, and windows is basically stable.
To take your serious point seriously, those names are from professions, not corporations. Having a last name like Mattel is more of a group identity, a kind of neotribalism. You could be an engineer, yet still be Jeff Honda.
How many 8-year-olds with sprained wrists and cases of carpal tunnel are there going to be as a result of Simon Belmont whipping Vlad to death on Castlevania Wii?
Slashdot Mirror
Lara Croft appears *nowhere* in the top 100.
Here on uber-leet slashdot, we call it 'social engineering'.
Sounds like we would translate 'esperto' into 'clever' or 'crafty'. Interesting.
Yes. Your kindergarten classroom was just an illusion. ;)
It's actually not two standards' the grandparent is poorly worded. Really , the standard is this:
The punishment should fit the [severity of] the crime.
Then how would you explain the discrepancy between the distance of male-male and male-female pairs? Why would pepople take such pains, either consciously or unconsciously, in such a grainy environment?
So if the 'system' is that you sue only if the movie was successful, how could you be burned by the system? You can always sue, right?
IIRC, Jackson and New Line got into a disagreement over payment after the first LOTR movie. New Line took a risk, and when it looked like LOTR was going to be successful, they wanted to keep the lion's share of the money (BTW movie studios are notorious for 'not making money' off of movies -- in order to avoid paying taxes on profits). Jackson stood up to the studio; I don't think that he was as concerned with the money, but also what the actors were getting paid was an issue. I think he even refused to finish the last two until more agreeable terms were found. Of course New Line had to cave -- the remaining two movies were almost guaranteed to be hits, too.
But each new movie is a risk. Just because you have made hits in the past, doesn't mean that you are a hit-maker. The next movie can still flop, despite what your last movie did. I think the studios were even wary of Jackson's King Kong remake, after the smashing success of LOTR.
"My wife's is the second wife of a Nigerian university professor."
Are you the Nigerian university professor?
"People simply let go all safeguards when going online. Why, I don't know, but they do."
Your average, nuerotypical person is good at reading body language and understanding the signs of authenticity, such as clothing, vehicle, dialect, etc. However, they aren't the best readers, and their skeptical tools aren't as refined as they are for sniffing out con artists. They've been lied to and heard BS stories hundreds of times from all sorts of people all throughout their life. However, they've very rarely encountered a situation where they've needed to think critically about information they encountered in writing. They've never encountered written BS. Most people, when encountering conflicting information in text, think that they simply don't understand the text. Also, the punishments for ignoring official letters are far greater than telling a real bureaucrat who you thought was a con artist to f*ck off.
Ever since its invention, writing is the defacto sign of authority. The very first writings were receipts for business transactions. Literate people were a rare commodity, and only the aristocracy could afford to train and employ them. The village idiot didn't have an independent paper or a blog. He just ranted out loud in the square. Anything written was official, simply by the fact that it was written. Also, we have 3 of the world's major religions based on a Holy Book that was dictated by God Himself. That lends an 'aura' of authenticity to writing.
Unfortunately, the internet is primarily a written medium, and people tend to take anything that's written as gospel, just as they have for thousands of years.
If I were the cops and there were any useful way to get data out of a TOR router, I would set up several honey-pots.
OK, TOR doesn't keep logs, but is it possible to set up a honey-net TOR router that does keep logs? If I were law enforcement, that's what I would be doing.
I didn't say that one failure destroys your credit history. The problem as I see it is that if companies are looking at the credit scores of job candidates, a single failure, or some failures, make you less attractive than other candidates. I would argue that that doesn't really reflect on the person's ability to do the job. Some people have just been more fortunate than others by pure chance -- born to wealthier families, not getting sick, not having genetic pre-dispositions, etc. Again my point is how relevant this is to job performance -- sooner or later, everyone is going to have their personal life come into contact with their professional life. You're dealing with a whole person, not segments.
Maybe he didn't have enough money to make minimum payments. Sometimes, when people hit hard financial times, they have to decide where to allocate limited resources. He may have chosen to buy food or pay the gas bill this month instead of making the minimum payment on the credit card.
It's not a given that you will have enough resources to meet all your demands in life. Some people seem to have the naive idea that everyone gets just enough, and the people who are bad off simply chose to spend their income foolishly. The obvious conclusion to this line of reasoning is that malnourished children should have chosen better parents.
You can make the best possible decisions given the situation you find yourself in in life, but still not meet all of your obligations. Not everyone who is poor is poor because they made bad decisions. Some of them are, but some of them aren't. If you assume that someone who is bad off is some kind of slacker or goof-off, you are certain to overlook some people who will really succeed, and benefit your company, when enough resources become available to them.
I'll argue against what you actually wrote, instead of imaginary, 'inevitable' strawmen, thanks.
OK, but what's to discriminate bad choices from least worst choices? It's not like life is a series of forks in the road, one being paved with gold and angels singing, the other a muddy path with devils dancing about. Take the scenario of the wife who needs chemo -- what husband wouldn't max out his credit cards for that? If they have no other resources to rely on -- no health insurance, no wealthy relatives, no government assistance -- he has made the best choice.
In that instance, you're looking at the guy who made the best choice, given the situation, and saying he made a bad choice. What a great way to evaluate potential employees.
"Interesting. Whenever there's a trace of disagreement or problem then there is no such thing as a "community". When everything is going great and there's a "common enemy" like Microsoft or whatever, then the "community" comes together and fights like a team.
You really can't have it both ways."
Why can't we have it both ways? When faced with a common enemy, people put aside their petty differences and work co-operatively towards a common goal. Then, when there is no longer a larger threat, they return to arguing with their friends/neighbors. It's the same in every human community, from the village, to the state, to the corporation, to the OSS community.
You call 100 years overnight? I would call that numerical or calendrical illiteracy.
I think that the idea is that plastics in the ground aren't valuable /now/, but 100 years from now, when there's no more petroleum to pump out of the ground, it will be profitable to 'mine' plastics from old landfills.
I don't see any way out of the party system. People naturally tend to form groups. The only improvements I see are either a direct democracy, where everyone could propose and vote on law over the internet, or a parliamentary system, where there are more parties, and thus a wider ranges of views.
Isn't all computing basically I/O?
I would have agreed with you, before I found out that almost every significant feature from Vista has been dropped. At some point, the customer really is going to realize that they are paying for nothing -- the computer doesn't wear out as fast MS would want you to buy a new one, and their existing, paid-for computer does everything they want it to.
Maybe it won't be with Vista, but with the next years-late, overhyped, and nearly-identical version of Windows, people might say "Hey, this is the same crap." Especially since BSOD stopped with Win2k, and windows is basically stable.
To take your serious point seriously, those names are from professions, not corporations. Having a last name like Mattel is more of a group identity, a kind of neotribalism. You could be an engineer, yet still be Jeff Honda.
"Who said anything about using the Wii controller as a means of controlling Simon (or whoever) Belmont's whip?"
;)
Me. I did. That's what I want, and I won't be buying the game unless I can whip supernatural monsters
How many 8-year-olds with sprained wrists and cases of carpal tunnel are there going to be as a result of Simon Belmont whipping Vlad to death on Castlevania Wii?