If that weird looking foreign guy that gets on the bus every morning with them suddenly disappears then they don't care what happens to him, it's all the price to pay for their safety.
What is even more disturbing is this: Who says that it even bought them any safety at all? What some fail to realise is that terrorism and entities like Al-Qaida aren't just a bunch of organised bad guys that can be found, rounded up and put in prison/killed. In some senses, Al-Qaida can be seen rather as an ideology or a cause, not so much an organisation. And making weird looking foreign guys disappear is only going to fuel that, confirming their view of the west as crusaders seeking to hunt down muslims and destroy the muslim world.
Sounds like one of the dumbest ideas I have heard, this goes alongside the MPAA and RIAA shenanigans.
What makes it extra dumb is the fact that it basically is an inverse of Google's targeted ads, if I'm getting this straight. Site owners already pay Google to have their link shown when people search for related material. And now, apparently, some of them expect Google to instead pay them for the exact same thing? Really, really dumb...
Packing a huge amount of energy into a small space is essentially creating a potential explosive.
Well, a bottle of plain water (about 1 kg of matter) contains roughly 100 petajoules (10^17 J), and still they are known to explode very infrequently. What matters is how stable the energy state is.
The Social Democrats just got ousted from power by a moderate coallition that is seeking to introduce some market reforms into Sweden. Gee, you think that might have something to do with a fledgling party whose property rights philosophy is probably left of the Social Democrats not getting any attention?
I wouldn't categorize the Pirate Party as a left wing party. For instance, the founder Rickard Falkvinge is a former member of Moderate Youth League the youth organization of the Swedish Moderate Party (conservative).
Besides, the election results had more to do with people wanting new faces in politics (especially the prime minister), and an incredibly lacking campaign by the Social Democrats, basically just repeating how "things are great", neglecting every concern expressed by the people and saying nothing about what they want to do in the future. At the same time, the moderates described themselves as "the new working class party" (calling themselves "the New Moderate Party") and lauded the welfare state. So people switched.
Suppose I buy one license of windows, and get an install CD with it. Then use the CD to install windows on two computers. You're saying one copy now isn't genuine. Which one is the counterfeit?
Remember, the discussion isn't about whether I should be allowed to do that or not (that is where you would be going off topic). It is about semantics.
Well, unless I'm missing something here, if it delivers 100 times more power than an ordinary battery then it also increases it's life:
The power output of an energy storing device says very little about the amount of energy it can store. An ultracapacitor (used in hybrid cars) can deliver huge power but has considerably lower energy density than conventional batteries. See for example this plot from wikipedia.
There is nothing inherent in a democratic system apart from the constant watch of the people that stops the system from becoming undemocratic and fascist.
I couldn't agree more. And it scares me that we are heading towards a society where, instead, the system is constantly watching the people.
9. The Socialistic party has before had an politician send emails pretending to be the Moderate party leader to journalists
I believe this information is incorrect. The emailer in question did not impersonate the moderate party leader. He emailed anonymous slander to journalists.
Not that I care too much, but since you titled your post "Many misleading statements" and did get "5 Informative" for it...
3. He did it by trying to login using the same password as the username and other simple methods - and cracked 3 accounts. Socialist party had not a very secure system.
Indeed. But how is that relevant? Is breaking and entering less of a crime if the key was found under the door mat?
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 1
But seeing it somehow tried to connect the consept of bias from machine learning with bias in news, my internal BS detector urged me to push it down the priority queue
...don't get me wrong though; it was not completely uninteresting, and my BS detector do have false alarms occasionally.
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 1
It's impossible to create an "unbiased" work; I think this is mathematical fact [jerf.org], in the highest sense of the term, not a mere rhetorical point.
Suppose you're right and there cannot exist an unbiased work. Wouldn't you still at least agree that a work can have varying amounts of bias? There has to be some meaningful way to define such a bias. Given any biased work A, it seems to me that it shouldn't be impossible to create another work based on A that is more biased, in some sense that is useful. And wouldn't the union of two works biased in opposite directions be less biased that each of the two?
I have to admit though, I only took a very quick look at the link you provided, so there may be a point to it that I missed. But seeing it somehow tried to connect the consept of bias from machine learning with bias in news, my internal BS detector urged me to push it down the priority queue. Maybe I will look at it later.
I once sat down and calculated an estimate how much my life expectancy is shortened because of terrorist bombings. I don't remember what exact value I came up with, but I remember that I concluded I had just wasted more time doing the calculation.
Why not just let them blow up a plane once in a while, I say, and perhaps we can get rid of some of these increasingly absurd security procedures.
After reading you original post again, I realize I may have missed your point somewhat, and I bunched you up with the elitist hobbyist wing a little to eagerly. Sorry about that.
However, while I agree that the point of Linux isn't or wasn't primarily to fight Windows, I do believe it is an important goal to gain market share, on the desktop and elsewhere. Since Windows has total dominance, and Linux is the only free alternative with sufficient potential at the moment, that amounts to what could be described as a "war" between the two without beeing too far off. While open source may not need competition it needs to compete if it is to survive.
So now we have people who are willing to evangelize and peddle Linux like a religion, a select few of who would go so far as to shove it down the throat of the people, if they have to.
1) The idea is not to shove Linux down the throat of people, but to make it attractive to people so that they want to use it.
2) Currently, Windows is shoved down the throat of all of us. And no, the argument "if you don't like it, don't us it" doesn't work for several reasons: as long as Windows is the de facto standard OS everywhere there won't be many viable alternatives with sufficient hardware support etc, and as long as customers refuse to run anything but Windows because that is all they know, I have to run Windows myself. Even when it is not the best tool for the problem.
For me this is nothing like religion and all about practicality. I haven't really RTFA, but from the summary that seemed to be the theme of the article as well.
What if, what if, what if. Don't put yourself in those positions and you wouldn't have to worry about it. People need to learn to accept the consequences of their actions, and if they're worried about the consequences, stay out of the situations.
The question was, I believe, what the consequences should be, not whether or not the offender should accept them.
But regardless, there is one important reason why harsher punishments do not in general imply less criminality: the simple fact that acts of crime are never* acts of reason. This is proven by the fact that hardy any crime pays off even with current cirsumstances, for example.
When a burlar decides to break in to a house, he does not stop and contemplate whether the presumed loot is worth risking 4 years in jail or only 2. And what he fears is not the actual jail time, but rather the event of "being caught". The fear is emotional, not a rational.
*) There are, of course, more or less exotic exceptions.
Not to spread envy or anything, but in Västerbotten County in northern Sweden (with 4.6 inh/km^2), symmetrical 100 Mbit fiber connections are available in virtually every home. Including small villages with 20-30 houses scattered throughout the terrain, often with something like 30 km to the nearest town (and with town I mean around 10 000 inhabitants).
The price is about EUR 20/month, although you have to pay for the "last mile" of fibre (a one-time payment of about EUR 700), since you own that yourself.
More information about it is available here, although only in swedish it seems (sorry).
I'm not sure to what extent it matters to you, but one other reason not to use "begs the question" instead of "raises the question" is that you'll come off as someone who tries to sound smarter than s/he really is, if the reader is familiar with the original meaning of the idiom. Pretentious of them? Perhaps. But I often find it hard myself to avoid instinctively thinking "idiot" at some subconscious level whenever I encounter similar errors. And then you'll have a much harder time trying to convince your opponents of your point.
Disclaimer: My own slashdot posts are probably riddled with similar errors, since english isn't my native language.
Yes, you're probably right. Although it seems to me that healing even minor damage at that rate can't be too helpful either. So I still find it somewhat interesting.
A full recovery never happens, except in movies. People don't just wake up from a coma. The damage affects them for the rest of their lives. After 19 years, the person you knew would be a stranger to you anyway, and there's not much of that person left.
I find it kind of interesting that there actually are mechanisms in the brain that allows it to heal at all over such a long period of time. Why does it bother, so to speak? I mean, from an evolutionary perspective, what could it possibly gain an individual to recover slightly after 19 years? A caveman in that state would be dead in days. In fact, I imagine even many healthy cavemen would perish before they reached an age of 38 years.
Why is this better than iTunes? Because with iTunes, the money comes directly out of your pocket but you're still forced to decrypt those files you're buying.
It is not like you're not paying for these, just because the money comes from ads. We still pay, but instead through higher priced advertised products. In fact, we pay more since we also have to pay for the production of the ad. The only difference is that we have to watch the ads.
Well, at least it isn't this one, because in this one they have screwed two boards together. The GPUs don't share any memory bus or memory. It is basically just two cards SLIed on the same PCI slot, unless I am mistaken.
Slashdot Mirror
What is even more disturbing is this: Who says that it even bought them any safety at all? What some fail to realise is that terrorism and entities like Al-Qaida aren't just a bunch of organised bad guys that can be found, rounded up and put in prison/killed. In some senses, Al-Qaida can be seen rather as an ideology or a cause, not so much an organisation. And making weird looking foreign guys disappear is only going to fuel that, confirming their view of the west as crusaders seeking to hunt down muslims and destroy the muslim world.
What makes it extra dumb is the fact that it basically is an inverse of Google's targeted ads, if I'm getting this straight. Site owners already pay Google to have their link shown when people search for related material. And now, apparently, some of them expect Google to instead pay them for the exact same thing? Really, really dumb...
No, I said the "Swedish Moderate Party" is a conservative party, which it is. Look it up if you want to. I didn't pick their name, nor their agenda.
Well, a bottle of plain water (about 1 kg of matter) contains roughly 100 petajoules (10^17 J), and still they are known to explode very infrequently. What matters is how stable the energy state is.
I wouldn't categorize the Pirate Party as a left wing party. For instance, the founder Rickard Falkvinge is a former member of Moderate Youth League the youth organization of the Swedish Moderate Party (conservative).
Besides, the election results had more to do with people wanting new faces in politics (especially the prime minister), and an incredibly lacking campaign by the Social Democrats, basically just repeating how "things are great", neglecting every concern expressed by the people and saying nothing about what they want to do in the future. At the same time, the moderates described themselves as "the new working class party" (calling themselves "the New Moderate Party") and lauded the welfare state. So people switched.
Remember, the discussion isn't about whether I should be allowed to do that or not (that is where you would be going off topic). It is about semantics.
The power output of an energy storing device says very little about the amount of energy it can store. An ultracapacitor (used in hybrid cars) can deliver huge power but has considerably lower energy density than conventional batteries. See for example this plot from wikipedia.
I couldn't agree more. And it scares me that we are heading towards a society where, instead, the system is constantly watching the people.
Or market intervention in the governments...
I believe this information is incorrect. The emailer in question did not impersonate the moderate party leader. He emailed anonymous slander to journalists.
Not that I care too much, but since you titled your post "Many misleading statements" and did get "5 Informative" for it...
Indeed. But how is that relevant? Is breaking and entering less of a crime if the key was found under the door mat?
Suppose you're right and there cannot exist an unbiased work. Wouldn't you still at least agree that a work can have varying amounts of bias? There has to be some meaningful way to define such a bias. Given any biased work A, it seems to me that it shouldn't be impossible to create another work based on A that is more biased, in some sense that is useful. And wouldn't the union of two works biased in opposite directions be less biased that each of the two?
I have to admit though, I only took a very quick look at the link you provided, so there may be a point to it that I missed. But seeing it somehow tried to connect the consept of bias from machine learning with bias in news, my internal BS detector urged me to push it down the priority queue. Maybe I will look at it later.
I once sat down and calculated an estimate how much my life expectancy is shortened because of terrorist bombings. I don't remember what exact value I came up with, but I remember that I concluded I had just wasted more time doing the calculation.
Why not just let them blow up a plane once in a while, I say, and perhaps we can get rid of some of these increasingly absurd security procedures.
After reading you original post again, I realize I may have missed your point somewhat, and I bunched you up with the elitist hobbyist wing a little to eagerly. Sorry about that.
However, while I agree that the point of Linux isn't or wasn't primarily to fight Windows, I do believe it is an important goal to gain market share, on the desktop and elsewhere. Since Windows has total dominance, and Linux is the only free alternative with sufficient potential at the moment, that amounts to what could be described as a "war" between the two without beeing too far off. While open source may not need competition it needs to compete if it is to survive.
1) The idea is not to shove Linux down the throat of people, but to make it attractive to people so that they want to use it.
2) Currently, Windows is shoved down the throat of all of us. And no, the argument "if you don't like it, don't us it" doesn't work for several reasons: as long as Windows is the de facto standard OS everywhere there won't be many viable alternatives with sufficient hardware support etc, and as long as customers refuse to run anything but Windows because that is all they know, I have to run Windows myself. Even when it is not the best tool for the problem.
For me this is nothing like religion and all about practicality. I haven't really RTFA, but from the summary that seemed to be the theme of the article as well.
The question was, I believe, what the consequences should be, not whether or not the offender should accept them.
But regardless, there is one important reason why harsher punishments do not in general imply less criminality: the simple fact that acts of crime are never* acts of reason. This is proven by the fact that hardy any crime pays off even with current cirsumstances, for example.
When a burlar decides to break in to a house, he does not stop and contemplate whether the presumed loot is worth risking 4 years in jail or only 2. And what he fears is not the actual jail time, but rather the event of "being caught". The fear is emotional, not a rational.
*) There are, of course, more or less exotic exceptions.
Not to spread envy or anything, but in Västerbotten County in northern Sweden (with 4.6 inh/km^2), symmetrical 100 Mbit fiber connections are available in virtually every home. Including small villages with 20-30 houses scattered throughout the terrain, often with something like 30 km to the nearest town (and with town I mean around 10 000 inhabitants).
The price is about EUR 20/month, although you have to pay for the "last mile" of fibre (a one-time payment of about EUR 700), since you own that yourself.
More information about it is available here, although only in swedish it seems (sorry).
I'm not sure to what extent it matters to you, but one other reason not to use "begs the question" instead of "raises the question" is that you'll come off as someone who tries to sound smarter than s/he really is, if the reader is familiar with the original meaning of the idiom. Pretentious of them? Perhaps. But I often find it hard myself to avoid instinctively thinking "idiot" at some subconscious level whenever I encounter similar errors. And then you'll have a much harder time trying to convince your opponents of your point.
Disclaimer: My own slashdot posts are probably riddled with similar errors, since english isn't my native language.
fucking Pronunciation Key (fkng) Vulgar Slang
adv. & adj.
Used as an intensive.
Yes, you're probably right. Although it seems to me that healing even minor damage at that rate can't be too helpful either. So I still find it somewhat interesting.
I find it kind of interesting that there actually are mechanisms in the brain that allows it to heal at all over such a long period of time. Why does it bother, so to speak? I mean, from an evolutionary perspective, what could it possibly gain an individual to recover slightly after 19 years? A caveman in that state would be dead in days. In fact, I imagine even many healthy cavemen would perish before they reached an age of 38 years.
It is not like you're not paying for these, just because the money comes from ads. We still pay, but instead through higher priced advertised products. In fact, we pay more since we also have to pay for the production of the ad. The only difference is that we have to watch the ads.
No worries.
Well, at least it isn't this one, because in this one they have screwed two boards together. The GPUs don't share any memory bus or memory. It is basically just two cards SLIed on the same PCI slot, unless I am mistaken.