Even if the pay and politics were far better, I still don't think I could deal with a normal high school class that wasn't in the room (mostly) by choice.
This mostly US attitude (any other countries that have this prevalant attitude?) never ceases to surprise me. You want to fix the problem of failing schools by allowing kids to pull out of them, thereby not guaranteeing them any education whatsoever? No chance to make sure that SOMEONE was teaching them the country's values, national language, some degree of tolerance and rationality? That would fix the problem, would it? How?????
I think the simplest way to address the problem of choosing that "one" would be to make it a volunteer/pay system. Obviously, the pay would have to be capped to prevent it leading to exploitation of the poor, but the key idea is that those interested in advancing medicine without the knowledge to advance it themselves can put themselves into a position to help.
This does already happen, but the trouble is that when the odd experiment goes horribly, horribly wrong, it gets out into the mass media and people get freaked. You pretty much need to make testers sign NDAs before starting the trial, or something, or you'll never be able to do it without a public backlash.
How the heck does that work? Even NAT is limited to the number of local ports available, about 64k. What is 65k people in Qatar try to connect out at once?
After all, Apple is on the blue ray Association Board of Directors.
Yeah, what's up with that? Could anybody explain? One minute Apple is crying from the rooftops that DRM is bad, the next they're totally supporting a format that's laden with it (even moreso than HD-DVD). Why couldn't they just not express a preference at all...?
I consider political parties very much a government function, though. Or at least a function of any proper democratic system. And the best way to fund them is with taxes, according to vote share, to help avoid corruption/bribery.
It's weird, but as I read text formatted like that, I mentally insert a pause after each line. My mental voice says "Itbreaksthetextdown.... intophrases..... likepoetry............."
It's actually quite annoying, and I prefer block text.:-)
I also believe that the people engaging in this kind of stuff are probably pedophiles themselves. [...] To some extent, this is like people advertising that they're pedophiles.
You should consider that opinion very carefully, because I think it's irrational. I play Counter-Strike regularly, as do millions of others, and many play all sorts of violent video games. We all know how many players of such games actually commit cold-blooded murder in real life. Why would you assume that those choosing to act out a different fantasy (one that is, IMHO, no more reprehensible than cold-blooded murder, and no less) are suddenly likely to do it in real life? It's quite likely that many of them are just morbidly fascinated by the idea. I don't think there should be a problem with people conducting this stuff *in a fantasy world*.
Democrats don't believe in going to war under false pretenses, or over things like trying to steal the resources(oil) of other countries. There is a big difference between going to war over 9/11 and going to war to support military contractors and those who would profit from higher oil prices(caused by any instability in the Middle East).
Can you fit that into a Fox News story caption? Hmm, let me see... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... no, can't get much more than 5 words in. Maybe...
(US FLAG BACKGROUND) (US FLAG) Democrats don't believe in war? (US FLAG) (US FLAG BACKGROUND)
See, with some things, I agree with libertarians, but this is where we must split paths. I totally disagree with you. Allowing money to be used in any way in politics is equating economic success with knowing what's best for society (assuming you believe the goal of politics is to cause what's best for society) - and that just isn't correct. People with economic success should NOT have significantly more power and influence than others.
When the founding fathers said 'free speech', I rather think they were picturing people standing on the street on their soapbox, trying to holler their ideas at passers-by. Sure, they might have imagined it on a slightly larger scale too, local newspapers; but we really need a new word for the ability to get a message to MILLIONS of people at once (as through mass media) - megaspeech, or something. Now I believe it free speech, but not free megaspeech. Megaspeech is too powerful to be allowed to be wielded freely, and there should be laws against it.
Tough. Try and convince people not to vote for them, but frankly the percentage of 'your' money that would be going to parties under a rational state-funding system would seriously be a DROP IN THE OCEAN of what you're paying in taxes. Try to realise that.
However, this "getting rid of connectivity issues due to no longer having to NAT" has NEVER been expected by anyone who knows even a bit about networking. Because we're not returning to an un-firewalled world.
I have to disagree. In my experience, it's not firewalls that cause a major problem with connectivity, because any half-decent firewall can be configured to let what you want through. It's the ever-increasing number of machines out there behind NATted connections (think home wireless routers, for one). I can't just write an app to connect between 2 machines using IP addresses anymore. It's not that simple. If they're both NATted, you're basically fucked and end up having to use something like Hamachi. I, for one, will cheer the day NAT dies. Using NAT as a firewall is like using an anchor for your car's brake. Does the job but in a crappy, unintended, unconfigurable way.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody does anything unless there's some game aspect to it - warfare, terrorism, finance, dating, business, taxes, politics
:-P
Umm, I can think of plenty of times people have done every one of those without there being some 'game' aspect to it. You're wrong.
Especially dating. People who like to 'play the field' piss me off.
There is no such thing as an Intellectual Property law.
Well, there is really if the government actually passes a law that contains within its name, 'Intellectual Property' - surely?
And you have to pay for the BBC channels, even if you only want the non-BBC channels.
And why wouldn't you want to do that, when you're paying for a corporation with such journalistic integrity?
Even if the pay and politics were far better, I still don't think I could deal with a normal high school class that wasn't in the room (mostly) by choice.
This mostly US attitude (any other countries that have this prevalant attitude?) never ceases to surprise me. You want to fix the problem of failing schools by allowing kids to pull out of them, thereby not guaranteeing them any education whatsoever? No chance to make sure that SOMEONE was teaching them the country's values, national language, some degree of tolerance and rationality? That would fix the problem, would it? How?????
Why would you spend half a million when you can get the story for free, here?
Actually, that religion would be illegal in the UK, as it promotes violence against another religion.
I think the simplest way to address the problem of choosing that "one" would be to make it a volunteer/pay system. Obviously, the pay would have to be capped to prevent it leading to exploitation of the poor, but the key idea is that those interested in advancing medicine without the knowledge to advance it themselves can put themselves into a position to help.
This does already happen, but the trouble is that when the odd experiment goes horribly, horribly wrong, it gets out into the mass media and people get freaked. You pretty much need to make testers sign NDAs before starting the trial, or something, or you'll never be able to do it without a public backlash.
I'm British and I use :-) all the time. People have noses!!!
Already done.
Isn't everything as old as the universe; it just all shifted into different forms? (Like planet Earth)
How the heck does that work? Even NAT is limited to the number of local ports available, about 64k. What is 65k people in Qatar try to connect out at once?
I don't see the connection between allowing a specific route and retaining a single IP...
After all, Apple is on the blue ray Association Board of Directors.
Yeah, what's up with that? Could anybody explain? One minute Apple is crying from the rooftops that DRM is bad, the next they're totally supporting a format that's laden with it (even moreso than HD-DVD). Why couldn't they just not express a preference at all...?
I agree - HDDVD's protection is totally broken.
So it's now significantly better for the consumer?
I consider political parties very much a government function, though. Or at least a function of any proper democratic system. And the best way to fund them is with taxes, according to vote share, to help avoid corruption/bribery.
The point is that they think most domestic wiretapping is legal, so they're keeping it legal. :-P
It's weird, but as I read text formatted like that, I mentally insert a pause after each line. My mental voice says "Itbreaksthetextdown.... intophrases..... likepoetry............."
:-)
It's actually quite annoying, and I prefer block text.
I also believe that the people engaging in this kind of stuff are probably pedophiles themselves. [...] To some extent, this is like people advertising that they're pedophiles.
You should consider that opinion very carefully, because I think it's irrational. I play Counter-Strike regularly, as do millions of others, and many play all sorts of violent video games. We all know how many players of such games actually commit cold-blooded murder in real life. Why would you assume that those choosing to act out a different fantasy (one that is, IMHO, no more reprehensible than cold-blooded murder, and no less) are suddenly likely to do it in real life? It's quite likely that many of them are just morbidly fascinated by the idea. I don't think there should be a problem with people conducting this stuff *in a fantasy world*.
MEMORANDUM
To: Humanity
RE: Error found in reprod(m,f)
Don't worry. Wait a few hundred years, the system will reboot itself.
Faithfully (glad you are),
God
Democrats don't believe in going to war under false pretenses, or over things like trying to steal the resources(oil) of other countries. There is a big difference between going to war over 9/11 and going to war to support military contractors and those who would profit from higher oil prices(caused by any instability in the Middle East).
Can you fit that into a Fox News story caption? Hmm, let me see... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... no, can't get much more than 5 words in. Maybe...
(US FLAG BACKGROUND)
(US FLAG) Democrats don't believe in war? (US FLAG)
(US FLAG BACKGROUND)
See, with some things, I agree with libertarians, but this is where we must split paths. I totally disagree with you. Allowing money to be used in any way in politics is equating economic success with knowing what's best for society (assuming you believe the goal of politics is to cause what's best for society) - and that just isn't correct. People with economic success should NOT have significantly more power and influence than others.
When the founding fathers said 'free speech', I rather think they were picturing people standing on the street on their soapbox, trying to holler their ideas at passers-by. Sure, they might have imagined it on a slightly larger scale too, local newspapers; but we really need a new word for the ability to get a message to MILLIONS of people at once (as through mass media) - megaspeech, or something. Now I believe it free speech, but not free megaspeech. Megaspeech is too powerful to be allowed to be wielded freely, and there should be laws against it.
Tough. Try and convince people not to vote for them, but frankly the percentage of 'your' money that would be going to parties under a rational state-funding system would seriously be a DROP IN THE OCEAN of what you're paying in taxes. Try to realise that.
Surely 'Google's shareholders have rejected a NON-censorship proposal'?
If the water starts running out, there won't be any humans around left to war?
However, this "getting rid of connectivity issues due to no longer having to NAT" has NEVER been expected by anyone who knows even a bit about networking. Because we're not returning to an un-firewalled world.
I have to disagree. In my experience, it's not firewalls that cause a major problem with connectivity, because any half-decent firewall can be configured to let what you want through. It's the ever-increasing number of machines out there behind NATted connections (think home wireless routers, for one). I can't just write an app to connect between 2 machines using IP addresses anymore. It's not that simple. If they're both NATted, you're basically fucked and end up having to use something like Hamachi. I, for one, will cheer the day NAT dies. Using NAT as a firewall is like using an anchor for your car's brake. Does the job but in a crappy, unintended, unconfigurable way.