This is a lesson in appropriate literalism for this chap, isn't it? When you have the urge to scream something at the top of your lungs in the town square, you'd bloody well better make certain there's no room for misinterpretation, not to mention readiness to own those utterances, eh? When has that EVER not been good advice? Whether there's a real threat of a Big Brother in U.K. or not, this is just a story about a thoughtless wanker who likes to spout off in places that aren't very private, and he's learned the possible consequences of his spouting being misunderstood. This is really not so different from, say, Don Imus in USA making racist remarks on the radio; Imus got smacked around hard for being a thoughtless wanker and lost his job, too, and he was a bit more influential than this chap.
Okay, now that I got it, where the heck do I store it? Under the carport? Unless the sucker has the best folding wings ever, the HOA fines are gonna be a bitch.
Nope, he just delivers something that LOOKS the same as anything splatted at 13K mph. Meaning, seriously homogenous... can't tell the crust from the meat from the cheese from the sauce. At 13,000 mph, when it splats it's ALL sauce. My neighbor's dog can deliver something indistinguishable without all the fireworks.
Pretty much anything delivered to your doorstep @ 13,000 mph will be indistinguishable from dog poop. Ya might as well opt for the latter since it's a helluva lot cheaper and can be delivered by the next door neighbor's mutt.
Eating the brains of our slain foes is probably as close as we'll ever get to a Highlander quickening. These slugs are already workin' their way up the ladder, and they just might be coming for YOUR brains in a few years....
You don't know the history of the "domestication" of tomatoes, do you? What makes you so certain that process couldn't happen in reverse and produce something poisonous?
The species might yet become "mostly autistic", though even our great-great grandchildren won't be around to comment on it, much less us. All we can do is speculate. The point of my comment was specifically to challenge your implication that all autistic traits are consistently detrimental and thus inconceivable that they might actually be increasing in prevalence and replacing what we now call neurotypical traits. I doubt that many people would argue that ALL autistic traits are beneficial, but some most definitely are, and many of the rest are fairly benign in truth... unless "being different" is by itself a death sentence. Are all of what we consider autistic traits actually related, stemming from a common genetic or environmental stimulus? Probably not, and I have no doubt there will be dramatic refinements to diagnoses in the future. We can only talk about it using the lousy definitions we have now, which aren't terribly objective.
You asked the question backward, buddy: if autistic traits as a package are all so very bad, then why weren't they weeded out of the gene pool millennia ago? Why is there a persistent trail of autistic achievers from Archimedes to Grigory Perelman and Craig Newmark? Why have the traits not only persisted but seem to be increasingly prevalent? If the multiple reports showing a statistical increase in autistic traits have any merit at all, that would seem to suggest that indeed there is an INCREASING value or merit to at least some of the traits, if not the whole. Natural selection may in fact have been working slowly to weed out the (currently) neurotypical. Perhaps a congested world of 6.5 billion people with an altered environment is favoring a package of mutations that are called autism, and accelerating the prevalence of those mutations?
Bye-bye, neurotypicals... it's about time. We're tired of you disturbing our circles!
There's imaginary property, and then there's ethics and general courtesy. The former is not a prerequisite for the latter... or at least it damned well shouldn't be.
I guess Slashdot is now advocating outright plagiarism by giving it the eyeballs instead of what it rips-off? Do I get three guesses who the "anonymous reader" was that submitted the summary text?
So the Chinese citizens don't have any right to material wealth, only Americans? They don't have any right to profit from their land's material resources, after having others rape it for centuries?
You're not a patriot, you're a selfish us-or-them groupthink-addled narcissist.
Nothing unusual to see here, folks, move along... it's just your garden variety ideological spat between what's-mine-is-yours cooperation-minded soci... errr, mutualists and dog-eat-dog competition-minded pi... errr, capitalists - the latter represented here by some hare-brained self-important writer.
Isn't the real value here for wifi hijackers? Why park suspiciously outside the house/cafe with an open wifi node when you can snag it from out of sight?
... unless it can also replicate the bad spelling and poor grammar that I see in everything from corporate Web pages to newspapers to magazines to national advertising to Slashot;-). Was it always so in ages past, or is it simply that published words have become more democratic? Even people who are unqualified for the task are now able to write words for the whole world to see, but perhaps a century or more ago the process was so much more difficult and expensive that only a more restricted group was allowed the privilege?
What is this "fun" of creative writing of which you speak, that involves no grammar or spelling? How does that work, exactly? Do you give a chimpanzee a box full of magnetic plastic letters and an iron chalkboard, and then show him that he can toss the letters onto the board and make them stick?
I'm so very sorry that having a structure to the process takes all the fun out of it for you. You can go back to your cage and swing from the branches now.
If you want to teach a kid programming, the lessons shouldn't start anywhere near a computer at all. Start with visual problem-solving "toys" like LEGO, Tinketoy, ErectorSet, ConneX, and the like. This will be an opportunity to observe and find out whether the kid takes well to the activity or even has a mind well suited to it (I have known people who simply cannot program no matter how hard they try). If the kid isn't well suited for it or doesn't like it, then you can move along to something else; if the kid is a natural or takes a real shine to it, give them a few years' time with that to build up a suitable problem-solving framework upstairs, and THEN introduce them to computers and programming. At that point I would suggest a strongly typed and structured language, like Pascal/Delphi.
Why do you zealous idiots keep clinging to that completely delusional assertion? The only relationship between the two is that BOTH religion and ethics have an origin in primal emotions, but it's not at all a causal relationship. Ethics will still exist even in the complete absence of all religion, because those primal emotions will still exist to drive the process. Well, at least until some possible future evolutionary mutation where emotions take an even further back seat; if that happens no one will feel that overpowering need for religion, and ethics will have to evolve to be fully grounded in logic (of the Greater Good).
Here's a little thought experiment: What if every human lived isolated from every other, say, everyone on their own little private islands or deep in separate caves? Where would religion and ethics fit in that scenario?
Simple: religion would still arise, though each person's version of it would be different than the next, because there would be no groupthink to force the adoption of just one or a few. Ethics, however, at least humano-centric ethics, would be completely absent: in the absence of human interaction, ethics are not needed. Religion, however, is a spontaneous emotional need that arises even in complete isolation.
Organized - aka politicized - religion likes to claim a copyright on ethics, however, in an attempt to justify the very existence of the religious organization.
This is why humanity needs a persistent Borg-like collective consciousness, so that those of us who aren't mired in groupthink and self-delusion don't have to keep smacking those of you who are still mired in it across the forehead with the same 2-by-4 of logic century after century....
Slashdot Mirror
This is a lesson in appropriate literalism for this chap, isn't it? When you have the urge to scream something at the top of your lungs in the town square, you'd bloody well better make certain there's no room for misinterpretation, not to mention readiness to own those utterances, eh? When has that EVER not been good advice? Whether there's a real threat of a Big Brother in U.K. or not, this is just a story about a thoughtless wanker who likes to spout off in places that aren't very private, and he's learned the possible consequences of his spouting being misunderstood. This is really not so different from, say, Don Imus in USA making racist remarks on the radio; Imus got smacked around hard for being a thoughtless wanker and lost his job, too, and he was a bit more influential than this chap.
... since as we all know those polygamous Mormons are really really good at forming star topology networks.
Okay, now that I got it, where the heck do I store it? Under the carport? Unless the sucker has the best folding wings ever, the HOA fines are gonna be a bitch.
Nope, he just delivers something that LOOKS the same as anything splatted at 13K mph. Meaning, seriously homogenous... can't tell the crust from the meat from the cheese from the sauce. At 13,000 mph, when it splats it's ALL sauce. My neighbor's dog can deliver something indistinguishable without all the fireworks.
Pretty much anything delivered to your doorstep @ 13,000 mph will be indistinguishable from dog poop. Ya might as well opt for the latter since it's a helluva lot cheaper and can be delivered by the next door neighbor's mutt.
Eating the brains of our slain foes is probably as close as we'll ever get to a Highlander quickening. These slugs are already workin' their way up the ladder, and they just might be coming for YOUR brains in a few years....
You don't know the history of the "domestication" of tomatoes, do you? What makes you so certain that process couldn't happen in reverse and produce something poisonous?
The species might yet become "mostly autistic", though even our great-great grandchildren won't be around to comment on it, much less us. All we can do is speculate. The point of my comment was specifically to challenge your implication that all autistic traits are consistently detrimental and thus inconceivable that they might actually be increasing in prevalence and replacing what we now call neurotypical traits. I doubt that many people would argue that ALL autistic traits are beneficial, but some most definitely are, and many of the rest are fairly benign in truth... unless "being different" is by itself a death sentence. Are all of what we consider autistic traits actually related, stemming from a common genetic or environmental stimulus? Probably not, and I have no doubt there will be dramatic refinements to diagnoses in the future. We can only talk about it using the lousy definitions we have now, which aren't terribly objective.
You asked the question backward, buddy: if autistic traits as a package are all so very bad, then why weren't they weeded out of the gene pool millennia ago? Why is there a persistent trail of autistic achievers from Archimedes to Grigory Perelman and Craig Newmark? Why have the traits not only persisted but seem to be increasingly prevalent? If the multiple reports showing a statistical increase in autistic traits have any merit at all, that would seem to suggest that indeed there is an INCREASING value or merit to at least some of the traits, if not the whole. Natural selection may in fact have been working slowly to weed out the (currently) neurotypical. Perhaps a congested world of 6.5 billion people with an altered environment is favoring a package of mutations that are called autism, and accelerating the prevalence of those mutations?
Bye-bye, neurotypicals... it's about time. We're tired of you disturbing our circles!
There's imaginary property, and then there's ethics and general courtesy. The former is not a prerequisite for the latter... or at least it damned well shouldn't be.
I guess Slashdot is now advocating outright plagiarism by giving it the eyeballs instead of what it rips-off? Do I get three guesses who the "anonymous reader" was that submitted the summary text?
Nah... he's a Libertarian. Can't ya tell the difference?
After reading this, I feel an overwhelming need to run off to the laundromat and get my genes thoroughly washed....
Yep... because, as everybody knows, when you deny citizens the right to free speech that never results in violence in the streets, right?
So the Chinese citizens don't have any right to material wealth, only Americans? They don't have any right to profit from their land's material resources, after having others rape it for centuries?
You're not a patriot, you're a selfish us-or-them groupthink-addled narcissist.
... to stick up my nostrils in polar alignment?
Nothing unusual to see here, folks, move along... it's just your garden variety ideological spat between what's-mine-is-yours cooperation-minded soci... errr, mutualists and dog-eat-dog competition-minded pi... errr, capitalists - the latter represented here by some hare-brained self-important writer.
The FS linked to a site that had everything to do with WiFi and nothing to do with 3G, so I was just mirroring their own confusion.
Wasn't suggesting it was... although using a rocket to put a giant one 'o these in a low geosync orbit might qualify as such.
Isn't the real value here for wifi hijackers? Why park suspiciously outside the house/cafe with an open wifi node when you can snag it from out of sight?
... unless it can also replicate the bad spelling and poor grammar that I see in everything from corporate Web pages to newspapers to magazines to national advertising to Slashot ;-). Was it always so in ages past, or is it simply that published words have become more democratic? Even people who are unqualified for the task are now able to write words for the whole world to see, but perhaps a century or more ago the process was so much more difficult and expensive that only a more restricted group was allowed the privilege?
Meh... I'd rather have it use the Windows 2000 UI.
What is this "fun" of creative writing of which you speak, that involves no grammar or spelling? How does that work, exactly? Do you give a chimpanzee a box full of magnetic plastic letters and an iron chalkboard, and then show him that he can toss the letters onto the board and make them stick?
I'm so very sorry that having a structure to the process takes all the fun out of it for you. You can go back to your cage and swing from the branches now.
If you want to teach a kid programming, the lessons shouldn't start anywhere near a computer at all. Start with visual problem-solving "toys" like LEGO, Tinketoy, ErectorSet, ConneX, and the like. This will be an opportunity to observe and find out whether the kid takes well to the activity or even has a mind well suited to it (I have known people who simply cannot program no matter how hard they try). If the kid isn't well suited for it or doesn't like it, then you can move along to something else; if the kid is a natural or takes a real shine to it, give them a few years' time with that to build up a suitable problem-solving framework upstairs, and THEN introduce them to computers and programming. At that point I would suggest a strongly typed and structured language, like Pascal/Delphi.
Why do you zealous idiots keep clinging to that completely delusional assertion? The only relationship between the two is that BOTH religion and ethics have an origin in primal emotions, but it's not at all a causal relationship. Ethics will still exist even in the complete absence of all religion, because those primal emotions will still exist to drive the process. Well, at least until some possible future evolutionary mutation where emotions take an even further back seat; if that happens no one will feel that overpowering need for religion, and ethics will have to evolve to be fully grounded in logic (of the Greater Good).
Here's a little thought experiment: What if every human lived isolated from every other, say, everyone on their own little private islands or deep in separate caves? Where would religion and ethics fit in that scenario?
Simple: religion would still arise, though each person's version of it would be different than the next, because there would be no groupthink to force the adoption of just one or a few. Ethics, however, at least humano-centric ethics, would be completely absent: in the absence of human interaction, ethics are not needed. Religion, however, is a spontaneous emotional need that arises even in complete isolation.
Organized - aka politicized - religion likes to claim a copyright on ethics, however, in an attempt to justify the very existence of the religious organization.
This is why humanity needs a persistent Borg-like collective consciousness, so that those of us who aren't mired in groupthink and self-delusion don't have to keep smacking those of you who are still mired in it across the forehead with the same 2-by-4 of logic century after century....