hey, turd monkey. I think that's a lot. I just said that SHE said it wasn't a lot. That would explain the 'Go me!' comment. Way to jump at calling me a selfish bastard though, context-free one.
So my mother tells me that I shouldn't expect much for Christmas. This is fine, I guess I can understand if she leaves it at that, because they built a house and all that jazz. But then she gives her reason:
"The (new) pool table and basketball goal are your presents!"
I hate to mention it to her (no, I enjoyed it), but I live in flipping Ireland and the only time I get to play with the pool table is for the next two weeks of my vacation. And the basketball goal isn't here yet! So she got really mad at me for pointing that out as annoyingly as I did (I would much prefer honesty to excuses; if it's not my gift, don't 'give' it to me as a token gift).
That said, I still got three new shirts, a pair of trousers, some candy, and $150. Go me!
Pardon me, I must not have heard you right. You just told me that we need to respect the freedom of those suspected. Now, understand that the only people truly suspected are Bin Laden and his bunch as well as a few other known terrorist regimes. The call is for all of the intelligence agencies (CIA, MI6, Russia's agency) to work together and discover where the terrorists are. If there is a known terrorist group that is suspected of it, we treat them as if they did it.
They are terrorists. It's what they do.
Reason to suspect them. Anyway. As for the Arab troops that were said to be firing their guns in the air in celebration when they heard of it, we go over right now and teach them to never celebrate the loss of ten thousand innocent lives. Again, we have reason to suspect they had involvement in it, as they were celebrating the "victory", thereby taking sides.
Admittedly, I don't suggest (as some have) that we go nuking random parties. I do, however, suggest that we kill anyone and everyone that we can know (or come to know) to be involved in it that can't be taken prisoner (suicide bombers generally aren't taken prisoner, either). Then we send word to the Arab government that unless they get rid of those soldiers that would cheer for this, we end their country. Simple solution, and not very diplomatic. I would never believe that this would be the solution that those guys that get paid big bucks to make this kind of decision would make, but nonetheless, it's better than "respect the terrorist murdering pig-dogs' freedom" that I've heard so often.
This isn't about mere revenge. It's about justice. Do the crime, pay the time^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdie a horrible death.
I'm somewhat of a child prodigy myself. I have to take this moment to explain that I'm not tooting my own horn, because I realize that there are many people more intelligent than me. It's just a fact that I've always been about 8 grades smarter than my classmates, and I go to a private school that generally has more intelligent kids attending it than attend the public schools (at least a higher concentration of them).
That's why I feel like I should shut this down: Stop with the notion that you shouldn't push the child. I agree, you shouldn't push any child in a direction that they don't care to go in, and you should let them pursue their interests. However, let them know that they're not likely to find a lot of people as intelligent as them. Let them know that they're special, and nurture that. Don't force them to go play football with you, but encourage them if they feel like it. Overall, try to show yourself rather unbiased. That's only on one side, though.
On the other hand, you have the fact that, as an adult, you're going to know better than the kid in some areas. You can sometimes see a 'cutting edge technology' that the kid might want to pursue as just a fad. Who knows? All in all, get them a good grounding in sciences and literature, and if you come in contact with one early in life (perhaps like the nine year old), teach them to spell (again, assuming English is the language). English has some stupid nuances, and I've met many an intelligent person that has been looked down on by people that can spell simply because they misspell or make a typo. While that doesn't mean that they're less intelligent, it does hurt their credibility. Also, on a last couple of notes, don't try to force the child to appreciate art. It's not a necessary skill in life to be able to appreciate art (I should know, my dad's a hardcore robotics engineer, and if the function or usefulness of something is not readily apparent (say, a piece of art), he looks on it as pointless), but at least give them some things to peruse, show them some paintings (not modernistic crap, but things from the Renaissance Period), let them listen to classical music.
While we're all rather inclined to look at programming as a Holy Grail here on slashdot, we need to realize that the main importance isn't whether they're benefiting the computer culture, but whether they're enjoying themselves. Oh yah, and get them a copy of Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age", because I just recently read it, and I think I'd have looked at things a lot differently if I'd gotten a chance to read that book when I was about 8.
Surely your last comment was merely a joke. Assuming it wasn't, I'll give a little bit of a rebuttal to it by clarifying a couple of things...
Firstly, let me clarify the two issues in question: abortion and the death penalty. Now, on the abortion side we have the senseless murder of innocent children. Occasionally this is done under the facade of protecting the woman having the child. My first argument on that is the fact that she had the choice to have the child (excluding rape); what this means is that she could choose to bring the child into the world, but the child could not choose to be brought into the world. Assuming she had made a mistake, and it was endangering her, that still gives her no right to kill the innocent child. She could always have a Caesarian section as a possibility (this doesn't cover every situation, but the fact that she had the choice does cover every situation.). Regarding partial-birth abortion, they bring the child out feet first, which is what they try to avoid in every other delivery/because/ it can endanger the mother. They do this so that they can kill a baby at the last stages of birth without it's "mind" every physically exiting the womb. Somehow this makes it a non-person. But I digress...
Now, the death penalty is a completely different issue. Instead of murdering innocents, we're exacting punishment on the wicked and guilty. This is completely justifiable: Biblically, legally, and morally (which is inseperable from Biblical, IMHO). So we are not, apparently, even comparing apples and oranges (they're at least both members of the 'fruit' category). What we're comparing is closer to apples and orangutans. The death penalty is a moral, justifiable judgment on the guilty, while abortion is state-justified murder of innocents that our nation will inevitably pay for; that's all I have left to say about that issue.
I've noticed that a lot of you seem to feel that, since the Electoral Vote and the Popular Vote are different, the system is flawed. You're missing the point entirely. First things first, America is not a democracy. We're a Republic. We look like a Democratic Republic, and we are, but that doesn't make us a Democracy. We never claimed to make every person's vote equal. Dictionary.com defines "republic" as '2. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.' And we fit the bill. The supreme power lies in the citizens. This is not the same as a "Democracy," which is defined as '4. Majority rule.' Please understand this. I've heard so many media moguls talk about how this will forever change the way American elections take place, because there's a chance of the popular vote not coming out with the win. That is exactly how the framers envisioned it.
I live in Alabama. We have 9 electoral votes. Not a huge number, not a tiny number. However, the people in California, New York, and even Florida don't have the same issues as myself. I personally believe that the popular vote should be split up into how many states side with them; it would be a lot more representative of what the country needs. That's not the point. The point is that the Electoral College was set up for this specific purpse, and to remove it would be to completely change America's form of government, from a Democratic Republic to a Democracy. Now, I'm sure no one really needs to be told this, but pure democracy fails in a large society, always. We would either still have to be short of pure democracy, or we would have to watch our nation crumble as we changed to a form of government that has already been proven to fail. I've ranted, and I'm sorry, but people just need to understand what's going on, and they need to understand their country's governmental system, before they start to think about the candidates.
My last note is this: I will never vote for a candidate that is going to support the murder of innocent babies. Bush has said that he'll do what he can to stop it, and he hasn't dragged around his supporters by even pretending he has any power to overthrow Roe v. Wade right now. Maybe next election. Right now I'll take what I can get.
Now get it straight people, we live in a Republic. Please, remember this, and keep in mind that no innocent baby deserves death. Thank you.
Alright People,
This is about to make me sick. Everyone in existence today feels that since we live in a free society and their vote counts that they have the right to write an uninformed rant and expect to be respected. What makes me sick is the fact that Slashdotters give in so easily and are so easily swayed. I don't care whether you're voting for Gore or not, this article was extremely idiotic. The Inheritance Tax, he claims, is good because it takes money away from children who have never worked to earn it. Did he ever Point out what the government has done to earn it?
The government currently takes about 50% of the estate upon death (at least 50, I should say). We on slashdot can get so riled up about our freedoms being taken away involving things like Napster and the illegal trading of music (I love it, I do it, but it's as illegal as warez is.). How can we not get riled up about our freedoms to own property? Never in the Constitution was the government given the freedom to take my land away when I die solely because it exists on American soil. The idea of capitalism is that I can work hard enough to own things. That's capitalism boiled down. Following that line of reasoning, if I own something and the government takes it when I die, that's thievery, or even grave-robbing. I plan on becoming a Physics professor at a renowned University, and I know it's a lofty goal, but I also plan on becoming rich and famous. Now, I'm allowed this right by my American government. That falls under the pursuit of happiness.
If I choose, after acquiring my wealth, to leave it to my children, I somehow don't see the line in the Constitution that says that the government is entitled to/any/ of it. I mean, here's a government that has cut our defense budget down insanely, and ruined their ability to keep me and my family safe in the case of a war, yet they still take my money every year. EVERY YEAR they take some of my money that deserves to be appropriated towards my security and they spend it on things like relations with the Red Chinese (Oh no, moderate me down because I'll refer to Communists as Rads!). So, again, I'm at a loss as to why they deserve to get more of my money that my kids deserve for the sole reason that I'm their father. It makes me sick, and you people make me sick. You people that believe that the rich deserve to be taxed (or punished) more because they've become more successful than us in the Middle class bracket. Congratulations, you've become biased against successful people. And you wonder why you can't get up there in the rich bracket. Anyway, One last point: My dad owns a Robotics Engineering business, and we're doing quite nicely for now. Ideally, by the time he dies we'll be a major player. Now, his choices are as follows: 1) Drop his business out of the family at his death, and not lose 50% of its income, or 2) leave it to me or my brother (don't care to run it, but I would for him), and force us to pay insane death taxes. Which do you think he's gonna be forced to do? Good job Uncle Sam, big pat on the back for that one. I have to say that I'm completely in favor of GWB on this issue, although I still think the idiot can't debate to save his life. But neither can Gore lately. Basically, GWB's the lesser of two evils. He gets my vote.
--Josh Adams
You lucky person, you're already getting your Christmas wishes, and almost 3 months early! You just broke the cardinal rule of taunting someone else's typos, and failed to check your own post. Good job, retard.
I believe that what you're talking about is Van Eck Phreaking (that is, interrupting the stray RF that the cathode ray tube in your monitor transmits, and recreating the image on another cathode.). This is quite old stuff, and is still in use today. The Tempest stuff that was recently released deals greatly with this. Basically, if you don't have a monitor shielded in metal, you're at risk, and that's that. For more information, you can check out this link for basic information, and Van Eck's original submission, or you can check out this one, and lastly, if you want some info on how to build a Van Eck Phreaking rig, then I would suggest the book at this site. Don't forget to type in Van Eck in the search box to find the box. Happy Van Eck'ing.
...because while digital frees up the spectrum in that it takes less spectrum digitally to transmit the same stuff as is transmitted analog, all the other technologies forge ahead, and so technology's rise depends on using up all of our bandwidth, apparently. I personally am looking forward to the day when the spectrum is depleted, not so that wireless tech is shut down, but rather so that more people will focus on making the tech more efficient. The more efficient the program is (and this would be an example of a programming concept flowing over into the real world), the more its users profit.
I've had the idea of a parallel network for quite some time now. Say, if I were to create a wireless network connected to the outside world by way of a large cell-phone tower, and each car had a computer in it with a wireless card, with good error-management and predictive negotiating, you could have a free network in which everyone connected through everyone else, not unlike a huge, wireless, tangled mess of Cat-5. This system has, obviously, a few flaws in it, and it requires a majority of users. But if something like this were actually implemented into cars, at the factory, then the user majority is there from the get-go. At that point, you have something extremely similar to the internet, and it would act as a gateway to the web. Hope I've been Insightful: 3 at least:)
Slashdot Mirror
hey, turd monkey. I think that's a lot. I just said that SHE said it wasn't a lot. That would explain the 'Go me!' comment. Way to jump at calling me a selfish bastard though, context-free one.
So my mother tells me that I shouldn't expect much for Christmas. This is fine, I guess I can understand if she leaves it at that, because they built a house and all that jazz. But then she gives her reason:
"The (new) pool table and basketball goal are your presents!"
I hate to mention it to her (no, I enjoyed it), but I live in flipping Ireland and the only time I get to play with the pool table is for the next two weeks of my vacation. And the basketball goal isn't here yet! So she got really mad at me for pointing that out as annoyingly as I did (I would much prefer honesty to excuses; if it's not my gift, don't 'give' it to me as a token gift).
That said, I still got three new shirts, a pair of trousers, some candy, and $150. Go me!
Merry christmas!
to first post just to annoy fpers?
Pardon me, I must not have heard you right. You just told me that we need to respect the freedom of those suspected. Now, understand that the only people truly suspected are Bin Laden and his bunch as well as a few other known terrorist regimes. The call is for all of the intelligence agencies (CIA, MI6, Russia's agency) to work together and discover where the terrorists are. If there is a known terrorist group that is suspected of it, we treat them as if they did it.
They are terrorists. It's what they do.
Reason to suspect them. Anyway. As for the Arab troops that were said to be firing their guns in the air in celebration when they heard of it, we go over right now and teach them to never celebrate the loss of ten thousand innocent lives. Again, we have reason to suspect they had involvement in it, as they were celebrating the "victory", thereby taking sides.
Admittedly, I don't suggest (as some have) that we go nuking random parties. I do, however, suggest that we kill anyone and everyone that we can know (or come to know) to be involved in it that can't be taken prisoner (suicide bombers generally aren't taken prisoner, either). Then we send word to the Arab government that unless they get rid of those soldiers that would cheer for this, we end their country. Simple solution, and not very diplomatic. I would never believe that this would be the solution that those guys that get paid big bucks to make this kind of decision would make, but nonetheless, it's better than "respect the terrorist murdering pig-dogs' freedom" that I've heard so often.
This isn't about mere revenge. It's about justice. Do the crime, pay the time^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdie a horrible death.
Josh Adams
knewter
*ahem*...
"Over the past 180+ years the US has never been invaded or conquered..."
So, who here can do the math for Pederson to show why 1812 doesn't make his 180+ years deadline?
I'm somewhat of a child prodigy myself. I have to take this moment to explain that I'm not tooting my own horn, because I realize that there are many people more intelligent than me. It's just a fact that I've always been about 8 grades smarter than my classmates, and I go to a private school that generally has more intelligent kids attending it than attend the public schools (at least a higher concentration of them).
That's why I feel like I should shut this down: Stop with the notion that you shouldn't push the child. I agree, you shouldn't push any child in a direction that they don't care to go in, and you should let them pursue their interests. However, let them know that they're not likely to find a lot of people as intelligent as them. Let them know that they're special, and nurture that. Don't force them to go play football with you, but encourage them if they feel like it. Overall, try to show yourself rather unbiased. That's only on one side, though.
On the other hand, you have the fact that, as an adult, you're going to know better than the kid in some areas. You can sometimes see a 'cutting edge technology' that the kid might want to pursue as just a fad. Who knows? All in all, get them a good grounding in sciences and literature, and if you come in contact with one early in life (perhaps like the nine year old), teach them to spell (again, assuming English is the language). English has some stupid nuances, and I've met many an intelligent person that has been looked down on by people that can spell simply because they misspell or make a typo. While that doesn't mean that they're less intelligent, it does hurt their credibility. Also, on a last couple of notes, don't try to force the child to appreciate art. It's not a necessary skill in life to be able to appreciate art (I should know, my dad's a hardcore robotics engineer, and if the function or usefulness of something is not readily apparent (say, a piece of art), he looks on it as pointless), but at least give them some things to peruse, show them some paintings (not modernistic crap, but things from the Renaissance Period), let them listen to classical music.
While we're all rather inclined to look at programming as a Holy Grail here on slashdot, we need to realize that the main importance isn't whether they're benefiting the computer culture, but whether they're enjoying themselves. Oh yah, and get them a copy of Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age", because I just recently read it, and I think I'd have looked at things a lot differently if I'd gotten a chance to read that book when I was about 8.
--knewter, throwing in my $2.00 X 10^-2
I'm so extremely sorry, sir.
/because/ it can endanger the mother. They do this so that they can kill a baby at the last stages of birth without it's "mind" every physically exiting the womb. Somehow this makes it a non-person. But I digress...
Surely your last comment was merely a joke. Assuming it wasn't, I'll give a little bit of a rebuttal to it by clarifying a couple of things...
Firstly, let me clarify the two issues in question: abortion and the death penalty. Now, on the abortion side we have the senseless murder of innocent children. Occasionally this is done under the facade of protecting the woman having the child. My first argument on that is the fact that she had the choice to have the child (excluding rape); what this means is that she could choose to bring the child into the world, but the child could not choose to be brought into the world. Assuming she had made a mistake, and it was endangering her, that still gives her no right to kill the innocent child. She could always have a Caesarian section as a possibility (this doesn't cover every situation, but the fact that she had the choice does cover every situation.). Regarding partial-birth abortion, they bring the child out feet first, which is what they try to avoid in every other delivery
Now, the death penalty is a completely different issue. Instead of murdering innocents, we're exacting punishment on the wicked and guilty. This is completely justifiable: Biblically, legally, and morally (which is inseperable from Biblical, IMHO). So we are not, apparently, even comparing apples and oranges (they're at least both members of the 'fruit' category). What we're comparing is closer to apples and orangutans. The death penalty is a moral, justifiable judgment on the guilty, while abortion is state-justified murder of innocents that our nation will inevitably pay for; that's all I have left to say about that issue.
Thanks,
--Josh Adams
Excuse me.
I've noticed that a lot of you seem to feel that, since the Electoral Vote and the Popular Vote are different, the system is flawed. You're missing the point entirely. First things first, America is not a democracy. We're a Republic. We look like a Democratic Republic, and we are, but that doesn't make us a Democracy. We never claimed to make every person's vote equal. Dictionary.com defines "republic" as '2. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.' And we fit the bill. The supreme power lies in the citizens. This is not the same as a "Democracy," which is defined as '4. Majority rule.' Please understand this. I've heard so many media moguls talk about how this will forever change the way American elections take place, because there's a chance of the popular vote not coming out with the win. That is exactly how the framers envisioned it.
I live in Alabama. We have 9 electoral votes. Not a huge number, not a tiny number. However, the people in California, New York, and even Florida don't have the same issues as myself. I personally believe that the popular vote should be split up into how many states side with them; it would be a lot more representative of what the country needs. That's not the point. The point is that the Electoral College was set up for this specific purpse, and to remove it would be to completely change America's form of government, from a Democratic Republic to a Democracy. Now, I'm sure no one really needs to be told this, but pure democracy fails in a large society, always. We would either still have to be short of pure democracy, or we would have to watch our nation crumble as we changed to a form of government that has already been proven to fail. I've ranted, and I'm sorry, but people just need to understand what's going on, and they need to understand their country's governmental system, before they start to think about the candidates.
My last note is this: I will never vote for a candidate that is going to support the murder of innocent babies. Bush has said that he'll do what he can to stop it, and he hasn't dragged around his supporters by even pretending he has any power to overthrow Roe v. Wade right now. Maybe next election. Right now I'll take what I can get.
Now get it straight people, we live in a Republic. Please, remember this, and keep in mind that no innocent baby deserves death. Thank you.
--Josh Adams, Presidential candidate in 2032
Alright People, /any/ of it. I mean, here's a government that has cut our defense budget down insanely, and ruined their ability to keep me and my family safe in the case of a war, yet they still take my money every year. EVERY YEAR they take some of my money that deserves to be appropriated towards my security and they spend it on things like relations with the Red Chinese (Oh no, moderate me down because I'll refer to Communists as Rads!). So, again, I'm at a loss as to why they deserve to get more of my money that my kids deserve for the sole reason that I'm their father. It makes me sick, and you people make me sick. You people that believe that the rich deserve to be taxed (or punished) more because they've become more successful than us in the Middle class bracket. Congratulations, you've become biased against successful people. And you wonder why you can't get up there in the rich bracket. Anyway, One last point: My dad owns a Robotics Engineering business, and we're doing quite nicely for now. Ideally, by the time he dies we'll be a major player. Now, his choices are as follows: 1) Drop his business out of the family at his death, and not lose 50% of its income, or 2) leave it to me or my brother (don't care to run it, but I would for him), and force us to pay insane death taxes. Which do you think he's gonna be forced to do? Good job Uncle Sam, big pat on the back for that one. I have to say that I'm completely in favor of GWB on this issue, although I still think the idiot can't debate to save his life. But neither can Gore lately. Basically, GWB's the lesser of two evils. He gets my vote.
--Josh Adams
This is about to make me sick. Everyone in existence today feels that since we live in a free society and their vote counts that they have the right to write an uninformed rant and expect to be respected. What makes me sick is the fact that Slashdotters give in so easily and are so easily swayed. I don't care whether you're voting for Gore or not, this article was extremely idiotic. The Inheritance Tax, he claims, is good because it takes money away from children who have never worked to earn it. Did he ever Point out what the government has done to earn it?
The government currently takes about 50% of the estate upon death (at least 50, I should say). We on slashdot can get so riled up about our freedoms being taken away involving things like Napster and the illegal trading of music (I love it, I do it, but it's as illegal as warez is.). How can we not get riled up about our freedoms to own property? Never in the Constitution was the government given the freedom to take my land away when I die solely because it exists on American soil. The idea of capitalism is that I can work hard enough to own things. That's capitalism boiled down. Following that line of reasoning, if I own something and the government takes it when I die, that's thievery, or even grave-robbing. I plan on becoming a Physics professor at a renowned University, and I know it's a lofty goal, but I also plan on becoming rich and famous. Now, I'm allowed this right by my American government. That falls under the pursuit of happiness.
If I choose, after acquiring my wealth, to leave it to my children, I somehow don't see the line in the Constitution that says that the government is entitled to
You lucky person, you're already getting your Christmas wishes, and almost 3 months early! You just broke the cardinal rule of taunting someone else's typos, and failed to check your own post. Good job, retard.
--josh
I believe that what you're talking about is Van Eck Phreaking (that is, interrupting the stray RF that the cathode ray tube in your monitor transmits, and recreating the image on another cathode.). This is quite old stuff, and is still in use today. The Tempest stuff that was recently released deals greatly with this. Basically, if you don't have a monitor shielded in metal, you're at risk, and that's that. For more information, you can check out this link for basic information, and Van Eck's original submission, or you can check out this one, and lastly, if you want some info on how to build a Van Eck Phreaking rig, then I would suggest the book at this site. Don't forget to type in Van Eck in the search box to find the box. Happy Van Eck'ing.
--Josh Adams
...because while digital frees up the spectrum in that it takes less spectrum digitally to transmit the same stuff as is transmitted analog, all the other technologies forge ahead, and so technology's rise depends on using up all of our bandwidth, apparently. I personally am looking forward to the day when the spectrum is depleted, not so that wireless tech is shut down, but rather so that more people will focus on making the tech more efficient. The more efficient the program is (and this would be an example of a programming concept flowing over into the real world), the more its users profit.
--Josh Adams
I've had the idea of a parallel network for quite some time now. Say, if I were to create a wireless network connected to the outside world by way of a large cell-phone tower, and each car had a computer in it with a wireless card, with good error-management and predictive negotiating, you could have a free network in which everyone connected through everyone else, not unlike a huge, wireless, tangled mess of Cat-5. This system has, obviously, a few flaws in it, and it requires a majority of users. But if something like this were actually implemented into cars, at the factory, then the user majority is there from the get-go. At that point, you have something extremely similar to the internet, and it would act as a gateway to the web. Hope I've been Insightful: 3 at least :)
--Josh Adams