Bullshit. You help do something, you're responsible.
If the benefits* outweigh your moral qualms, well..that's your deal. Just don't pretend that somehow absolves you of your moral guilt. It's still there.
_
*Such as getting paid and actually being able to afford food for your starving children
The sad thing is that the people on both ends of the political spectrum will pass second hand "facts" from dubious sources around so much between each other that eventually they begin to believe their own bullshit and then when the real facts and truth come to the surface, they are unwilling to accept them (sort of like how the 9/11 World Trade Center conspiracy theories have been debunked so many times, yet many people continue to believe they were controlled demolitions by the Israeli Mossad).
Which raises an interesting question; what really is a trusted source?
Remember when Bush was gearing up for war? Remember the massive amount of half-truths and occasionally outright lies they spewed? Remember Colin Powell showing the UN unrefutable pictural evidence of WMD's in Iraq? Remember the whole 'Iraq could have nuclear capability in X years" report written by a grad-student which got passed around as thruth? Remember the whole "they got Uranium!"-bullshit?
I really do have a lot of sympathy for people who buy into conspiracy theories nowadays, because there really aren't many sources left to trust as far as reporting goes.
They can track every non-main stream website you go to. Which is, you know, probably EXACTLY WHAT THEY* WANT. This is just pre-filtering and data-massaging built into the computer being spied upon. Sounds really convinient really.
this is why we need to start populating the political system with politicians who *understand* some of the political issues
Yes, more people to get the treatment Al Gore and his 'You could say I helped the invent the Internet' quote did?
There are more profound problems in a country where a misquote can be made into that big a deal, or somebody changing one bloody opinion over a 5 year period can be branded a 'flip-flop'er (or rather, 'not retarded' as we others call it).
Or is it only free trade that benefits corporations that's allowed, not that which benefits us lowly consumers
Has the right ever been about anything else? Pragmatism thrumps ideology any time the rich are the ones gaining.
Free Trade!(as long as it benefits the rich)
Free Market!(except for patents, copyrights and trademarks which all are necessary evils.. unlike universal healthcare, social-security and all that other fluff)
Free Press, Free Speech, Free Indivuals!(unless it's corporations wanting to clamp down on what employees do on their spare-time, then it's just and necessary)
The left may be mis-guided (or in the US' case, doesn't even exist), but there is atleast some semblance of caring for others.
Technically, no. Freedom of the press means the freedom to publish. NYT brought up on charges for publishing? No.
freedom to publish' involves lack of negative consequences. Like not being shot, or not being interrogated and thrown in jail if you don't tell them what they want to know.
They CAN write whatever they want. They just don't have the right to shield felons.
ANYBODY CAN write WHATEVER they want ALWAYS. It's only the consequences that differ!
They don't have to reveal whistle-blowers. They do have to reveal felons, as in classified document leakers. In that, they are not above the law.
Yes. and forcing them to reveal not-yet-convicted-and-still-innocent-until-proven- guilty individuals does not consitute a restriction on the freedom of press?
It is however either way besides the point. Most societies place different restrictions on their individuals. This index measures journalists ability to write whatever they want. Just because you deem them having to expose individiuals who have commited crimes just and how it should be doesn't make it less restricting.
But the methodology of this report is a bit question-begging if we can't all agree on what it means for the press to be "free"
Of course not, that's silly. All it takes is for the author to agree with himself, and clearly define his usage. Connotations on words differ between areas and on time, so unless your 'agreement' is universal world-wide is essentially useless anyways.
You only need internal consistancy for something to make sense; ie, it must be self-contained.
if you put someone with social wants or aptidude to such a position, chances are high that in 1.5 years time he will show up at work with a shotgun at hand and blow off 5-10 of his colleagues, probably including your bitchy (in this case) ass.
I wish more people would start killing of HR-personell. That breed of people really does need a little bit of thinning.
I mean, if you're going down anyways, why not do humankind a favour in the process?
(The storage mechanism extracts the 120 "strongest" features from an image to create something called a "wavelet transform," which contains much less data than the photo itself and facilitates lightning-fast searches.)'"
If you're going to simplify, atleast get it somewhere near correct. A wavelet transform doesn't extract features. Features is a human-made concept. A wavelet transform is simply a transform (or for this purpose, a very lossy compression algorithm), very similar to the Fourier Transform, except that it has locality which is why it performs soo much better on non-uniform data.
I mean, 'something called a wavelet transform'. A short explanation linking it Fourier might have been apt, but wavelets are hardly voodoo.
'facilitates lightning-fast searches'.. oohh, thanks for telling us. I would never have guessed that after transforming the data down to 12 vectors, searching would be a lot faster. I mean, if they actually had indexed the data in a clever way or something specifically to speed up searches, this sentence would have made sense.. but they just transformed it. It's not voodoo and market-speech is bad!
Chemical weapons are essentially only useful on human targets. Bombs are at least able to destroy infrastruture and equipment.
Yes, and killing killing soldiers with as little damage to the civilian community as possible used to be an considered more etical than the opposite. I guess times change.
Except that they don't offer fast connections, not really.
My personal experience, aswell as my friends, is that we're (or were) all getting close up to theoretical max. Most of us live in Trondheim though, so might be just here.
The average waiting time for NextGenTel customer support is (was) well over an hour.
So, as far as annoyance-factor vs costs goes, you're better off using your money buying trained chimps to harass their employees than sitting on the phone waiting for somebody to talk to. Going with the chimps, there's a Slightly better chance of intelligent conversation also.
NextGenTel is 100% evil, utterly incompetent and offer damn fast connections really cheap.
I guess this is the right place to ask a few questions about this whole mess:)
1. How old are you people when you take the SAT? Is it really that important as some make it up to be?
2. Is there reasonably cheap/free way to take the SAT over the internet/something for foreigners? I know it's not available here atleast. It's not that I need it, but it sounds like fun:)
Imagine this; you put a booth on a public space, and while you're gone, someone walks around it, takes notes, finds some weaknesses and offer to sell you the list. Doesn't sound that bad, now does it?
Put something on the internet and it's on public space pr definition. It doesn't give anyone the right to destroy it, but it does give us the right to look at it (or rather, it doesn't give you the right to refuse us).
(I haven't read the story, don't know if my analogy is more appliciable, but I find GP's analogy abhorrent either way.. because it's not necessarily correct; it all depends on the details)
Too small to mention, heh? I'll let you know we've never lost a single war against Russia nor the U.S... and we seriously intend to keep the record perfect!
Or you could simply refuse to "grow up" and have fun your
entire life.
Well, that's easy to say, harder to do. I'm 27 now, and finished my masters degree last year. For the past year I've lived 6 months in Msocow (for fun), travelled around, and gotten a job now to get more money to do weird shit with. When describing my life, it still sounds like I'm riding high, I'm getting drunk fairly regurarly and am having fun.. but still, everything is at a slower place, my body can't be pushed *that* far anymore and I am rarely stupid drunk.. just reasonably.
While the whole get a job, lose your life and ditch your friends which seem to be very common among Americans (from my personal experiences atleast) is plain silly; there are things you can only do when you're young.. I mean, before you get cynic, jaded and boring... the more people you've met, the less chance the of new people you meet actually being 'new'.
Slashdot Mirror
If the benefits* outweigh your moral qualms, well..that's your deal. Just don't pretend that somehow absolves you of your moral guilt. It's still there.
_
*Such as getting paid and actually being able to afford food for your starving children
I imagine very few chinese websites link to pictures of tanks on tian-an-men square.
Remember when Bush was gearing up for war? Remember the massive amount of half-truths and occasionally outright lies they spewed? Remember Colin Powell showing the UN unrefutable pictural evidence of WMD's in Iraq? Remember the whole 'Iraq could have nuclear capability in X years" report written by a grad-student which got passed around as thruth? Remember the whole "they got Uranium!"-bullshit?
I really do have a lot of sympathy for people who buy into conspiracy theories nowadays, because there really aren't many sources left to trust as far as reporting goes.
They can track every non-main stream website you go to. Which is, you know, probably EXACTLY WHAT THEY* WANT. This is just pre-filtering and data-massaging built into the computer being spied upon. Sounds really convinient really.
* CIA, NSA, FBI or whoever.
There are more profound problems in a country where a misquote can be made into that big a deal, or somebody changing one bloody opinion over a 5 year period can be branded a 'flip-flop'er (or rather, 'not retarded' as we others call it).
Free Trade!(as long as it benefits the rich)
Free Market!(except for patents, copyrights and trademarks which all are necessary evils.. unlike universal healthcare, social-security and all that other fluff)
Free Press, Free Speech, Free Indivuals!(unless it's corporations wanting to clamp down on what employees do on their spare-time, then it's just and necessary)
The left may be mis-guided (or in the US' case, doesn't even exist), but there is atleast some semblance of caring for others.
It is however either way besides the point. Most societies place different restrictions on their individuals. This index measures journalists ability to write whatever they want. Just because you deem them having to expose individiuals who have commited crimes just and how it should be doesn't make it less restricting.
You only need internal consistancy for something to make sense; ie, it must be self-contained.
I mean, if you're going down anyways, why not do humankind a favour in the process?
I mean, 'something called a wavelet transform'. A short explanation linking it Fourier might have been apt, but wavelets are hardly voodoo.
'facilitates lightning-fast searches'.. oohh, thanks for telling us. I would never have guessed that after transforming the data down to 12 vectors, searching would be a lot faster. I mean, if they actually had indexed the data in a clever way or something specifically to speed up searches, this sentence would have made sense.. but they just transformed it. It's not voodoo and market-speech is bad!
The categories were for the plots, but I assume you didn't do anything but look at the pictures?
I can still use 'cum' as a short for 'cumulative' without anybody sniggering.
Can you tell the difference between uTube and YouTube when pronounced? No?
I mean, the physical ability to say whatever you want is present in every society always. It's the consequences which differ.
Yes, and killing killing soldiers with as little damage to the civilian community as possible used to be an considered more etical than the opposite. I guess times change.
NO.
(and no, Santa Claus does not exist either)
So, as far as annoyance-factor vs costs goes, you're better off using your money buying trained chimps to harass their employees than sitting on the phone waiting for somebody to talk to. Going with the chimps, there's a Slightly better chance of intelligent conversation also.
NextGenTel is 100% evil, utterly incompetent and offer damn fast connections really cheap.
1. How old are you people when you take the SAT? Is it really that important as some make it up to be?
2. Is there reasonably cheap/free way to take the SAT over the internet/something for foreigners? I know it's not available here atleast. It's not that I need it, but it sounds like fun :)
Put something on the internet and it's on public space pr definition. It doesn't give anyone the right to destroy it, but it does give us the right to look at it (or rather, it doesn't give you the right to refuse us).
(I haven't read the story, don't know if my analogy is more appliciable, but I find GP's analogy abhorrent either way.. because it's not necessarily correct; it all depends on the details)
Too small to mention, heh? I'll let you know we've never lost a single war against Russia nor the U.S... and we seriously intend to keep the record perfect!
While the whole get a job, lose your life and ditch your friends which seem to be very common among Americans (from my personal experiences atleast) is plain silly; there are things you can only do when you're young.. I mean, before you get cynic, jaded and boring... the more people you've met, the less chance the of new people you meet actually being 'new'.