Yes, people are mean to everyone online. The difference is you aren't pre-judged based upon your sex on whether you are good or not. You aren't harassed by these people constantly after they find out your sex.
But no, I have never had anyone tell me I didn't have the right to play the game. I know it is hard for some people, but you have to look at something from another's perspective. If you think the online experience for men and women are the same, you are flat out wrong.
This only would make sense to someone who is really mentally fucked up.
When he says people should be free to be who they are, he is talking about fundamental things such as the fact that they are a female. He is not talking about people outside of the norm. It doesn't infringe on me when someone is female. Some sexual pervert harassing me...sorry, that does violate that. Someone who is female or gay isn't pushing that on me. The sexual deviants and psychopaths out there are.
So feel free to be as screwed up as you want...just keep it to yourself.
No, no they are not. When I go online and people find out I am male, nothing happens. When women go online, they are harassed constantly by idiots. Constant messages asking for pictures, a/s//l, etc. They can handle just the random hate filled things as well as any of us can...they are not being singled out. But when their sex is revealed, they are.
So to say we are treated just as bad as women...well, that is misogynistic garbage for a bunch of pathetic men who have trouble with women because they are socially awkward.
So grow up. When men start hiding their sex online for fear of being targeted, then maybe you would have a point.
Re:As someone who is a large part of the community
on
The 3D Un-Printer
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It is becoming cheaper and cheaper. When the cost is low enough, more consumers will buy and it becomes profitable.
Once people put out designs to buy for stupid things that teenagers like, it will fly off shelves. Print out your own cell phone cases or designs you can stick on your text books.
Also, you have tinkerers who will think it is fun to play with at that price.
All it will take is one killer product and everyone will start wanting one.
Of course they do. We just don't see it because our news is terrible and only focuses in domestic issues. Get out of the country and the rest of the world pays attention to each other.
Ok, then google stops being viable as a company. You get all this stuff, for free, because google is an ad company and can make enough money doing that they don't need to charge you for its applications of services.
If you are coordinating a distributed attack on a system and preventing others access, thus damaging a companies ability to do business...then yes, that indeed should be illegal.
Flip this around and put yourself in the other shoes. Pretend this was your website and was the way that you made money. I'd imagine you would want it to be illegal for someone to take away your ability to run your business.
There is also a difference between an accidental attack (slashdotting a site) and doing something to intentionally cause harm. Intent matters.
No, I am pretty sure they could drive cars on closed courses to determine what is an acceptable speed based on curvature of the road, type of road (highway, residential, etc), and number of lanes. You don't need to break any laws to understand this.
In any case, your argument misses the mark because you aren't actually arguing against his point. Only disagreeing with his example.
His point is that in most cases, breaking the rules is going to lead to stricter enforcement of those rules...not loosening of them.
No, they are not antithetical at all. There is nothing stopping from a scientist who tries to build a model of the real world can't run for office and be a politician. There are certainly scientifically minded people in our government right now.
I think the issue is more that the type who is attracted to power tend not to be the scientist type. They are more the sociopath type that believes they are better than everyone else and whatever view they have is superior.
Actually, Obama has done a lot for science and is a great supported of science. One of his science cabinet members came and spoke at my company and it really illustrated a lot of the funding and effort in to funding and supporting science.
I think you also don't understand politics if you think he can wave his hands and fix the problem. You would need Republicans to support the idea of science as well. And since they pander to a base that believes in zombie Jesus over climate change...just isn't going to happen any time soon.
I completely agree. Yet for some reason I am guessing that you and I would both thing each other has "mind cancer" considering you think there are legions of "free shit" people.
You don't understand what a scientist is because there are still plenty out there and you don't need a degree.
To be a scientist, you need to conduct your research using the scientific method. Your research should be validated through peer review. If you research stands up, then it stands up. So that case, Hawking's viewpoint will be equivalent or better from a nuclear physicist because his research has passed peer review.
No, the term intellectual is only a label to people who lack the education and understanding to know what an intellectual is.
You can tell the difference between the two very easily. One use facts and research to back up what they are saying. The other ones manipulate facts to say something that fits in with their agenda, but if you put any small amount of scrutiny on them, the facts just don't hold up.
The anti-intellectual movement are the people who don't trust you because you have a higher education. Because you have researched more on a certain subject, you are not to be trusted. It is ridiculous but that is where the country is at.
I don't mean getting a degree, I mean that they are always trying to understand the world around them and pursue factual information. So anyone can be a scientist. We need to remove the people who make decisions based on their gut or ideology. These are the ones that are the problem because they stopped caring about learning and improving. They just want to impose their view of the world on everyone else.
I think the problem is that any answer they come up with that disagrees with your own will be considered "bullshit".
Perfect example is the pro-legalization crowd. This has never been something Obama was interested in pursuing. Yeah, I think it is dumb and illogical to waste money on putting people in jail instead of taxing and regulating it just as much as the next guy. The political reality is that it isn't there yet at a national level. So keep fighting in the states, as enough states change, so will the country.
Additionally, even if Obama would 100% agree with the petition, he is dealing with Republicans who would vote no against a bill that made it illegal to shoot kittens.
It is only political in American where people love to be willfully ignorant of facts and science. This has been accepted everywhere else in the world. Time to grow up.
I have to say "so?" to your post as well. Darts is about accuracy, not probability. If you want to make Scrabble as fair as possible, you will need to adjust the probability as you adjust the allowable dictionary.
For example, if you changed a dart board so that the area of the place that doubles your points is smaller than the area where you can triple your points, then you probably want to adjust the points to come in line with that.
So as rules for a game change, considerations should be made for how you score as well.
You make a good point. It is pretty clear that Republicans are ready to sacrifice the first amendment if it means they can take the second amendment out of context and arm everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, people are mean to everyone online. The difference is you aren't pre-judged based upon your sex on whether you are good or not. You aren't harassed by these people constantly after they find out your sex.
But no, I have never had anyone tell me I didn't have the right to play the game. I know it is hard for some people, but you have to look at something from another's perspective. If you think the online experience for men and women are the same, you are flat out wrong.
This only would make sense to someone who is really mentally fucked up.
When he says people should be free to be who they are, he is talking about fundamental things such as the fact that they are a female. He is not talking about people outside of the norm. It doesn't infringe on me when someone is female. Some sexual pervert harassing me...sorry, that does violate that. Someone who is female or gay isn't pushing that on me. The sexual deviants and psychopaths out there are.
So feel free to be as screwed up as you want...just keep it to yourself.
No, no they are not. When I go online and people find out I am male, nothing happens. When women go online, they are harassed constantly by idiots. Constant messages asking for pictures, a/s//l, etc. They can handle just the random hate filled things as well as any of us can...they are not being singled out. But when their sex is revealed, they are.
So to say we are treated just as bad as women...well, that is misogynistic garbage for a bunch of pathetic men who have trouble with women because they are socially awkward.
So grow up. When men start hiding their sex online for fear of being targeted, then maybe you would have a point.
It is becoming cheaper and cheaper. When the cost is low enough, more consumers will buy and it becomes profitable.
Once people put out designs to buy for stupid things that teenagers like, it will fly off shelves. Print out your own cell phone cases or designs you can stick on your text books.
Also, you have tinkerers who will think it is fun to play with at that price.
All it will take is one killer product and everyone will start wanting one.
Because they don't want science to be compatible with religion. Religion is right and science is wrong.
Of course they do. We just don't see it because our news is terrible and only focuses in domestic issues. Get out of the country and the rest of the world pays attention to each other.
Ok, then google stops being viable as a company. You get all this stuff, for free, because google is an ad company and can make enough money doing that they don't need to charge you for its applications of services.
Don't like it, don't use it.
I guess I don't see any logic in what you wrote. Passwords are something everyone is familiar with now and is useful.
But to think that just because no one has come up with the password killer that it is necessary seems ridiculous to me.
Before airplanes....and seeing our first failed attempts at flight...you could say that the logic of human flight was broken.
Doesn't mean you give up, you come up with new ideas and try them.
Everything is vulnerable to some form of attack. But this combination makes it much more challenging.
If you do it long enough, you are loitering.
If you are coordinating a distributed attack on a system and preventing others access, thus damaging a companies ability to do business...then yes, that indeed should be illegal.
Flip this around and put yourself in the other shoes. Pretend this was your website and was the way that you made money. I'd imagine you would want it to be illegal for someone to take away your ability to run your business.
There is also a difference between an accidental attack (slashdotting a site) and doing something to intentionally cause harm. Intent matters.
No, I am pretty sure they could drive cars on closed courses to determine what is an acceptable speed based on curvature of the road, type of road (highway, residential, etc), and number of lanes. You don't need to break any laws to understand this.
In any case, your argument misses the mark because you aren't actually arguing against his point. Only disagreeing with his example.
His point is that in most cases, breaking the rules is going to lead to stricter enforcement of those rules...not loosening of them.
No, they are not antithetical at all. There is nothing stopping from a scientist who tries to build a model of the real world can't run for office and be a politician. There are certainly scientifically minded people in our government right now.
I think the issue is more that the type who is attracted to power tend not to be the scientist type. They are more the sociopath type that believes they are better than everyone else and whatever view they have is superior.
Actually, Obama has done a lot for science and is a great supported of science. One of his science cabinet members came and spoke at my company and it really illustrated a lot of the funding and effort in to funding and supporting science.
I think you also don't understand politics if you think he can wave his hands and fix the problem. You would need Republicans to support the idea of science as well. And since they pander to a base that believes in zombie Jesus over climate change...just isn't going to happen any time soon.
I completely agree. Yet for some reason I am guessing that you and I would both thing each other has "mind cancer" considering you think there are legions of "free shit" people.
You don't understand what a scientist is because there are still plenty out there and you don't need a degree.
To be a scientist, you need to conduct your research using the scientific method. Your research should be validated through peer review. If you research stands up, then it stands up. So that case, Hawking's viewpoint will be equivalent or better from a nuclear physicist because his research has passed peer review.
No, the term intellectual is only a label to people who lack the education and understanding to know what an intellectual is.
You can tell the difference between the two very easily. One use facts and research to back up what they are saying. The other ones manipulate facts to say something that fits in with their agenda, but if you put any small amount of scrutiny on them, the facts just don't hold up.
The anti-intellectual movement are the people who don't trust you because you have a higher education. Because you have researched more on a certain subject, you are not to be trusted. It is ridiculous but that is where the country is at.
Or you mean, people who know nothing about the second amendment try to use it to defend their right to own any type of weapon they want.
Or the idea that when people are shot, there should be more guns in that situation.
Or that we need guns to protect ourselves from the NWO.
Sorry, I am on the side of the people who use the term "clip" incorrectly over people ranting that the government is out to take their guns.
Everyone should be scientists.
I don't mean getting a degree, I mean that they are always trying to understand the world around them and pursue factual information. So anyone can be a scientist. We need to remove the people who make decisions based on their gut or ideology. These are the ones that are the problem because they stopped caring about learning and improving. They just want to impose their view of the world on everyone else.
Unfortunately it would most likely get changed to 250k if that actually passed.
I think the problem is that any answer they come up with that disagrees with your own will be considered "bullshit".
Perfect example is the pro-legalization crowd. This has never been something Obama was interested in pursuing. Yeah, I think it is dumb and illogical to waste money on putting people in jail instead of taxing and regulating it just as much as the next guy. The political reality is that it isn't there yet at a national level. So keep fighting in the states, as enough states change, so will the country.
Additionally, even if Obama would 100% agree with the petition, he is dealing with Republicans who would vote no against a bill that made it illegal to shoot kittens.
It is only political in American where people love to be willfully ignorant of facts and science. This has been accepted everywhere else in the world. Time to grow up.
I have to say "so?" to your post as well. Darts is about accuracy, not probability. If you want to make Scrabble as fair as possible, you will need to adjust the probability as you adjust the allowable dictionary.
For example, if you changed a dart board so that the area of the place that doubles your points is smaller than the area where you can triple your points, then you probably want to adjust the points to come in line with that.
So as rules for a game change, considerations should be made for how you score as well.
This is a way for them to get everyone to re-buy scrabble. Now you have scrabble for each region. U.S.A scrabble, French scrabble, etc.
Beyond that, you can conduct this analysis every few years...so you can have U.S.A. scrabble 2013 and sell more editions.
Whoever is in control of these companies should be fired and bring me on.
Hilarious how this is modded up. Shows the insanity of people on this site.
I can think of nothing more touching and meaningful than commemorating a child's death by going out and buying the weapon that killed him/her.
You guys are exactly the type that need mental health exams monthly.
You make a good point. It is pretty clear that Republicans are ready to sacrifice the first amendment if it means they can take the second amendment out of context and arm everyone.