You know, I have an idea for a solution to this whole God/no god debate. It would absolutely answer the question for ALL TIME. It would be completely inarguable whether God exists or what form He/She/It/Bob takes if He/She/It/Bob exists. It would let us know undoubtedly whether there is a Heaven or Hell, a Nirvana (not the band), a Valhalla, a Marble Tulip Juicy Tree. All we'd have to do is ring the planet with nuclear bombs, every nuclear bomb currently in existence or that we could manufacture in time, and set them all off at once. BOOM! Problem solved. Question answered. Then, I'd get to stop reading this pointless and endless debate rehashed OVER AND OVER in every single fucking thread. Really, it'd be a relief. I don't see how anyone can say this is a bad idea. Theists would get to (from their perspective) prove that they're right, and atheists don't have anything to look forward to, anyway. Agnostics would finally just make a damn decision already...Really, I think it's a big win all around. Plus, as a bonus, it would also solve every single problem humanity is currently facing. Win/win/win.
Really? You mean the people too lazy to get a fucking job are going to organize and revolt? Not likely. "Take care of the poor", huh? All you're doing is turning middle class people IN TO poor people through taxation...to pay for lazy assholes. Yes, yes, I'm sure one or two of the recipients deserve what they're getting. Have you ever worked with the homeless? I have. Have you ever worked in a soup kitchen? I have. Have you ever been abused by the very people you're trying to feed? Yes, that's right. Saw it coming, didn't you? I have. The world does not owe you anything, and *I* do not owe you anything. I still choose to give of my own free will, as MANY Americans do. I still volunteer, even though I don't have to, even though I am heavily taxed to support inefficient government programs that do NOT 'take care' of anyone. (OK, OK, maybe one or two people.) Maybe if Social Security were not a bankrupt shell game, if welfare were half as efficient as most non-profits, if more rigorous controls were instituted, if efficiency were possible, if all that were true (yes, I used 'were' on purpose, because I don't belive it *is* possible) then maybe I'd support that crap. However, regardless of what you may believe, America has usually been among the best places in the world to be 'poor'. 'Poor' people in America usually have cars and televisions and places to live. Some 'poor' people have multiple cars. Many have cellular phones. Most have running water and electricity. We're a bunch of spoiled assholes in this country who believe that 'someone' owes them something. Who it is that owes, what they owe, and precisely WHY it is owed, well what does that matter? Someone OWES ME DAMMIT PAY UP NOW.
Ever read the communist manifesto? If not, you might be surprised by how many of the planks of the communist manifesto are part of American government right now. Just because Americans don't KNOW they favor communism doesn't mean they don't, in actuality. There aren't many of us who are against public schooling, income taxes, social security, welfare, etc. I am, but most of us aren't.
No, I'm responding to it with, "Most if not all routers that you'd expect to encounter nowadays have NAT capabilities AS WELL AS routing capabilities." Seriously, I do understand your point, and I will concede that routers haven't always come with DHCP servers built in to them...will you not as graciously concede that the future is more likely to hold NAT-capable routers than non-NAT-capable routers? Or do you think the convergence trend is ending?
Air conditioners have nothing to do with a car's ability to drive. You can theoretically buy a car with no A/C. In some locales, it is likely common to do so. However, the vast majority of people expect cars to have A/C. That doesn't mean a car IS an A/C. It doesn't mean a car with no A/C isn't a car. It doesn't mean A/C makes a car a "real car" or anything. It just means that most people would be unpleasantly surprised to buy a car and not get A/C. Just as most people would be unpleasantly surprised to buy a router and then find out once they get it home that it has no DHCP server in it. Would that matter to everyone? Absolutely not. Does that equate to it not mattering at all? Absolutely not.
I understand your point, believe me, I do...I remember when switches were switches and routers were routers and 10base2 was good enough, dangit. However, please go into your local Fry's store and survey the devices sold as "routers". 100% of them will contain a DHCP server. Does this mean that a router is now a DHCP server? Of course not. However, it does refute your claim that NOTHING about 'router' implies DHCP. It is now an expectation. Let me give you another example which may help you understand.
There is NOTHING about cellular phones that implies 'calculator'. Now, try to find a cellular phone that doesn't include a calculator. Go on, I'll wait. You're not going to find one at a local carrier's store, nor Best Buy, etc. If I were to buy a router which did NOT come with an included DHCP server, I would be very upset. Maybe if I were building a network from the thinnet days... Point being: things change; catch up or get left behind.
You derieded a guy for posting his opinion about Safari, but then offer "I've not missed Flash" as a reason to dismiss the concern that the iPhone can't handle Flash. Does the fact that you have not personally missed Flash mean that the iPhone is not lacking Flash support? No. You are trying to use your opinion as evidence that a feature isn't critical. Yet you flamed someone for using his opinion as evidence in the same post. Then you offer an impossible task: listing all the sites on the web and those that come online and whether they use only Flash or only CSS... Here are some problems with that: How do you know how many sites use Flash vs CSS? How do you know when a new site appears on the Web? How would you quantify Flash-only sites vs CSS-only vs sites that use both? Would you use a ranking system? How would it be technically possible to fulfill your request? It's pretty easy to ask an unanswerable question and then say, "Well, you didn't answer my question so I win." However, it isn't logical, and it makes you look foolish.
Let us examine your analogy: Can you buy a drill without a built-in flashlight?
It's hard to buy a router without a dhcp server in it. I think the OP would have been better served saying that the router can, assuiming it has an internal dhcp server, assignes the addresses. Of course, I doubt the OP expected the responses to focus more on the content of the post rather than the word choice. Must be new here.
My point was that NO ONE gives a flying fuck about ANYONE else on the road. People are trying to avoid accidents to avoid damage to their own vehicles and time spent dealing with police, insurance companies, etc, and to save their own skins. I'm not saying that people actively wish others harm, but if you spend more time thinking about the other drivers than you need to in order to drive, ("is that person coming into this lane?" "are they going to stop even though the light just turned yellow?" etc) then you are probably not paying enough attention to the road. DUI is no worse than driving without paying attention and yet there is no public outcry over that issue, even though driver inattention is a factor in the vast majority of auto accidents. Where is the outcry about the statistically more deadly DWI, Driving While Inattentive? Note that I condone neither drunk nor inattentive driving. I just don't see why all the fuss about the one, which is (in my opinion) mostly just a subset of the other.
I can't tell you the number of times I've seen a couple fighting or making out in the car...or parents reaching in to the backseat while driving to smack kids or find the juice box or whatever. I agree that phone use can be distracting, but not more than any other conversation one is having. One bonus is that one never need look at the person one is speaking to on a cellular phone. This is something people do in cars very frequently. I didn't notice how often I was doing it until I started watching for it.
Well, they need some kind of system to tell you when it's the kids screaming in the backseat or the co-worker deciding to pull a 'prank' or whatever else passengers do that cause accidents. I've known more people that have gotten in accidents either because of their own passenger or someone else's than any other cause, weather and drunks included... if we're going to look into cell phone usage, we better explore this area, too. Studies have shown that conversations are equally distracting with the person in the next/back seat as with a person on the other end of the phone. Look, people...do you REALLY want to make things safe? REALLY? Do you understand how incredibly annoying the world is going to be when EVERYTHING is 'safe' and controlled by tech? Bust out the plastic bubbles, we need to make sure no one ever stubs a toe.
and minor drug possession crimes could have this mandatory on their vehicles in lieu of jail time.
This doesn't detect drugs. That's like making people go to anger management classes for writing bad checks.
People who cry fascism, just remember that DUIs don't involve police coming into your life and telling you what to do.
No, in this case, it's the car manufacturers...and if it becomes mandatory, the government. Of course, fascism doesn't have much to do with police, anyway.
Alcohol-related vehicular homicide is far, far more common than murder, but people keep acting like DUIs are "victimless crimes." I'll be sure to tell that to the next family of a pedestrian I scrape off the road.
Actually, DUI *is* a victimless crime. Causing an accident is almost always a crime in itself, regardless of your state of intoxication. However, simply driving while intoxicated, if you do not cause an accident, is a crime with no victim, thus the term 'victimless crime'. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think drunk driving is cool, but as a police officer you really should know this. What makes a pedestrian hit by a drunk driver more dead than one hit by a sober driver? Is someone talking on a phone instead of paying attention to the road somehow less at fault because they aren't drunk? We focus so much on DRUNK driving, but we hardly ever focus on SAFE driving. That is, we act like drunk driving is the only cause of road fatalities...when that's far from the truth. I have no statistical evidence for this, but everyone *I've* known that drives drunk is also reckless in many other ways. Who is to say if the relationship is causal? Not me.
Except in the USA we have something called DUE PROCESS that says you cannot deny someone life, liberty, or property without a hearing, and most definitely cannot deprive someone of property without just compensation.
What, are you writing from the 1800s? How did you get a computer to function back then? And why are you wasting that awesome time travel tech posting to/.?
I hope you never have any passengers when you drive. Passengers may cause distraction, and it is not your right, privilege, or freedom to get distracted while driving. Never will and never would, whatever that means. Any means necessary to stop people having passengers and thus possibly being distracted and thus possibly injuring or killing someone else is justified. Oh, wait, you mean that simply driving causes every single driver to put innocent people at risk? That should be illegal, and any means we need to use to put and end to it is justified. Oh, and you're a moron.
If the people being injured or killed are people other than the driver, it's no longer a question of being a nanny state, or personal responsibility. It becomes a matter of public interest to stop something very dangerous - isn't that what government's for?
Yes, sir. It should get right on stopping itself immediately!
If only most cars had some sort of...I don't know, maybe some type of compartment in which people could store their gloves. Oh, well, guess they're SOL.
A decade in jail? For that? What, are you insane? We should just kill them outright. Actually, we should just execute anyone found guilty of *any* crime. That way, there'd be far less crime. Or, far fewer people. Any way I look at it, it's a win. Just to be fair, though, NO ONE gives a shit about anyone else on the road. Or haven't you driven, lately?
I don't know...if they can make 20k euros per day off the crap they advertise, then hooray for them, I say. People stupid enough to EVER click on ANY banner/website ad deserve what they get. Yes, yes, I'm sure a bunch of you will respond with your pet ads that don't suck. There are exceptions to 'most every rule, I suppose. However, in general, you can find better pricing on whatever it is they are advertising with a small amount of research. Of course, it could be worse....it could be torrentspy making all that money. Just out of curiosity, how many people here actually read website ads? I process them out automatically nowadays. Of course, according to statbrain they get about 5mil pageviews per day. If you don't think they should advertise, how do you expect them to serve that many pages? (Note: this is a general question and is not directed at the person to whom I'm responding)
So... I want to understand what you're saying. You're blaming your brother's band's lack of a recording contract on filesharing? Doesn't that seem a bit of a stretch to you? Should not the recording companies be held responsible? Also, how do we know that your brother and his band are doing their part to get signed? If all they're doing is waiting around for some A&R guy to download their music...well they could be waiting a while. Also, while in your brother's case, greater exposure may not have led to greater concert attendance, it seems logical that a broader base of people who know who your band is and like your music would lead to a larger pool of possible concert attendees, at the very least. This is why anecdotal evidence is poor evidence, because it is difficult to label corner cases as such without proper statistical grounding. One case is not a good sample size.
You said "our" when refurring to the British. That would implie that you are British. Why ain't you able to write proper English? Statisticly speaking, it was your furst language. Your people invented it. Why would U torture it so? WHY?
You meant "for all intents and purposes". That's all right, though. I forgive you. Personally, I prefer to use the phrase "for all intense sand porpoises". I would have accepted that as well. I do give you bonus points for insulting poodles, however.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I have an idea for a solution to this whole God/no god debate. It would absolutely answer the question for ALL TIME. It would be completely inarguable whether God exists or what form He/She/It/Bob takes if He/She/It/Bob exists. It would let us know undoubtedly whether there is a Heaven or Hell, a Nirvana (not the band), a Valhalla, a Marble Tulip Juicy Tree. All we'd have to do is ring the planet with nuclear bombs, every nuclear bomb currently in existence or that we could manufacture in time, and set them all off at once. BOOM! Problem solved. Question answered. Then, I'd get to stop reading this pointless and endless debate rehashed OVER AND OVER in every single fucking thread. Really, it'd be a relief. I don't see how anyone can say this is a bad idea. Theists would get to (from their perspective) prove that they're right, and atheists don't have anything to look forward to, anyway. Agnostics would finally just make a damn decision already...Really, I think it's a big win all around. Plus, as a bonus, it would also solve every single problem humanity is currently facing. Win/win/win.
Really? You mean the people too lazy to get a fucking job are going to organize and revolt? Not likely. "Take care of the poor", huh? All you're doing is turning middle class people IN TO poor people through taxation...to pay for lazy assholes. Yes, yes, I'm sure one or two of the recipients deserve what they're getting. Have you ever worked with the homeless? I have. Have you ever worked in a soup kitchen? I have. Have you ever been abused by the very people you're trying to feed? Yes, that's right. Saw it coming, didn't you? I have. The world does not owe you anything, and *I* do not owe you anything. I still choose to give of my own free will, as MANY Americans do. I still volunteer, even though I don't have to, even though I am heavily taxed to support inefficient government programs that do NOT 'take care' of anyone. (OK, OK, maybe one or two people.) Maybe if Social Security were not a bankrupt shell game, if welfare were half as efficient as most non-profits, if more rigorous controls were instituted, if efficiency were possible, if all that were true (yes, I used 'were' on purpose, because I don't belive it *is* possible) then maybe I'd support that crap. However, regardless of what you may believe, America has usually been among the best places in the world to be 'poor'. 'Poor' people in America usually have cars and televisions and places to live. Some 'poor' people have multiple cars. Many have cellular phones. Most have running water and electricity. We're a bunch of spoiled assholes in this country who believe that 'someone' owes them something. Who it is that owes, what they owe, and precisely WHY it is owed, well what does that matter? Someone OWES ME DAMMIT PAY UP NOW.
We should not be so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance.
Sir, I am afraid that I can not tolerate your lack of tolerance of intolerance. How could you be so intolerant? It's intolerable!
Ever read the communist manifesto? If not, you might be surprised by how many of the planks of the communist manifesto are part of American government right now. Just because Americans don't KNOW they favor communism doesn't mean they don't, in actuality. There aren't many of us who are against public schooling, income taxes, social security, welfare, etc. I am, but most of us aren't.
While a nitpicky correction on what a router is IS relevant? Riiiiiiiiight.
No, I'm responding to it with, "Most if not all routers that you'd expect to encounter nowadays have NAT capabilities AS WELL AS routing capabilities." Seriously, I do understand your point, and I will concede that routers haven't always come with DHCP servers built in to them...will you not as graciously concede that the future is more likely to hold NAT-capable routers than non-NAT-capable routers? Or do you think the convergence trend is ending?
Air conditioners have nothing to do with a car's ability to drive. You can theoretically buy a car with no A/C. In some locales, it is likely common to do so. However, the vast majority of people expect cars to have A/C. That doesn't mean a car IS an A/C. It doesn't mean a car with no A/C isn't a car. It doesn't mean A/C makes a car a "real car" or anything. It just means that most people would be unpleasantly surprised to buy a car and not get A/C. Just as most people would be unpleasantly surprised to buy a router and then find out once they get it home that it has no DHCP server in it. Would that matter to everyone? Absolutely not. Does that equate to it not mattering at all? Absolutely not.
I understand your point, believe me, I do...I remember when switches were switches and routers were routers and 10base2 was good enough, dangit. However, please go into your local Fry's store and survey the devices sold as "routers". 100% of them will contain a DHCP server. Does this mean that a router is now a DHCP server? Of course not. However, it does refute your claim that NOTHING about 'router' implies DHCP. It is now an expectation. Let me give you another example which may help you understand.
There is NOTHING about cellular phones that implies 'calculator'. Now, try to find a cellular phone that doesn't include a calculator. Go on, I'll wait. You're not going to find one at a local carrier's store, nor Best Buy, etc. If I were to buy a router which did NOT come with an included DHCP server, I would be very upset. Maybe if I were building a network from the thinnet days...
Point being: things change; catch up or get left behind.
You derieded a guy for posting his opinion about Safari, but then offer "I've not missed Flash" as a reason to dismiss the concern that the iPhone can't handle Flash. Does the fact that you have not personally missed Flash mean that the iPhone is not lacking Flash support? No. You are trying to use your opinion as evidence that a feature isn't critical. Yet you flamed someone for using his opinion as evidence in the same post. Then you offer an impossible task: listing all the sites on the web and those that come online and whether they use only Flash or only CSS... Here are some problems with that: How do you know how many sites use Flash vs CSS? How do you know when a new site appears on the Web? How would you quantify Flash-only sites vs CSS-only vs sites that use both? Would you use a ranking system? How would it be technically possible to fulfill your request? It's pretty easy to ask an unanswerable question and then say, "Well, you didn't answer my question so I win." However, it isn't logical, and it makes you look foolish.
Let us examine your analogy: Can you buy a drill without a built-in flashlight?
It's hard to buy a router without a dhcp server in it. I think the OP would have been better served saying that the router can, assuiming it has an internal dhcp server, assignes the addresses. Of course, I doubt the OP expected the responses to focus more on the content of the post rather than the word choice. Must be new here.
My point was that NO ONE gives a flying fuck about ANYONE else on the road. People are trying to avoid accidents to avoid damage to their own vehicles and time spent dealing with police, insurance companies, etc, and to save their own skins. I'm not saying that people actively wish others harm, but if you spend more time thinking about the other drivers than you need to in order to drive, ("is that person coming into this lane?" "are they going to stop even though the light just turned yellow?" etc) then you are probably not paying enough attention to the road. DUI is no worse than driving without paying attention and yet there is no public outcry over that issue, even though driver inattention is a factor in the vast majority of auto accidents. Where is the outcry about the statistically more deadly DWI, Driving While Inattentive?
Note that I condone neither drunk nor inattentive driving. I just don't see why all the fuss about the one, which is (in my opinion) mostly just a subset of the other.
I can't tell you the number of times I've seen a couple fighting or making out in the car...or parents reaching in to the backseat while driving to smack kids or find the juice box or whatever. I agree that phone use can be distracting, but not more than any other conversation one is having. One bonus is that one never need look at the person one is speaking to on a cellular phone. This is something people do in cars very frequently. I didn't notice how often I was doing it until I started watching for it.
Well, they need some kind of system to tell you when it's the kids screaming in the backseat or the co-worker deciding to pull a 'prank' or whatever else passengers do that cause accidents. I've known more people that have gotten in accidents either because of their own passenger or someone else's than any other cause, weather and drunks included... if we're going to look into cell phone usage, we better explore this area, too. Studies have shown that conversations are equally distracting with the person in the next/back seat as with a person on the other end of the phone. Look, people...do you REALLY want to make things safe? REALLY? Do you understand how incredibly annoying the world is going to be when EVERYTHING is 'safe' and controlled by tech? Bust out the plastic bubbles, we need to make sure no one ever stubs a toe.
and minor drug possession crimes could have this mandatory on their vehicles in lieu of jail time.
This doesn't detect drugs. That's like making people go to anger management classes for writing bad checks.
People who cry fascism, just remember that DUIs don't involve police coming into your life and telling you what to do.
No, in this case, it's the car manufacturers...and if it becomes mandatory, the government. Of course, fascism doesn't have much to do with police, anyway.
Alcohol-related vehicular homicide is far, far more common than murder, but people keep acting like DUIs are "victimless crimes."
I'll be sure to tell that to the next family of a pedestrian I scrape off the road.
Actually, DUI *is* a victimless crime. Causing an accident is almost always a crime in itself, regardless of your state of intoxication. However, simply driving while intoxicated, if you do not cause an accident, is a crime with no victim, thus the term 'victimless crime'. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think drunk driving is cool, but as a police officer you really should know this. What makes a pedestrian hit by a drunk driver more dead than one hit by a sober driver? Is someone talking on a phone instead of paying attention to the road somehow less at fault because they aren't drunk? We focus so much on DRUNK driving, but we hardly ever focus on SAFE driving. That is, we act like drunk driving is the only cause of road fatalities...when that's far from the truth. I have no statistical evidence for this, but everyone *I've* known that drives drunk is also reckless in many other ways. Who is to say if the relationship is causal? Not me.
Except in the USA we have something called DUE PROCESS that says you cannot deny someone life, liberty, or property without a hearing, and most definitely cannot deprive someone of property without just compensation.
/.?
What, are you writing from the 1800s? How did you get a computer to function back then? And why are you wasting that awesome time travel tech posting to
Well, that's like, what, 20 cups of starbucks coffee? seems like you could reach that pretty easily in a lifetime...
I hope you never have any passengers when you drive. Passengers may cause distraction, and it is not your right, privilege, or freedom to get distracted while driving. Never will and never would, whatever that means. Any means necessary to stop people having passengers and thus possibly being distracted and thus possibly injuring or killing someone else is justified. Oh, wait, you mean that simply driving causes every single driver to put innocent people at risk? That should be illegal, and any means we need to use to put and end to it is justified. Oh, and you're a moron.
If the people being injured or killed are people other than the driver, it's no longer a question of being a nanny state, or personal responsibility. It becomes a matter of public interest to stop something very dangerous - isn't that what government's for?
Yes, sir. It should get right on stopping itself immediately!
Dude, the OP said WINDY, not WINDING.
If only most cars had some sort of...I don't know, maybe some type of compartment in which people could store their gloves. Oh, well, guess they're SOL.
A decade in jail? For that? What, are you insane? We should just kill them outright. Actually, we should just execute anyone found guilty of *any* crime. That way, there'd be far less crime. Or, far fewer people. Any way I look at it, it's a win. Just to be fair, though, NO ONE gives a shit about anyone else on the road. Or haven't you driven, lately?
I don't know...if they can make 20k euros per day off the crap they advertise, then hooray for them, I say. People stupid enough to EVER click on ANY banner/website ad deserve what they get. Yes, yes, I'm sure a bunch of you will respond with your pet ads that don't suck. There are exceptions to 'most every rule, I suppose. However, in general, you can find better pricing on whatever it is they are advertising with a small amount of research. Of course, it could be worse....it could be torrentspy making all that money.
Just out of curiosity, how many people here actually read website ads? I process them out automatically nowadays. Of course, according to statbrain they get about 5mil pageviews per day. If you don't think they should advertise, how do you expect them to serve that many pages? (Note: this is a general question and is not directed at the person to whom I'm responding)
So... I want to understand what you're saying. You're blaming your brother's band's lack of a recording contract on filesharing? Doesn't that seem a bit of a stretch to you? Should not the recording companies be held responsible? Also, how do we know that your brother and his band are doing their part to get signed? If all they're doing is waiting around for some A&R guy to download their music...well they could be waiting a while. Also, while in your brother's case, greater exposure may not have led to greater concert attendance, it seems logical that a broader base of people who know who your band is and like your music would lead to a larger pool of possible concert attendees, at the very least. This is why anecdotal evidence is poor evidence, because it is difficult to label corner cases as such without proper statistical grounding. One case is not a good sample size.
Good ansur!
You said "our" when refurring to the British. That would implie that you are British. Why ain't you able to write proper English? Statisticly speaking, it was your furst language. Your people invented it. Why would U torture it so? WHY?
for all intends and purposes
You meant "for all intents and purposes". That's all right, though. I forgive you. Personally, I prefer to use the phrase "for all intense sand porpoises". I would have accepted that as well. I do give you bonus points for insulting poodles, however.