Yeah, but the IBM adverts aren't quite as bad as the adverts from Kinder (translated from german in to gibberish), Nivea (jokes written by Vulcans), Danone (no comment), Campbell's Soup (with the psycho mum who thinks that if she cooks chicken covered in soup every night, her family won't leave her), and those bad air freshener adverts (did you see that puff?)
One thing though, IBM adverts are immediately recognisable and it's not just because of those blue borders. Personally I don't think the IBM adverts are too bad. At least they're not as cheesy and downright misleading as the current Microsoft ads.
That's the big point. Evolution is a scientific theory in the sense that we can't say 100% that it is correct but the evidence for it is very strong. Evolution, like all scientific theories can be proven wrong. Newton has been proven wrong.
Your religion can never be proven wrong because it simply can't be tested.
Science is about discovery. Your religion is simply about accepting what was written in the Bible, keeping quiet and not asking any awkward questions like, "hey, where did those big old bones come from?".
Glad you're doing your bit to help heal the world. Obviously, hating homosexuals and blaming them for AIDS is going to help.
I would consider Christianity to be a *mythology*. The stories of the Greek gods, and for that matter the Norse gods are just as believable as anything I've read in the Bible.
If AIDS is a punishment from your god, why are innocent people being smited with this nasty condition? Are you happy to accept that your God will punish people for the 'sins' of others?
Do you accept the entire Bible as being the accurate word of God?
Did you chose Christianity or were you raised in a community where there were other Christians? The reason I ask is because, I'm interested in knowing how you decided that Christianity is the one true faith and so, the one that you should use to decide who you should hate.
I think meta-moderation causes problems with the redundant rating.
I doubt if many meta-moderators really look at the context of the comment when they review the moderation. They see Redundant and think to themselves "hey, that's actually funny/informative/etc, I'll mark it as unfair".
I don't think I've ever seen redundant come up when I've meta moderated, I'm hoping that the Slashdot chaps realised this problem and deliberately filtered them out.
Yes, it needs to be established that the information is accurate and obtained legally. This doesn't mean that the RIAA should release the names of the informers.
I'm not at all suggesting that the ends justify the means, I'd be interested to see how you believe that's how I was thinking.
As long as the RIAA and the informers obeyed the law, then I don't see a problem with them informing on their fellow students. Morally it's a tricky one but you can't condemn someone who reports someone else who is breaking the law. In the end, if you decide to break the law, then you must accept the consequences. Arguably though, if you are going to break the law, it's probably a good idea to make sure that you trust those who you associate with.
I would never make my music collection at work available on the network or distribute software illegally to anyone who can see my server. On the other hand, I would be lying if I were to say that I have never shared files with people I know and trust.
If the RIAA are found to have broken the law, then they should be punished.
The French overthrew their monarchy some years back. Does this mean it would not be news if the Queen were to chased out of the the UK by an angry mob?
Calling all informers scum is the kind of thing that condemns entire neighbourhoods to live in fear of a small group. It's that stupid mentality that people should leave behind in the school yard when they become adults.
The person who got a student sued for millions of dollars was the student who themselves decided to illegally share copyright protected material. It's got nothing to do with the person who reported them.
It would be the same really, either way you lose 200 euro.
The probability of you receiving 4 forged 50 euro notes in one go is pretty low under normal circumstances. The probability of you receiving 1 forged 200 euro note is a arguably a bit higher, particularly since they are so rare and many people don't know how to check them for forgeries.
From personal experience of working with outsourced call-centres in poorer countries, people there often have a bigger incentive to incentive to remain honest.
Pay, compared to what you would get elsewhere in the same country, is often relatively high. Presumably, if you were to lose the job, this would be a bit of a blow - particularly if the country doesn't have the same kind of social security safety nets we take for granted.
Also, a trip to an Indian prison probably isn't much fun. I'm not saying that a UK prison is a hotel but certainly, you'd expect higher standards in a developed western country.
If I get fired here, it would be pain but after a short period of time, I would be entitled to social security payments.
Not really. If you consider the increase of fraud in China's banks as an example, you can see it two ways.
Either, fraud is increasing or investigators are becoming more dilligent and so, more fraud is coming to light.
My email account has spoofed by spammers. This doesnt' make me any less reliable. Citibank can't really help it if people chose to use their name in fraud. If, on the other hand, Citibank ignore the problem and take no action, then there is a case for them to answer.
I think that guestbook/forum/wiki spam is the most annoying that at the moment.
My site's guestbook was being spammed in to oblivion with referalls from dimattic.com (and a number of links to sites to the umax pay per click sites). I'm in the middle of complaining to their host (Everyone's Internet) to try to stop it.
Luckilly I know enough PHP to be able to add spam protection to my guestbook but judging by the results of a google search for umax guestbook, many others are not so lucky.
My site has a fairly low volume of visitors and I'm finding that I'm getting more hits from the spammers then I am from real visitors. In two days along, there were nearly 60 attempts to spam the guestbook.
I've prossibly become too tolerant of the 'emotional' sys admin over the years. I've certainly had to deal with some beauties.
One of them, if you were going to do something to impair the network, you may as well get just caught naked with his daughter. The reaction would be the same anyway.
The original poster sounded like he had just put out small fire in his garden and then used this to justify telling professional fire-fighters that fires aren't really a problem. They just need a bucket of water.
Considering the tone as well of the original, I thought the response was quite an education one.
Ideally, people should only have children if they can afford to provide for them.
In the real world, this simply can't be enforced. You can't ban someone in a sound state of mind from having children. Fair enough, if the person is mentally incapable of looking after a child, then there may be a case here. It's a slipperly slope if the state stops people from having children for economic reasons. However, if someone with a child does not take care of them, then the state must step in. I think there is a big difference between banning someone from reproducing becuase you believe they will neglect or abuse a child and taking a child away once abuse or neglect has been proven.
I agree that parents should be responsible for the conduct of their children. Blaming games and violence on tb, backwards messages in rock. it's all shite. The failure lies with the parent and their family. Why are they letting their kids wander the streets? I live in a fairly nasty area and there are whole gangs of early teens wandering around at any hour. I blame the parents who allow their child to spend hours alone in their room watching telly or playing games.
however, if your dogs don't like strangers, surely they should be kept supervised or behind a locked gate?
Yes, we do pay for people who had children and now can't afford to take care of them. This is a minority though, otherwise the system would simply collapse. It's the price we we pay for living in a society that provides a safety net for all. I'd rather pay for a system where a minority abuses but a majority benefits than not have the system at all.
Wish you hadn't posted as AC. I thought your post was excellent.
My secondary school used to have this problem. The teachers would tell-off certain children and then their parents would come to the school and shout at the teacher while their child watches on. In some cases, it nearly led to violence.
There were a few children there who really got away with just about anything because the teachers seemed scared of their families. Two brothers in particular were amusing. One attached a brick to a piece of rope and walked around the school swinging it at people. Short suspension and back again. Another dropped a metal pole on someone's head causing a nasty injury. Short suspension and back again.
Had the school paid closer attention, they would have found out that the family home was less than ideal. I believe one of the brothers had to live in a caravan parked in the garden.
I think harsher penalties for the parents. If the parents are unable to cope, then the children go in to care or with a foster family. The parent then pays towards the cost of caring for the child.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but the IBM adverts aren't quite as bad as the adverts from Kinder (translated from german in to gibberish), Nivea (jokes written by Vulcans), Danone (no comment), Campbell's Soup (with the psycho mum who thinks that if she cooks chicken covered in soup every night, her family won't leave her), and those bad air freshener adverts (did you see that puff?)
One thing though, IBM adverts are immediately recognisable and it's not just because of those blue borders. Personally I don't think the IBM adverts are too bad. At least they're not as cheesy and downright misleading as the current Microsoft ads.
That's the big point. Evolution is a scientific theory in the sense that we can't say 100% that it is correct but the evidence for it is very strong. Evolution, like all scientific theories can be proven wrong. Newton has been proven wrong.
Your religion can never be proven wrong because it simply can't be tested.
Science is about discovery. Your religion is simply about accepting what was written in the Bible, keeping quiet and not asking any awkward questions like, "hey, where did those big old bones come from?".
Glad you're doing your bit to help heal the world. Obviously, hating homosexuals and blaming them for AIDS is going to help.
I would consider Christianity to be a *mythology*. The stories of the Greek gods, and for that matter the Norse gods are just as believable as anything I've read in the Bible.
If AIDS is a punishment from your god, why are innocent people being smited with this nasty condition? Are you happy to accept that your God will punish people for the 'sins' of others?
Do you accept the entire Bible as being the accurate word of God?
Did you chose Christianity or were you raised in a community where there were other Christians? The reason I ask is because, I'm interested in knowing how you decided that Christianity is the one true faith and so, the one that you should use to decide who you should hate.
Here's a link you might find useful.
The Jury Is In. The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence"
I think meta-moderation causes problems with the redundant rating.
I doubt if many meta-moderators really look at the context of the comment when they review the moderation. They see Redundant and think to themselves "hey, that's actually funny/informative/etc, I'll mark it as unfair".
I don't think I've ever seen redundant come up when I've meta moderated, I'm hoping that the Slashdot chaps realised this problem and deliberately filtered them out.
Yes, it needs to be established that the information is accurate and obtained legally. This doesn't mean that the RIAA should release the names of the informers.
I'm not at all suggesting that the ends justify the means, I'd be interested to see how you believe that's how I was thinking.
As long as the RIAA and the informers obeyed the law, then I don't see a problem with them informing on their fellow students. Morally it's a tricky one but you can't condemn someone who reports someone else who is breaking the law. In the end, if you decide to break the law, then you must accept the consequences. Arguably though, if you are going to break the law, it's probably a good idea to make sure that you trust those who you associate with.
I would never make my music collection at work available on the network or distribute software illegally to anyone who can see my server. On the other hand, I would be lying if I were to say that I have never shared files with people I know and trust.
If the RIAA are found to have broken the law, then they should be punished.
The French overthrew their monarchy some years back. Does this mean it would not be news if the Queen were to chased out of the the UK by an angry mob?
Calling all informers scum is the kind of thing that condemns entire neighbourhoods to live in fear of a small group. It's that stupid mentality that people should leave behind in the school yard when they become adults.
Serious question. Are you in a gang or something?
yep, shure 'aint no justice like mob justice.
The person who got a student sued for millions of dollars was the student who themselves decided to illegally share copyright protected material. It's got nothing to do with the person who reported them.
It's Australia's biggest ISP according to the posting.
It would be the same really, either way you lose 200 euro.
The probability of you receiving 4 forged 50 euro notes in one go is pretty low under normal circumstances. The probability of you receiving 1 forged 200 euro note is a arguably a bit higher, particularly since they are so rare and many people don't know how to check them for forgeries.
One common slang term for a pound coin (at least where I come from), is 'a nugget', due to it's gold colouring.
Maybe you could introduce a 10 dollar note?
The only way I was able to see a 100 or 200 note was to visit a bank and ask for one.
I suppose I'm used to the 5, 10, 20 and 50 notes, but the 100 and 200 notes really do look like Monopoly money.
Personally I'd rather not have anything over a 50 since it'd be nasty if my 200 Euro note turned out to be a fake.
This has little to do with terrorism. Although they could use this as a source of funding, It's just a theory.
Reminds me of the comments of a police officer after a man was arrested at Best Buy for trying to pay for a purchase with 2 Dollar notes.
Leaving Best Buy in leg irons
I think that the pipeline is from India to Iran, not Iraq.
BBC News
Christians are just as big a concern personally speaking as Muslims.
From personal experience of working with outsourced call-centres in poorer countries, people there often have a bigger incentive to incentive to remain honest.
Pay, compared to what you would get elsewhere in the same country, is often relatively high. Presumably, if you were to lose the job, this would be a bit of a blow - particularly if the country doesn't have the same kind of social security safety nets we take for granted.
Also, a trip to an Indian prison probably isn't much fun. I'm not saying that a UK prison is a hotel but certainly, you'd expect higher standards in a developed western country.
If I get fired here, it would be pain but after a short period of time, I would be entitled to social security payments.
Not really. If you consider the increase of fraud in China's banks as an example, you can see it two ways.
Either, fraud is increasing or investigators are becoming more dilligent and so, more fraud is coming to light.
My email account has spoofed by spammers. This doesnt' make me any less reliable. Citibank can't really help it if people chose to use their name in fraud. If, on the other hand, Citibank ignore the problem and take no action, then there is a case for them to answer.
I think that guestbook/forum/wiki spam is the most annoying that at the moment.
My site's guestbook was being spammed in to oblivion with referalls from dimattic.com (and a number of links to sites to the umax pay per click sites). I'm in the middle of complaining to their host (Everyone's Internet) to try to stop it.
Luckilly I know enough PHP to be able to add spam protection to my guestbook but judging by the results of a google search for umax guestbook, many others are not so lucky.
My site has a fairly low volume of visitors and I'm finding that I'm getting more hits from the spammers then I am from real visitors. In two days along, there were nearly 60 attempts to spam the guestbook.
Go for a Quadra if you can. That was a wonderful vintage.
Some people consider Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, BBedit, Office and iTunes to be good.
I've prossibly become too tolerant of the 'emotional' sys admin over the years. I've certainly had to deal with some beauties.
One of them, if you were going to do something to impair the network, you may as well get just caught naked with his daughter. The reaction would be the same anyway.
The original poster sounded like he had just put out small fire in his garden and then used this to justify telling professional fire-fighters that fires aren't really a problem. They just need a bucket of water.
Considering the tone as well of the original, I thought the response was quite an education one.
Ideally, people should only have children if they can afford to provide for them.
In the real world, this simply can't be enforced. You can't ban someone in a sound state of mind from having children. Fair enough, if the person is mentally incapable of looking after a child, then there may be a case here. It's a slipperly slope if the state stops people from having children for economic reasons. However, if someone with a child does not take care of them, then the state must step in. I think there is a big difference between banning someone from reproducing becuase you believe they will neglect or abuse a child and taking a child away once abuse or neglect has been proven.
I agree that parents should be responsible for the conduct of their children. Blaming games and violence on tb, backwards messages in rock. it's all shite. The failure lies with the parent and their family. Why are they letting their kids wander the streets? I live in a fairly nasty area and there are whole gangs of early teens wandering around at any hour. I blame the parents who allow their child to spend hours alone in their room watching telly or playing games.
however, if your dogs don't like strangers, surely they should be kept supervised or behind a locked gate?
Yes, we do pay for people who had children and now can't afford to take care of them. This is a minority though, otherwise the system would simply collapse. It's the price we we pay for living in a society that provides a safety net for all. I'd rather pay for a system where a minority abuses but a majority benefits than not have the system at all.
Wish you hadn't posted as AC. I thought your post was excellent.
My secondary school used to have this problem. The teachers would tell-off certain children and then their parents would come to the school and shout at the teacher while their child watches on. In some cases, it nearly led to violence.
There were a few children there who really got away with just about anything because the teachers seemed scared of their families. Two brothers in particular were amusing. One attached a brick to a piece of rope and walked around the school swinging it at people. Short suspension and back again. Another dropped a metal pole on someone's head causing a nasty injury. Short suspension and back again.
Had the school paid closer attention, they would have found out that the family home was less than ideal. I believe one of the brothers had to live in a caravan parked in the garden.
I think harsher penalties for the parents. If the parents are unable to cope, then the children go in to care or with a foster family. The parent then pays towards the cost of caring for the child.