In my high school electronics classes we discovered that you can set a pencil on fire by connecting the graphite to a variable power supply. It'll spark a lot too, which made it that much more enjoyable. Lead from mechanical pencils worked even better, which resulted in a lot of burn holes in desks and our books.
mean, I understand those who believe that reducing access to guns will do nothing to reduce gun crime (ie, the laws punish the good guys while the bad guys will still get the weapons)... I may not agree, but I understand it.
Any chance you could explain how it's safer if we take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens? I've been wondering what the other side to this is for awhile. I just don't understand how it's safer to take guns away from properly who could use it to deter crime, while the people using them to commit crimes aren't likely to be deterred by the fact that they are committing a crime.
I admit, there could be much better regulation regarding firearms. However, I honestly do not understand how completely revoking the right to bear arms can be a good thing. Who would that benefit and how?
I'm serious, I would like to understand the opposing viewpoint to this. I want to know why people think these issues are irrelevent and why people think gun bans are good. I want to know what I'm overlooking or not taking into account. I know that I'm not always right, and I would rather be corrected than continue to spread incorrect information. If you'd like, we can discuss this in private messages or some other medium (IRC, AIM, etc.).
It depends on what form of gambling. Poker teaches critical thinking. A poker player learns and practices analytical skills, math skills, and psychological skills. I played online poker a few years ago up until I left for college. It taught me how important little things can be in the long run. I also learned how to recognize things that would be detrimental or a waste in the long run. Well, it was really more just being able to analyze everything and even come up with an equation if I had to, to determine the end-result or long-term effect of anything.
But, I realize some people might not be as quick to learn beneficial skills like that. However, in a free country, shouldn't they have the right to play a game they enjoy, even if it isn't equally beneficial to everybody?
If we're going to create laws to take away or restrict our freedoms, let's make it illegal for parents to brainwash their kids into ignoring science and logic. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I believe that critical thinking, independent thought, and a basic understanding of science are essential to the survival of mankind. I don't agree with brainwashing children to create religious drones, just so that you have more people who will carry out actions on your behalf (such as voting for whoever you tell them to). That just hurts democracy. Or at the very least, make a law forbidding churches from influencing individual's choice in politics. It should be vague enough so that any kind of remark that might be supportive or against any political issues could land someone in prison, if it was made inside of a church. While I wouldn't normally agree with such a law, maybe it would help illustrate the problem with nonsense laws. At least this time the tables are turned, since I don't go to church I don't have to worry about being prosecuted for it. I bet it's a lot easier to support legislation that bans freedoms that you don't want to exercise yourself.
Maybe they all just flew to another planet, because someone's about to demolish this one. All because nobody bothered to pay attention to intergalactic politics.
the crime is mass-distributing stolen goods, and that's all there is to it.
No it's not. Where is there any mention of stolen goods? There is a big difference between copyright infringement and stealing. I did not read anything that gave me the impression that any goods were taken from their rightful owners. I also did not read anywhere about him mass-distributing anything. He ran a server that people used to connect with one another and engage in copyright infringement.
From what I read, he sounded like a geek. He didn't sound like some street punk who deals in stolen goods. Now, let's just pretend that I'm right and he is a geek. Most geeks aren't street smart. Most geeks aren't even street aware. So, by putting a geek in prison, you will force into a world of violence, hard drugs, and rape. Most likely, he didn't have many chances to learn how to deal with that kind of stuff from his computer. Now, that will be his everday life for the next 5 months. He will have to learn to survive in that environment, or he won't make it. When he is released, he will return to society having learned how to survive just like any other dangerous criminal.
Granted, what he did was illegal. Although, currently he is not a violent criminal. All that he has done is run a server that was used to engage in copyright infringement. Now, he will have to learn how to fit in with violent criminals. Either he will be psychologically fucked up for the rest of his life, or he will adapt and be a bigger danger to society than he was before. I guess there's also the possibility that a few of the more violent/feared people in prison will recognize his skills and help him survive, but do we really want to give dangerous criminals more resources?
NSA and CIA are separate Federal agencies with tens of thousands of employees. Their web masters and IT departments probably pay about as much attention to what the other does as Ford Motor Company & Dodge.
That's a bad example. Ford and Dodge are competitors, so they may be interested in what the other is doing. A more accurate example would be Nabisco and Ford.
I'll run my computer off a generator if I have to. Of course, I'd have to make some cut backs, to cover the cost of fuel. Out of spite, I'd cut back in my legal entertainment purchases.
If everyone got hit by the same malware, and you had several labs reverse engineer it to find out exactly what it does and how to effectively remove it, then you know everything it does and how to remove it. On the other hand, if someone deliberately attacks your system and succeeds, you have no way of knowing what other backdoors they may have left.
Sure, there are exceptions to that. Although, just because Joe Sixpack was infected with some common spyware, he doesn't necessarily need to reformat and start over.
Personally, I'm in favour of some sort of simple built-in software DRM that by default only lets 'certified' executables run, and obviously can be turned off by people who know what they're doing.
The problem with that is that it is too restrictive and/or too annoying for your typical user to leave on. Even if they can't figure out how to disable it, they'll ask someone else. Or someone else will disable it while using their computer.
Personally, I'm in favor of holding people responsible for gross negligence. If you're going to purposely setup your computer so that it aids criminals, even when you know it's wrong, then you should be held responsible for aiding criminals. It irritates me when people say they don't care about the trojans and spyware on their machines, as long as they don't notice them. The problem is that the careless users aren't affected by the machines they infect, the servers they DoS, or the systems they hack. We need to start holding them responsible for their actions, so they can't just say "It doesn't hurt me any."
If you share your vehicle with your brother, and he replaces parts and refuses to share them with you, then he's an asshole.
Simple solution: Make sure your brother knows that by replacing a part, you will become a joint owner of it. If he refuses, kick his ass for breaking it in the first place. Optionally, you may also kick his ass if he tries to replace it with a part of lesser quality.
On any mobile phone plan in just about any country outside the US you don't pay for incoming calls, only outgoing. Paying for incoming calls would be stupud, because you don't have any control over whether someone calls you or not - so why should you pay for it?
Welcome to America! I've been pondering the same thing. Although, at least you can choose wether or not to answer the phone. What's really annoying is being charged for incoming text messages, wether you want them or not.
I hate it when directors cut down a movie just for a rating. This is a good thing.
"A lot of people saying how can you do this? My children love these movies. Why can you not let them go see it?" he said.
He's not preventing them from seeing it. He's just warning the parents that it may not be suitable for them. The parents get to decide wether or not they want their children to see it.
This has nothing to do with the Nobel Peace Prize. This is the Noble Piece Prize. Although, since there is no link to the actual article, we have no way of knowing if they really won.
Slashdot Mirror
No, of course they shouldn't. But many will, unfortunately. In the user-world, Microsoft > industry standards.
In my high school electronics classes we discovered that you can set a pencil on fire by connecting the graphite to a variable power supply. It'll spark a lot too, which made it that much more enjoyable. Lead from mechanical pencils worked even better, which resulted in a lot of burn holes in desks and our books.
mean, I understand those who believe that reducing access to guns will do nothing to reduce gun crime (ie, the laws punish the good guys while the bad guys will still get the weapons)... I may not agree, but I understand it.
Any chance you could explain how it's safer if we take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens? I've been wondering what the other side to this is for awhile. I just don't understand how it's safer to take guns away from properly who could use it to deter crime, while the people using them to commit crimes aren't likely to be deterred by the fact that they are committing a crime.
I admit, there could be much better regulation regarding firearms. However, I honestly do not understand how completely revoking the right to bear arms can be a good thing. Who would that benefit and how?
I'm serious, I would like to understand the opposing viewpoint to this. I want to know why people think these issues are irrelevent and why people think gun bans are good. I want to know what I'm overlooking or not taking into account. I know that I'm not always right, and I would rather be corrected than continue to spread incorrect information. If you'd like, we can discuss this in private messages or some other medium (IRC, AIM, etc.).
It depends on what form of gambling. Poker teaches critical thinking. A poker player learns and practices analytical skills, math skills, and psychological skills. I played online poker a few years ago up until I left for college. It taught me how important little things can be in the long run. I also learned how to recognize things that would be detrimental or a waste in the long run. Well, it was really more just being able to analyze everything and even come up with an equation if I had to, to determine the end-result or long-term effect of anything.
But, I realize some people might not be as quick to learn beneficial skills like that. However, in a free country, shouldn't they have the right to play a game they enjoy, even if it isn't equally beneficial to everybody?
If we're going to create laws to take away or restrict our freedoms, let's make it illegal for parents to brainwash their kids into ignoring science and logic. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I believe that critical thinking, independent thought, and a basic understanding of science are essential to the survival of mankind. I don't agree with brainwashing children to create religious drones, just so that you have more people who will carry out actions on your behalf (such as voting for whoever you tell them to). That just hurts democracy. Or at the very least, make a law forbidding churches from influencing individual's choice in politics. It should be vague enough so that any kind of remark that might be supportive or against any political issues could land someone in prison, if it was made inside of a church. While I wouldn't normally agree with such a law, maybe it would help illustrate the problem with nonsense laws. At least this time the tables are turned, since I don't go to church I don't have to worry about being prosecuted for it. I bet it's a lot easier to support legislation that bans freedoms that you don't want to exercise yourself.
So would this be considered outsourcing to Japanese codeshops?
A small airplane crashed into the White House right after 9/11 causing little damage
a lth&res=9903E1D6173BF930A2575AC0A962958260
Are you referring to the crash right after 9/11/1994?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=he
If not, I'm curious, any chance you have a link with more information?
Maybe they all just flew to another planet, because someone's about to demolish this one. All because nobody bothered to pay attention to intergalactic politics.
I won't ask where this came from...
the crime is mass-distributing stolen goods, and that's all there is to it.
No it's not. Where is there any mention of stolen goods? There is a big difference between copyright infringement and stealing. I did not read anything that gave me the impression that any goods were taken from their rightful owners. I also did not read anywhere about him mass-distributing anything. He ran a server that people used to connect with one another and engage in copyright infringement.
From what I read, he sounded like a geek. He didn't sound like some street punk who deals in stolen goods. Now, let's just pretend that I'm right and he is a geek. Most geeks aren't street smart. Most geeks aren't even street aware. So, by putting a geek in prison, you will force into a world of violence, hard drugs, and rape. Most likely, he didn't have many chances to learn how to deal with that kind of stuff from his computer. Now, that will be his everday life for the next 5 months. He will have to learn to survive in that environment, or he won't make it. When he is released, he will return to society having learned how to survive just like any other dangerous criminal.
Granted, what he did was illegal. Although, currently he is not a violent criminal. All that he has done is run a server that was used to engage in copyright infringement. Now, he will have to learn how to fit in with violent criminals. Either he will be psychologically fucked up for the rest of his life, or he will adapt and be a bigger danger to society than he was before. I guess there's also the possibility that a few of the more violent/feared people in prison will recognize his skills and help him survive, but do we really want to give dangerous criminals more resources?
High stress, anxiety, obesity, and loss of hair/marketable skills to pay the bills is ending a lot of careers.
Programmers are being fired for hair loss?
Who's your buddy now? :-)
Awesome! I wish I would have known about this earlier.
we'd might as well add BEER PONG to the list of events.
That is an excellent idea. If someone wants to write up a petition to get this looked into, I'll sign it.
NSA and CIA are separate Federal agencies with tens of thousands of employees. Their web masters and IT departments probably pay about as much attention to what the other does as Ford Motor Company & Dodge.
That's a bad example. Ford and Dodge are competitors, so they may be interested in what the other is doing. A more accurate example would be Nabisco and Ford.
I'll run my computer off a generator if I have to. Of course, I'd have to make some cut backs, to cover the cost of fuel. Out of spite, I'd cut back in my legal entertainment purchases.
If everyone got hit by the same malware, and you had several labs reverse engineer it to find out exactly what it does and how to effectively remove it, then you know everything it does and how to remove it. On the other hand, if someone deliberately attacks your system and succeeds, you have no way of knowing what other backdoors they may have left.
Sure, there are exceptions to that. Although, just because Joe Sixpack was infected with some common spyware, he doesn't necessarily need to reformat and start over.
Personally, I'm in favour of some sort of simple built-in software DRM that by default only lets 'certified' executables run, and obviously can be turned off by people who know what they're doing.
The problem with that is that it is too restrictive and/or too annoying for your typical user to leave on. Even if they can't figure out how to disable it, they'll ask someone else. Or someone else will disable it while using their computer.
Personally, I'm in favor of holding people responsible for gross negligence. If you're going to purposely setup your computer so that it aids criminals, even when you know it's wrong, then you should be held responsible for aiding criminals. It irritates me when people say they don't care about the trojans and spyware on their machines, as long as they don't notice them. The problem is that the careless users aren't affected by the machines they infect, the servers they DoS, or the systems they hack. We need to start holding them responsible for their actions, so they can't just say "It doesn't hurt me any."
I'd hate to be the pilot of that TIE fighter, especially when the person using the computer is looking at pr0n.
Just wait 'til they find the porn, and see how much you hate it.
And I'm sure it won't take long.
If you share your vehicle with your brother, and he replaces parts and refuses to share them with you, then he's an asshole. Simple solution: Make sure your brother knows that by replacing a part, you will become a joint owner of it. If he refuses, kick his ass for breaking it in the first place. Optionally, you may also kick his ass if he tries to replace it with a part of lesser quality.
On any mobile phone plan in just about any country outside the US you don't pay for incoming calls, only outgoing. Paying for incoming calls would be stupud, because you don't have any control over whether someone calls you or not - so why should you pay for it?
Welcome to America! I've been pondering the same thing. Although, at least you can choose wether or not to answer the phone. What's really annoying is being charged for incoming text messages, wether you want them or not.
if it was 1 camera, then it'd have to stop taking pictures while it swung back to get a 2nd shot of the last picture.
I hate it when directors cut down a movie just for a rating. This is a good thing. "A lot of people saying how can you do this? My children love these movies. Why can you not let them go see it?" he said. He's not preventing them from seeing it. He's just warning the parents that it may not be suitable for them. The parents get to decide wether or not they want their children to see it.
That's just background information on the Noble Piece Prize. The article is supposed to talk about Wink being chosen to recieve the Noble Piece Prize.
This has nothing to do with the Nobel Peace Prize. This is the Noble Piece Prize. Although, since there is no link to the actual article, we have no way of knowing if they really won.
You're thinking of the Nobel Peace Prize.
And "Noble" not "Nobel"...