You want to know something scary? My girlfriend and her friends just completed applications to medical school. Her black friends claimed they could get into good med schools with an MCAT score of about 23-25. Compare this with the 29-30 necessary for an Asian or white student to gain admission. This means that you will one day be operated upon (provided the lower scorers do not fail out of med school) by someone with an admissions score approximately 20% lower than the average med school student!
And before I get misinterpreted: I am not asserting anything racial. I am merely worried that I will be operated upon by an inferior doctor because of lax admissions standards for them (which is a failing of the state, not of me). Of course they will still have passed the certifications and so forth, but still -- they showed 20% less promise than some who were rejected! Think how good the rejected people might perform comparatively.:(
I can't find any sources for this now, but I seem to recall reading that James Joyce would not have written Ulysses were it not for copyright protections. Seeing as how I cannot locate a source right now, take it with a grain of salt.
Have you never seen an author "go bad" after early success? To be fair, that could be because they enter the spotlight after a great piece of authorship, and more often than not they will fail to live up to the expectation on their next work. You should also take into account all their failed attempts before their success to see that they didn't fail because of the success; they failed because most of what they write is crap, and only wrote a breakaway hit.
Note: I'm not speaking directly about Clancy or any other author; just a general observation about correlation (perhaps not even that) rather than cause-and-effect.
I'm talking about the REAL christians. The ones who picket bookstores and send money to oral roberts.
You are assuming what you set out to prove. This is a logical fallacy: You define Christians the way you want to define them, and your definition includes the awful qualities that you are trying to prove all Christians possess.
Let's also not forget that thanks to christianity, we now have a much higher sexual repression, leading to more rapes and violent behavior. You are under the impression that Christianity has been around for only 20 years. Are you trying to say that the rise in rape (which actually is in decline in the US) over the past "few years" just was a latent characteristic of Christianity until a few years ago? That's horseshit, as anyone with a brain can see. I might as well say that rape is caused by the rise in atheism, since that is the religion that has risen dramatically in popularity over the last few years!
For example, pretty much every serial killer has been a christian white male. Most child molesters, too.
Sources, please. Charles Manson? Scientologist. Gacy? Not Christian.
Using your same logic, I could state that being male makes you a rapist. We should get rid of all males. Or being white makes you a rapist. After all, as you said, pretty much every serial killer has been a [...] white male.
when your religion actively encourages the poking of young boys by their priests
I'm sorry, but Christianity doesn't actively encourage that. One sect, entirely unrelated to mine, might. But mine does not. All Christians are not the same, just like all Caucasians are not the same.
Take the crucifixes that are visible from the street down
Yes, because Heaven forbid people are allowed to exercise their free speech from the sanctity of their own homes!
Get rid of anything even close to religious ceremony from ALL government operations (such as having the 10 commandments on display in the courthouses).
What do you know? Something you and I and most Christians I know agree on!
The ones who are all for removing a woman's right to choose to have an abortion (not everyone believes in their god, but everyone should follow his tenets, huh?)
This is not a Christian thing; if you believe life starts before exiting the mother, then you are supporting murder (which I believe most humans oppose). If you don't believe a baby is alive until it has passed through the birth canal, I guess you don't have a problem with abortion, then, do you? I will say this though: I'm not trying to start a debate about abortion here: I am merely responding to the parent's ridiculous assertion that opposing abortion is one of God's tenants. Instead, it is an exercise in the opinion of when life begins. You don't have to be a Christian (or even religious!) to believe life exists before you exit your mother.
I don't want my kids exposed to such violent and ignorant images [regarding Christian crosses] Ah. You seem to equate Catholics with Christians. For example, Lutherans' cross is merely two sticks forming a lowercase 't'. That is all. What is violent about that? Absolutely nothing.
The ones perpetuating "the war on drugs" despite the evidence of their last failed prohibition showing such a tactic is futile. Those aren't Christians, dumbass. Those are concerned (yet potentially misguided) parents. Huge difference.
Over and over and over again in your previous post, you have defined Christians narrowly, basically saying "Christian. Noun. One who is evil." and then sought to prove that they were evil. Wow! What a surprise. Let me try it: "The Spoonman. Noun. Moron." Now I will seek to prove The Spoonman is a moron: He is one by definition. QED, bitch. Do you see how piss-poor that logic is?
At the very least, Kennedy received considerable criticism for his Catholic faith in a country that did not like to elect officials who have "loyalties to Rome." So I would hardly characterize JFK as one who took the prevailing faith of the people to garner votes; if anything, being Catholic actually hurt him politically.
In any case, I just get upset when people declare the Christian faith as something that breeds hatred and ignorance; as you can neither prove nor disprove the religion, you cannot claim one side is more ignorant than the other (now, ignoring scientific findings is another story, and being Christian does not require this character trait). Furthermore, I posit that it is not the Christian faith, but rather the culture of the Southern US (historically racist, backward and inward looking, much the same as pre-Bubonic Plague Europe) that breeds hatred. As a disclaimer: I am a Texan, born and bred, so we Southern Christians cannot all be bad:) But a significant portion of us are quite misled, due to certain individuals *cough*Pat Robertson*cough* (I suspect that little jab ought to garner me +5 insightful;)
And I'd like to think Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Donald Knuth (suck on that one, computer geeks), Gödel, Cantor, nearly every U.S. president (there has to be at least one that you agree is/was intelligent), W. D. Phillips, etc., have proven themselves to be intelligent. Fixed. I'm sure glad I didn't claim to be intelligent myself right above that horrendous grammar error.
No intelligent person wants to hear the hate mongering and ignorance festering that is the christian religions.
Someone needs to mod the parent down. That's just flaming, plain and simple. And I'd like to think Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Donald Knuth (suck on that one, computer geeks), Gödel, Cantor, nearly every U.S. president (there has to be at least one that you agree is/was intelligent), W. D. Phillips, and the list goes on and on. I chose those whom most people on Slashdot would undoubtedly consider intelligent men. Additionally, each lived during the 20th century, so they could have easily rejected Christianity without persecution.
I love you theatre geeks. You all just made me more at home on Slashdot than ever before. Now is Charles Manson supposed to go kill Steve Jobs' wife while he's off at Cupertino directing the creation of the MacBook?
Note: I cannot find any links for this, but Roman Polanski was directing MacBeth in 1969 (released in 1971) when his pregnant wife Sharon Tate was murdered by Charles Manson's "family". Is this too macabre for/.? I guess we'll find out soon when something wicked this way comes (the mods).
Spyware is by definition malware. No, it's not. Malware is, by definition, malicious software. As in, software whose primary intent is that of harm to the user.
Just because there is an apparent obvious use doesn't mean there aren't other things Apple could do with this data. They could sell it to record labels. That isn't malicious. In this case, their intent is to make money, not harm the user.
Re:Extremely easy to disable, and more info
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
Since when was spying on people just because they utilize your software something that people found acceptable?
Malware (a portmanteau of "malicious software") is software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system, without the owner's consent.
Additionally, "malicious" is an adjective describing a spiteful or intentionally mean spirit. Could this be labled as spyware? I think so, from a certain point of view. Could it be labeled malicious software? Not by a long shot.
"Maladroit", "ennui", "boeotians", "effrontery" and the list goes on and on. This entire post reads like a spam bot wrote it. It doesn't even make any accusations. Nothing is substantiated. While I'm beginning to think Google is on the path to evil, there was nothing of substance in your entire post.
I suggest you rewrite these accusations with actual arguments instead of "Google kills babies because I SAID SO!!11!SHIFT AND ONE!" Perhaps when you're not high?
Maybe we could moderate entire articles. Dupes would be even more rampant -- Digg.com has this as their system, and there are so many dupes on the site that it's ridiculous.
Don't worry, both Slashdot and Digg will tell you when it will happen
"Don't worry, both Slashdot and Digg will tell you when it will happen, Slashdot twice in dupes and Digg five times before it happens with some like to a random guy completely unrelated to the project's blog claiming that it will be hacked within a month before he's even talked to anyone working on breaking it." --fixed
Reduntant: Repeated or duplicated unnecessarily. How is "do no evil" redundant? Perhaps you meant "is an oxymoron" or "just a lie," but I'm sure you didn't mean "redundant".
I don't know why you replied to my comment -- I wasn't asking any technical questions about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.
However, to answer your question, there has been no clear winner between DVD-RW and DVD+RW yet. - seems to be cheaper than +, but I see that + still persists where I go. The "war" is still ongoing, and thus most drives I see nowadays support both formats for read and write capabilities.
Has anyone else had a problem with their HP Scanjet drivers requiring multiple GB of space with no option to install only a few MB? Surely the drivers do not need 4 GB of space on my HDD, but when I choose to install the drivers, there it is -- taking up 4 GB of space while presenting me with no options to pare down the install size. My old Mutek scanner I had 10 years ago scanned faster and took up a few megs of space with drivers at the most.
Re:Too Much Spare Time...
on
Scanjet Music
·
· Score: 1
Is this just audio? If so, it's not amazing at all -- many Korg-brand keyboards can emulate dog barks. Just buy one and play Bagatelle in A minor as normal.
So say those who care only about entertainment and not about preservation of the history of our culture, nor about preservation of the history of an art medium. Nay, the goal ought to be to preserve all films, not just those the mob deems worthy.
There are movies from the 1930s or possibly even earlier that will look better on HD discs than they can on DVDs.
Do you really think the studios will release such unprofitable films? The market for films from the 1930s on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray will probably be infinitesimal. No, again, the distribution of this rare copyrighted content will have to be done by the Scene and those precious few archivists who truly care enough about our culture to break the law to preserve it [note: I do not imply the two groups are one and the same].
As an aside, we really should be supporting HD-DVD on the basis of it being lesser of 2 DRM evils.
Or perhaps we should boycott both. I'd prefer that; this gives us an easy way to get out of the endless upgrade-trytouse-getfucked-upgrade-trytouse-getfuc ked cycle that content providers have been trying to force down the customers' throats for years.
But aren't message boards just full of whiners who moan about anything?
No. OMGWTFLOLBBQ I haet it when ppl think we all whine and shit it pisses me off i cantstand it.srsly how do you think it m8kes me feel when you insult us im so sad and its not fair
The problem is, solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to bring about peace in the Middle East would include wiping Israel from the map, as the recent elections in Iran show.
I know there's a large contingent out there that believes the white male is an "oppressed" group in America due to affirmative action, Title IX, or other assorted anti-harassment and anti-discrimination laws or rules. I'm sure the strain must be unbearable...
I'm so sick of this "You are a white male, therefore you are not allowed to criticize me" defense. Irishpeoplewereenslaved, too.
I can just as well say to a person descended from slaves that, "Oh, man, you don't understand the American Revolution because your people were not fighting for their freedom then!"
"Free speech is the freedom to speak without consequences (short of that "clear and present danger" clause)." Never has been. Where did you get that idea from? Yell "Fire!" in a theater or "Bomb!" on a plane. Provide a link or text to explain your reference to 'clear and present', the context is missing.
Here. Note that freedom of speech in that article is discussed in the context of freedom of speech without government action. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected, as it poses a "clear and present danger", and this has been known since the "clear and present danger test". It's well known -- every high school student in the US learns about it in history and government. I'm surprised you have never heard of this, and I'm a little frightened. However, if you are not an American, then this is understandable. But I assure you, my explanation of "freedom of speech" in the US is a lot more accurate than the GGP's.
You stated that freedom of speech does not preclude consequences. Well then, under that definition, everyone in the world has freedom of speech -- a blogger in China has freedom of speech. He can vocalize what he hates about China, but he will be thrown in jail. His freedoms were not violated! Do you see how absurd the definition put forth by the GGP is?
"I claim the president is an idiot. The FBI comes and tortures and rapes me for making this claim." Won't happen. You purposely chose an abstraction that is horrific and presented it as if it were possible.
Yes, I purposefully chose an abstract example. I chose it to show the absurdity of that definition of free speech. It's used as an argument in legal discussions all the time. It's called reductio ad absurdum. In fact, it is also used in mathematics and computer science as well -- again I am surprised that you have never heard it -- there has to be hundreds of thousands of Slashdotters who know of this from formal proof courses. For example, if I'm trying to disprove, "A if and only if B," then I can choose A, and if I can prove "not B", then I have used reductio ad absurdum.
Slashdot Mirror
You want to know something scary? My girlfriend and her friends just completed applications to medical school. Her black friends claimed they could get into good med schools with an MCAT score of about 23-25. Compare this with the 29-30 necessary for an Asian or white student to gain admission. This means that you will one day be operated upon (provided the lower scorers do not fail out of med school) by someone with an admissions score approximately 20% lower than the average med school student!
:(
And before I get misinterpreted: I am not asserting anything racial. I am merely worried that I will be operated upon by an inferior doctor because of lax admissions standards for them (which is a failing of the state, not of me). Of course they will still have passed the certifications and so forth, but still -- they showed 20% less promise than some who were rejected! Think how good the rejected people might perform comparatively.
I can't find any sources for this now, but I seem to recall reading that James Joyce would not have written Ulysses were it not for copyright protections. Seeing as how I cannot locate a source right now, take it with a grain of salt.
Have you never seen an author "go bad" after early success?
To be fair, that could be because they enter the spotlight after a great piece of authorship, and more often than not they will fail to live up to the expectation on their next work. You should also take into account all their failed attempts before their success to see that they didn't fail because of the success; they failed because most of what they write is crap, and only wrote a breakaway hit.
Note: I'm not speaking directly about Clancy or any other author; just a general observation about correlation (perhaps not even that) rather than cause-and-effect.
I'm talking about the REAL christians. The ones who picket bookstores and send money to oral roberts.
You are assuming what you set out to prove. This is a logical fallacy: You define Christians the way you want to define them, and your definition includes the awful qualities that you are trying to prove all Christians possess.
Let's also not forget that thanks to christianity, we now have a much higher sexual repression, leading to more rapes and violent behavior.
You are under the impression that Christianity has been around for only 20 years. Are you trying to say that the rise in rape (which actually is in decline in the US) over the past "few years" just was a latent characteristic of Christianity until a few years ago? That's horseshit, as anyone with a brain can see. I might as well say that rape is caused by the rise in atheism, since that is the religion that has risen dramatically in popularity over the last few years!
For example, pretty much every serial killer has been a christian white male. Most child molesters, too.
Sources, please. Charles Manson? Scientologist. Gacy? Not Christian.
Using your same logic, I could state that being male makes you a rapist. We should get rid of all males. Or being white makes you a rapist. After all, as you said, pretty much every serial killer has been a [...] white male.
when your religion actively encourages the poking of young boys by their priests
I'm sorry, but Christianity doesn't actively encourage that. One sect, entirely unrelated to mine, might. But mine does not. All Christians are not the same, just like all Caucasians are not the same.
Take the crucifixes that are visible from the street down
Yes, because Heaven forbid people are allowed to exercise their free speech from the sanctity of their own homes!
Get rid of anything even close to religious ceremony from ALL government operations (such as having the 10 commandments on display in the courthouses).
What do you know? Something you and I and most Christians I know agree on!
The ones who are all for removing a woman's right to choose to have an abortion (not everyone believes in their god, but everyone should follow his tenets, huh?)
This is not a Christian thing; if you believe life starts before exiting the mother, then you are supporting murder (which I believe most humans oppose). If you don't believe a baby is alive until it has passed through the birth canal, I guess you don't have a problem with abortion, then, do you? I will say this though: I'm not trying to start a debate about abortion here: I am merely responding to the parent's ridiculous assertion that opposing abortion is one of God's tenants. Instead, it is an exercise in the opinion of when life begins. You don't have to be a Christian (or even religious!) to believe life exists before you exit your mother.
I don't want my kids exposed to such violent and ignorant images [regarding Christian crosses]
Ah. You seem to equate Catholics with Christians. For example, Lutherans' cross is merely two sticks forming a lowercase 't'. That is all. What is violent about that? Absolutely nothing.
The ones perpetuating "the war on drugs" despite the evidence of their last failed prohibition showing such a tactic is futile.
Those aren't Christians, dumbass. Those are concerned (yet potentially misguided) parents. Huge difference.
Over and over and over again in your previous post, you have defined Christians narrowly, basically saying "Christian. Noun. One who is evil." and then sought to prove that they were evil. Wow! What a surprise. Let me try it: "The Spoonman. Noun. Moron." Now I will seek to prove The Spoonman is a moron: He is one by definition. QED, bitch. Do you see how piss-poor that logic is?
I'd also like to point out that not on
At the very least, Kennedy received considerable criticism for his Catholic faith in a country that did not like to elect officials who have "loyalties to Rome." So I would hardly characterize JFK as one who took the prevailing faith of the people to garner votes; if anything, being Catholic actually hurt him politically.
:) But a significant portion of us are quite misled, due to certain individuals *cough*Pat Robertson*cough* (I suspect that little jab ought to garner me +5 insightful ;)
In any case, I just get upset when people declare the Christian faith as something that breeds hatred and ignorance; as you can neither prove nor disprove the religion, you cannot claim one side is more ignorant than the other (now, ignoring scientific findings is another story, and being Christian does not require this character trait). Furthermore, I posit that it is not the Christian faith, but rather the culture of the Southern US (historically racist, backward and inward looking, much the same as pre-Bubonic Plague Europe) that breeds hatred. As a disclaimer: I am a Texan, born and bred, so we Southern Christians cannot all be bad
And I'd like to think Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Donald Knuth (suck on that one, computer geeks), Gödel, Cantor, nearly every U.S. president (there has to be at least one that you agree is/was intelligent), W. D. Phillips, etc., have proven themselves to be intelligent.
Fixed. I'm sure glad I didn't claim to be intelligent myself right above that horrendous grammar error.
No intelligent person wants to hear the hate mongering and ignorance festering that is the christian religions.
Someone needs to mod the parent down. That's just flaming, plain and simple. And I'd like to think Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Donald Knuth (suck on that one, computer geeks), Gödel, Cantor, nearly every U.S. president (there has to be at least one that you agree is/was intelligent), W. D. Phillips, and the list goes on and on. I chose those whom most people on Slashdot would undoubtedly consider intelligent men. Additionally, each lived during the 20th century, so they could have easily rejected Christianity without persecution.
I love you theatre geeks. You all just made me more at home on Slashdot than ever before. Now is Charles Manson supposed to go kill Steve Jobs' wife while he's off at Cupertino directing the creation of the MacBook?
/.? I guess we'll find out soon when something wicked this way comes (the mods).
Note: I cannot find any links for this, but Roman Polanski was directing MacBeth in 1969 (released in 1971) when his pregnant wife Sharon Tate was murdered by Charles Manson's "family". Is this too macabre for
Spyware is by definition malware.
No, it's not. Malware is, by definition, malicious software. As in, software whose primary intent is that of harm to the user.
Just because there is an apparent obvious use doesn't mean there aren't other things Apple could do with this data. They could sell it to record labels.
That isn't malicious. In this case, their intent is to make money, not harm the user.
Since when was spying on people just because they utilize your software something that people found acceptable?
Since Apple started doing it with iTunes. Duh.
Additionally, "malicious" is an adjective describing a spiteful or intentionally mean spirit. Could this be labled as spyware? I think so, from a certain point of view. Could it be labeled malicious software? Not by a long shot.
"Maladroit", "ennui", "boeotians", "effrontery" and the list goes on and on. This entire post reads like a spam bot wrote it. It doesn't even make any accusations. Nothing is substantiated. While I'm beginning to think Google is on the path to evil, there was nothing of substance in your entire post.
I suggest you rewrite these accusations with actual arguments instead of "Google kills babies because I SAID SO!!11!SHIFT AND ONE!" Perhaps when you're not high?
Maybe we could moderate entire articles.
Dupes would be even more rampant -- Digg.com has this as their system, and there are so many dupes on the site that it's ridiculous.
"Don't worry, both Slashdot and Digg will tell you when it will happen, Slashdot twice in dupes and Digg five times before it happens with some like to a random guy completely unrelated to the project's blog claiming that it will be hacked within a month before he's even talked to anyone working on breaking it." --fixed
Reduntant: Repeated or duplicated unnecessarily.
How is "do no evil" redundant? Perhaps you meant "is an oxymoron" or "just a lie," but I'm sure you didn't mean "redundant".
I don't know why you replied to my comment -- I wasn't asking any technical questions about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.
However, to answer your question, there has been no clear winner between DVD-RW and DVD+RW yet. - seems to be cheaper than +, but I see that + still persists where I go. The "war" is still ongoing, and thus most drives I see nowadays support both formats for read and write capabilities.
Has anyone else had a problem with their HP Scanjet drivers requiring multiple GB of space with no option to install only a few MB? Surely the drivers do not need 4 GB of space on my HDD, but when I choose to install the drivers, there it is -- taking up 4 GB of space while presenting me with no options to pare down the install size. My old Mutek scanner I had 10 years ago scanned faster and took up a few megs of space with drivers at the most.
Is this just audio? If so, it's not amazing at all -- many Korg-brand keyboards can emulate dog barks. Just buy one and play Bagatelle in A minor as normal.
because 90% of them were worthless to begin with
So say those who care only about entertainment and not about preservation of the history of our culture, nor about preservation of the history of an art medium. Nay, the goal ought to be to preserve all films, not just those the mob deems worthy.
There are movies from the 1930s or possibly even earlier that will look better on HD discs than they can on DVDs.
Do you really think the studios will release such unprofitable films? The market for films from the 1930s on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray will probably be infinitesimal. No, again, the distribution of this rare copyrighted content will have to be done by the Scene and those precious few archivists who truly care enough about our culture to break the law to preserve it [note: I do not imply the two groups are one and the same].
Fark you.
As an aside, we really should be supporting HD-DVD on the basis of it being lesser of 2 DRM evils.
c ked cycle that content providers have been trying to force down the customers' throats for years.
Or perhaps we should boycott both. I'd prefer that; this gives us an easy way to get out of the endless upgrade-trytouse-getfucked-upgrade-trytouse-getfu
But aren't message boards just full of whiners who moan about anything?
.srsly how do you think it m8kes me feel when you insult us im so sad and its not fair
No. OMGWTFLOLBBQ I haet it when ppl think we all whine and shit it pisses me off i cantstand it
The problem is, solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to bring about peace in the Middle East would include wiping Israel from the map, as the recent elections in Iran show.
I know there's a large contingent out there that believes the white male is an "oppressed" group in America due to affirmative action, Title IX, or other assorted anti-harassment and anti-discrimination laws or rules. I'm sure the strain must be unbearable...
I'm so sick of this "You are a white male, therefore you are not allowed to criticize me" defense. Irish people were enslaved, too.
I can just as well say to a person descended from slaves that, "Oh, man, you don't understand the American Revolution because your people were not fighting for their freedom then!"
Here. Note that freedom of speech in that article is discussed in the context of freedom of speech without government action. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected, as it poses a "clear and present danger", and this has been known since the "clear and present danger test". It's well known -- every high school student in the US learns about it in history and government. I'm surprised you have never heard of this, and I'm a little frightened. However, if you are not an American, then this is understandable. But I assure you, my explanation of "freedom of speech" in the US is a lot more accurate than the GGP's.
You stated that freedom of speech does not preclude consequences. Well then, under that definition, everyone in the world has freedom of speech -- a blogger in China has freedom of speech. He can vocalize what he hates about China, but he will be thrown in jail. His freedoms were not violated! Do you see how absurd the definition put forth by the GGP is?
Yes, I purposefully chose an abstract example. I chose it to show the absurdity of that definition of free speech. It's used as an argument in legal discussions all the time. It's called reductio ad absurdum . In fact, it is also used in mathematics and computer science as well -- again I am surprised that you have never heard it -- there has to be hundreds of thousands of Slashdotters who know of this from formal proof courses. For example, if I'm trying to disprove, "A if and only if B," then I can choose A, and if I can prove "not B", then I have used reductio ad absurdum.