I was actually agreeing with you, implying that if you think that journalists have learned these things, then you couldn't possibly be from America, as American journalism has none of these things. Obviously, you missed the joke, and so did the mods, who gave me -1 flamebait:(
I shall endeavour to make my humour more obvious from now on. Knock knock...
"The software then makes random decisions (which are thankfully based on calculated probabilities of terrorist attacks) and tells the police where to dispatch and when."
Does that mean that, given that the US's rate of deaths from acts of terrorism is so low as to be negligible, it will tell police to dispatch to the Whitehouse?
I can see it now, the presidential motorcade gets pulled over by airport security "Sorry sir, please step out of the vehicle, the computer has flagged you as being a person of interest in the global war on terror."
Furthermore, I can't see any useful comparison between bittorrent and sharing apps like LimeWire and eMule. Torrents are for specific content targets, sharing bandwidth between peers for what people *are getting now*, while traditional P2P apps create what could be described as a communal library of what people *already have*.
The two P2P models are totally incomparable, and other than the fact that they both evoke "It gets used to pirate our hard forged artwork!" cries, they have nothing in common.
An easy example of working out terminal velocity can be calculated with Stokes' Law.
In general terms, the two anchors are likely to fall at the same rate assuming they dont affect each other's fluid displacement, as you would expect if they are falling side by side. If, however, one was on top of the other, then the sink speed would likely increase, as you'd have a greater mass behind the displacement and hence a greater force, but the turbulence caused by the leading edge of the lower anchor would likely decrease the drag experienced by the second.
Of course, the fact that the anchors are not regular shapes means that this becomes monstrously complex when you try to actually calculate any numbers. In fact, even were they two perfect spheres, it'd still be monstrously complex. Come to think of it, fluid dynamics is monstrously complex in general.
Question to anyone familiar with legal practicality: How hard would it be for us bored Slashdotters to watch Monster Cable's litigation team and just forward the letter to anyone they threaten? Surely Legal actions are a matter of public record? Or do the settlements typically occur out of the public space?
Furthermore, in light of the defences here, can't prior targets of Monster Cable who have settled claim that they settled under duress? After all, threatening with litigation is threatening.
Is there enough material on the face of the earth to construct a Dyson sphere? Oh, and just to ask that question, I had to dig through three layers of ridiculousness. Are you sure you're not after a sci-fi forum?
I agree, however one must take into account the fact that the ANC viewed the entirety of white South Africa as the enemy. White South Africans on the whole (with few but very noble and notable exceptions) had racist views (partly the result of government propaganda and party the result of humans' latent xenophobia) and supported the government's racist policy. Furthermore, the average white South African treated blacks as slaves and expendable labourers, which made them appear as hostiles in the eyes of the blacks. Factory foremen brutalised their black workers, farmers often shot their farmhands just to make a point to the others and mining companies did not bother with even the most rudimentary of safety precautions for their mine workers, because in the eyes of management, the only good black was a dead black. Just because a person does not wear a uniform and salute, does not mean they cannot be a military type aggressor.
In fact, the US definition of "enemy combatant" is deliberately designed to allow civilians to be targeted by military action.
I think you don't understand the "two wrongs" phrase.
Entering someone's house without their permission and taking something, even if that thing is yours and you don't damage anything else, is wrong. It is an unauthorised exercise of force (property acquisition against the will of the possessor despite them not being the owner) that may work in the single case scenario, but the reason civil institutions exist is to arbiter these disputes. The net effect of everyone taking the law into their hands this way would be an escalation of force exerted. You'd take my widget, I'd come back with a friend and take it back, you'd come back with three to take it back back, I'd come back with a gun and take it back back back and so on as society descends into anarchy.
In a civilised society, whoever possessed property can only be forced to give it up by the authority, if somebody else is the owner, the authority must be the one to collect it by force if necessary. Not Joe Schome with his baseball bat.
I think your parking ticket analogy is bizarre. Please explain it, as I just don't get it.
I am not requiring the victim to leave their property with the thief, I'm saying the victim should call the appropriate authority for assistance in recovering whatever item was stolen.
I don't need your fascist support of my rights, I'm quite capable of looking out for myself.
I don't, and never will, spy on my employees, no matter how much you try to convince me that it's in my interests.
I trust my staff to look after my interests, because they know that I look after theirs. I help them when they need advances or loans, and pay them well in general. If they don't reciprocate, I show them the door. I don't need to spy or engage in odious practices to take care of my rights, the usual rules of civilised people work just fine.
If my staff are looking for other work, then I have a staff relations problem that reading their email will not solve. If they are wasting time, then their KPIs will show it, and I'll deal with it as a performance issue.
If they are selling what they need to sell, performing the duties they need to perform and reporting to me the things they need to report, then frankly, they can spend their spare time shagging Facebook freaks in the stock room for all I care.
Doesn't the ridiculous labelling of open source software as "terrorism" call into question all the other things that get labelled terrorism? Examples:
The ANC anti-Apartheid movement under the white South African government was labelled a terrorism. Nelson Mandela was public enemy number 1, the Osama Bin Laden of his time and place. White South Africa bought into their government's propaganda.
The White Rose organisation was labelled terrorist, and its leaders beheaded. for their non-violent anti-Nazi position in pre-WWII Nazi Germany. The German body politic bought into their government's propaganda.
Today, the word terrorism gets thrown around like some Muslim / Arab / Islamist (whatever that means) is hiding in the bushes outside your house with his AK-47 pointed at your door just waiting for you and your kids to step out so he can vent his hatred of your freedoms. The American people buy into their government's propaganda.
When you hear the label "terrorist" used, you should think about who is doing the labelling, and what exactly their agenda is rather than just taking their word for it that you are in danger and need their protection.
Perhaps I should not have capitalised the word "your", I was not referring to you personally, but you as a group, meaning the education institutions. Of course, if a student of yours does not know stuff he should have learned 5 years prior, you personally cannot bring them up to date in the short time you have with them.
Education as a whole fails the children of today. It makes me sad to watch as the next generation are brought up with the bare requirements of mindless labour (in modern times even professionals are, in many ways, mindless labourers) and no awareness of themselves or the societies in which they live. Hooray for an intellectually emasculated society of slaves.
I think he's talking about their incredible capacity to assimilate vast quantities of new information into a growing body of knowledge, and apply it almost instantly. The older people get, the lower is their capacity to learn and apply new knowledge. The phrase "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" is a pithy expression of this almost* universal observation.
* Some people appear to retain a greater capacity for learning than others as they age, were I to guess, I'd guess that it was a result of keeping the brain active and exercising it with new learning tasks as often as one can. Like a muscle atrophies with disuse, so too does brain plasticity decrease with idleness.
Slashdot Mirror
I was actually agreeing with you, implying that if you think that journalists have learned these things, then you couldn't possibly be from America, as American journalism has none of these things. Obviously, you missed the joke, and so did the mods, who gave me -1 flamebait :(
I shall endeavour to make my humour more obvious from now on. Knock knock...
"Such things are the stuff of journalism classes from the 50's or sooner."
Spoken like a true foreigner.
Run! The Germa^WCommu^WChinese are coming!
No, but I think that people like you who think that censorship is good should be censored.
Oh, wait...
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson: A little from column A, and a little from column B.
Thus turning a $400 old PC into a $1,400 old PC.
"a few server affictionadoes"
Yea, AMD would really suffer if this small, insignificant market was the only bunch who liked their products.
I agree. BitTorrent and eMule are as comparable as FTP and Samba.
Were you trying to make my point? Thanks, if so.
More to the point:
"The software then makes random decisions (which are thankfully based on calculated probabilities of terrorist attacks) and tells the police where to dispatch and when."
Does that mean that, given that the US's rate of deaths from acts of terrorism is so low as to be negligible, it will tell police to dispatch to the Whitehouse?
I can see it now, the presidential motorcade gets pulled over by airport security "Sorry sir, please step out of the vehicle, the computer has flagged you as being a person of interest in the global war on terror."
Thirded.
Furthermore, I can't see any useful comparison between bittorrent and sharing apps like LimeWire and eMule. Torrents are for specific content targets, sharing bandwidth between peers for what people *are getting now*, while traditional P2P apps create what could be described as a communal library of what people *already have*.
The two P2P models are totally incomparable, and other than the fact that they both evoke "It gets used to pirate our hard forged artwork!" cries, they have nothing in common.
You must have pretty thin fingers.
Mr Burns? Is that you?
An easy example of working out terminal velocity can be calculated with Stokes' Law.
In general terms, the two anchors are likely to fall at the same rate assuming they dont affect each other's fluid displacement, as you would expect if they are falling side by side. If, however, one was on top of the other, then the sink speed would likely increase, as you'd have a greater mass behind the displacement and hence a greater force, but the turbulence caused by the leading edge of the lower anchor would likely decrease the drag experienced by the second.
Of course, the fact that the anchors are not regular shapes means that this becomes monstrously complex when you try to actually calculate any numbers. In fact, even were they two perfect spheres, it'd still be monstrously complex. Come to think of it, fluid dynamics is monstrously complex in general.
Monstrously yours,
- Naz.
26,000 Hiroshimas?! Why, that's almost an Africa!
Question to anyone familiar with legal practicality: How hard would it be for us bored Slashdotters to watch Monster Cable's litigation team and just forward the letter to anyone they threaten? Surely Legal actions are a matter of public record? Or do the settlements typically occur out of the public space?
Furthermore, in light of the defences here, can't prior targets of Monster Cable who have settled claim that they settled under duress? After all, threatening with litigation is threatening.
So what, pray tell, are you going to use to collect this material that is spewed out from the Sun at temperatures so high that it's in plasma form?
And I ask again: Are you sure you're in the right place? This is a news site, sci-fi is down the hall.
Is there enough material on the face of the earth to construct a Dyson sphere? Oh, and just to ask that question, I had to dig through three layers of ridiculousness. Are you sure you're not after a sci-fi forum?
Bush is.
I agree, however one must take into account the fact that the ANC viewed the entirety of white South Africa as the enemy. White South Africans on the whole (with few but very noble and notable exceptions) had racist views (partly the result of government propaganda and party the result of humans' latent xenophobia) and supported the government's racist policy. Furthermore, the average white South African treated blacks as slaves and expendable labourers, which made them appear as hostiles in the eyes of the blacks. Factory foremen brutalised their black workers, farmers often shot their farmhands just to make a point to the others and mining companies did not bother with even the most rudimentary of safety precautions for their mine workers, because in the eyes of management, the only good black was a dead black. Just because a person does not wear a uniform and salute, does not mean they cannot be a military type aggressor.
In fact, the US definition of "enemy combatant" is deliberately designed to allow civilians to be targeted by military action.
I think you don't understand the "two wrongs" phrase.
Entering someone's house without their permission and taking something, even if that thing is yours and you don't damage anything else, is wrong. It is an unauthorised exercise of force (property acquisition against the will of the possessor despite them not being the owner) that may work in the single case scenario, but the reason civil institutions exist is to arbiter these disputes. The net effect of everyone taking the law into their hands this way would be an escalation of force exerted. You'd take my widget, I'd come back with a friend and take it back, you'd come back with three to take it back back, I'd come back with a gun and take it back back back and so on as society descends into anarchy.
In a civilised society, whoever possessed property can only be forced to give it up by the authority, if somebody else is the owner, the authority must be the one to collect it by force if necessary. Not Joe Schome with his baseball bat.
I think your parking ticket analogy is bizarre. Please explain it, as I just don't get it.
I am not requiring the victim to leave their property with the thief, I'm saying the victim should call the appropriate authority for assistance in recovering whatever item was stolen.
I don't need your fascist support of my rights, I'm quite capable of looking out for myself.
I don't, and never will, spy on my employees, no matter how much you try to convince me that it's in my interests.
I trust my staff to look after my interests, because they know that I look after theirs. I help them when they need advances or loans, and pay them well in general. If they don't reciprocate, I show them the door. I don't need to spy or engage in odious practices to take care of my rights, the usual rules of civilised people work just fine.
If my staff are looking for other work, then I have a staff relations problem that reading their email will not solve. If they are wasting time, then their KPIs will show it, and I'll deal with it as a performance issue.
If they are selling what they need to sell, performing the duties they need to perform and reporting to me the things they need to report, then frankly, they can spend their spare time shagging Facebook freaks in the stock room for all I care.
Doesn't the ridiculous labelling of open source software as "terrorism" call into question all the other things that get labelled terrorism? Examples:
The ANC anti-Apartheid movement under the white South African government was labelled a terrorism. Nelson Mandela was public enemy number 1, the Osama Bin Laden of his time and place. White South Africa bought into their government's propaganda.
The White Rose organisation was labelled terrorist, and its leaders beheaded. for their non-violent anti-Nazi position in pre-WWII Nazi Germany. The German body politic bought into their government's propaganda.
Today, the word terrorism gets thrown around like some Muslim / Arab / Islamist (whatever that means) is hiding in the bushes outside your house with his AK-47 pointed at your door just waiting for you and your kids to step out so he can vent his hatred of your freedoms. The American people buy into their government's propaganda.
When you hear the label "terrorist" used, you should think about who is doing the labelling, and what exactly their agenda is rather than just taking their word for it that you are in danger and need their protection.
Perhaps I should not have capitalised the word "your", I was not referring to you personally, but you as a group, meaning the education institutions. Of course, if a student of yours does not know stuff he should have learned 5 years prior, you personally cannot bring them up to date in the short time you have with them.
Education as a whole fails the children of today. It makes me sad to watch as the next generation are brought up with the bare requirements of mindless labour (in modern times even professionals are, in many ways, mindless labourers) and no awareness of themselves or the societies in which they live. Hooray for an intellectually emasculated society of slaves.
That, sir, is YOUR fault, and not theirs.
I think he's talking about their incredible capacity to assimilate vast quantities of new information into a growing body of knowledge, and apply it almost instantly. The older people get, the lower is their capacity to learn and apply new knowledge. The phrase "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" is a pithy expression of this almost* universal observation.
* Some people appear to retain a greater capacity for learning than others as they age, were I to guess, I'd guess that it was a result of keeping the brain active and exercising it with new learning tasks as often as one can. Like a muscle atrophies with disuse, so too does brain plasticity decrease with idleness.
So when people say "Slashdotters are a bunch of 2 year olds!" it's actually praise for the community?