We decided not to do this until the full-length version is out. No real point doing the marathon before then, is there?
Re:Article text. *NO KARMA WHORING*
on
NYT on Spam Cops
·
· Score: 1
But the new federal (You)CAN-SPAM law supercedes WA state law.
I have this memory of someone telling me that the state laws were allowed to be more restrictive than CANSPAM - or am I getting that conflated with ISPs still being allowed to define mail as 'unwanted' even if it did comply with CANSPAM?
The RIAA versus the people: the RIAA has the money.
The Car Makers versus the people: The Car Makers have the money.
The on the RIAA's side in the first and the people's side on the second. It's not only about money, it's also about comprehension, as another poster said.
Since she said that one time the light came on when she was driving home from the dealership, and I doubt she adjusted the cap during that time, I expect the problem wasn't actually the cap. And so does she. However, more serious problems might be obscured by the light being on constantly (another guy quoted in the article had the problem that 'the Check Engine signal prevented him from using the car's electronic display') and driving around like this might even void her warrantee for other problems.
I do agree that she should change dealerships, because they must be either useless or messing with her, but maybe it's not possible in her situation.
>Reading comments in favor of the lawsuit crack me up. Like "It's like a cop following you to work and handing you 20 tickets when you get there".
I think the lawsuit is ridiculous. I'm sure the court will look at it objectively and also decide it's ridiculous, so I'm perfectly content for the suit to be brought.
On the 20 tickets thing, I recall a recent story (may be apocryphal) about a speed camera which took photos of the same driver over a long period of time (months), and then sent them all out at once instead of sending them as they were generated. The driver's speedo was maladjusted and he hadn't known. If he'd got the first one, he might have had it fixed. Result: he gets a bunch of fines for essentially the same offence. Nobody's arguing that he repeatedly committed the offence, but it still seems unfair.
I agree. Besides, Episode I caused some great dialogue to be created, for example this revised version of the penultimate scene in ESB:
(author unknown)
INT: CLOUD CITY - BESPIN GANTRY
A furious lightsaber duel is underway. DARTH VADER is backing LUKE SKYWALKER towards the end of the gantry. A quick Errol Flynn move by Vader, and Luke's hand goes spinning off into the ventilation shaft! Luke cries out, holding his stub arm. He backs away, looks around, but realizes there's nowhere to go but straight down.
DARTH VADER: Obi Wan never told you what happened to your father, did he?
LUKE: He told me enough! He told me you killed him!
VADER: No... I am your father!
LUKE: No!!! It's not true! It's impossible.
VADER: Search your feelings... you know it to be true...
LUKE: (in tears) NOOOOOO!
VADER: Yes, it is true.. and you know what else? You know that brass droid of yours?
LUKE: Threepio?
VADER: Yeah, Threepio. I built him when I was 7 years old.
LUKE: No wonder he's such a pain in the neck!
VADER: Seven years old! And what have you done? Look at yourself, no hand, no job, and couldn't even levitate your own ship out of the swamp...
LUKE: I destroyed your precious Death Star!
VADER: When you were, what, 20! When I was 10, I single-handedly destroyed a shielded Trade Federation Droid Control Ship... with a lucky shot!
LUKE: Well, I used to bulls-eye womp rats in my T-16 racing through Beggar's Canyon...
VADER: Oh, for the love of the Emperor! Ten years old, winner of the Boonta Eve Open, only human to ever fly a Pod Racer... Right here, baby!
LUKE: (looking dejected) But, but, it's not my fault...
VADER: Oh! Here we go... "Poor me! My father never gave me what I wanted for my birthday... Boo-Hoo... My daddy's the Dark Lord of the Sith... Waahhh! Waahhh!"
LUKE: (stammering) Shut up! Shut UP!!!
VADER: You're a slacker! You think I had a Dad there for me? Ha! I was conceived by the mitochondrians and raised by my mother in slavery! But by the time I was your age, I had exterminated the Jedi Knights!
Luke looks down the shaft. Takes a step towards it.
VADER: I was wrong... You know what - you're not my kid! You're not good enough to be my kid!
Luke, in tears, takes a step off the platform, hesitates, then plunges down the shaft. Darth Vader looks after him...
The region 4 version of Metropolis is a lot longer (something like 20min, IIRC) than the R1/R2 releases. It's possible that the footage you mention is still available on that version.
Basically, the hamsters in the focus rooms hit the pedal more times when "Birth of an Empire" was read.
The quality of the other two prequels is pretty good evidence that it's time they stopped using hamsters for focus groups. Where's PETA when you need them?
Star Trekking, across the universe, On the Starship Enterprise, under Captain Kirk. Star Trekking, across the universe, Boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Lt. Uhura, report!
Uhura: There's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow. There's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, Jim.
Analysis, Mr. Spock!
Spock: It's life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it. It's life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, Captain.
Star Trekking, across the universe, On the Starship Enterprise, under Captain Kirk. Star Trekking, across the universe, Boldly going forward, still can't find reverse.
Starship Captain, James T. Kirk!
Kirk: Ha-ha! We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill. We come in peace, shoot to kill, Scotty, beam me up!
Engineer, Mister Scott!
Scotty: Ye canna change the laws of physics, laws of physics, laws of physics! Ye canna change the laws of physics, laws of physics, yet
Star Trekking, across the universe, On the Starship Enterprise, under Captain Kirk! Star Trekking, across the universe, Boldly going forward, and things are getting worse!
Many versions seem to be floating around, some much longer...
Since being modded Funny no longer adds to your karma, there are those who advocate using Insightful instead. That's why you keep seeing those posts modded Insightful.
I would think this test would also be biased against animals that don't use sight as their primary sense. Obviously, it won't work on bats. But there may be other animals who rely much more on smell, who will not consider the question of whether the reflection is 'self' or 'other', because it patently isn't there.
Slaying the woman and children of the other herd may be the best thing for the survival of our herd, as well as our long term personal survival, but it is still recognized as wrong.
That's quite true - although lots of us don't seem to have a problem with destroying the other herd when it's a different species. For example, an animal's life is always considered less valuable than a human's life.
In your example, the 'other' herd's women and children, although not belonging to your own group, could be considered part of your larger group (species) and therefore part of your own herd - unless they were harming you (not enough resources to go around). Then the herds would either join together for strength, or fight until one is gone.
Showing the consideration exists for other groups that can't be considered part of one's own herd would certainly be a point in your argument's favour.
It's interesting that your argument involved a woman being attacked. In an evolutionary sense, a woman (especially a young one) is a more valuable resource, as she will have the larger burden in reproduction. If the woman was the observer, and a man was being attacked, the instincts would be different - the self-preservation will be being reinforced by the herd-protection, since more surviving women is the best strategy for herd-protection. So if the woman judges it to be relatively safe to help, she will do so, but otherwise will probably not - and no-one will judge her to be wrong. (OK, very few people will judge her to be wrong. Provided she calls the cops, or something.)
The shame and disgust in mention are part of the herd-protection instinct. The herd as a whole will always decide in favour of herd-protection, so the member who decides for self-preservation runs the risk of being outcast by the herd. (Not going against the herd is another instinct, for this reason.)
I would argue that herd-protection will quite frequently be above self-preservation. Most people, if they had the choice between preservation of the self, and preservation of the species, would choose the species, although they would certainly hesitate and try to find another way first. This is reinforced because we are social creatures, that can't survive long without the herd. If we make the wrong choice here, the individual won't survive either, and a more fit species (one with a stronger herd-protection instinct) will take our place.
If the choice is between self-preservation and damage to the species, that's when the different strengths of instinct come in. The man doing the rescuing will assess the chances of success, and the risk to himself, and make a decision that will be affected by the relative strengths of instinct. I don't know, and I don't think we can know, what part a conscience or supernatural moral force will play. There's a place for it, but I think the situation can be explained without it. I personally would prefer it to be there, but that isn't evidence.
Thank you for an interesting and reasoned discussion - they can be rare around/.
It's because the name's at the top. When I read the name, I haven't yet been able to determine whether the comment's worth reading. After I've read the comment, then I read the sig. That's when I make the snap judgement about the poster.
All subconscious, of course. But I'm sure that's why I remember the sigs and not the names.
1. The scammer doesn't have any way to pay the seller, as he does not know any account details.
2. If the scammer sent the money, the seller could send the laptop. Happy to, in fact, I would think.
I doubt there's any way the seller could get in trouble unless the package was insured for $2000. Although I don't believe it's a crime to over-insure something, it would be either a crime or a breach of contract to make a claim for an over-insured item.
It might be that the trait of intelligence also comes with the desire to control the surroundings, so that if two speicies had intelligence, they would compete to destruction. Our history tells us that humans behave this way (or we wouldn't have wars).
Even if the trait of intelligence doesn't have to come with the desire to control the surroundings, I think it would be sufficient that the two were both present in humans, so that they would wipe out the other species that threatened their position of power over all other species.
It is possible that humans are the only intelligent species because we were specially created, but it's also possible to explain it in other ways. In fact, in my experience 'proof' that God exists must always be subjective and non-repeatable, by the very nature of faith. Objective and repeatable evidence generally just encourages people to dig deeper into the reasons, rather than increasing their faith. That must really annoy God, sometimes.
If you look at yourself, you can observe that you have a free will. You can choose to do, and not to do, a wide variety of things. If there is nothing above nature, from whence does this remarkable ability come? If we are nothing more than atoms and space, we should be nothing more than a ball rolling downhill. Our trajectory, speed and ultimate destination determined as soon as we began to move, determined by the physical laws that control all other matter. Yet we aren't that way. Even people who hold that they have no free will, don't behave that way in their real lives.
There is one other possible way to explain this behaviour (and I don't assert that it's the correct one; just that it's possible).
Those societies that behave as though there is a moral law, outperform (an an evolutionary sense) those who do not; i.e. a society that promotes the wwell-being of its fellow-members must increase in numbers more than one that doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
We decided not to do this until the full-length version is out. No real point doing the marathon before then, is there?
I do agree that she should change dealerships, because they must be either useless or messing with her, but maybe it's not possible in her situation.
>Reading comments in favor of the lawsuit crack me up. Like "It's like a cop following you to work and handing you 20 tickets when you get there". I think the lawsuit is ridiculous. I'm sure the court will look at it objectively and also decide it's ridiculous, so I'm perfectly content for the suit to be brought. On the 20 tickets thing, I recall a recent story (may be apocryphal) about a speed camera which took photos of the same driver over a long period of time (months), and then sent them all out at once instead of sending them as they were generated. The driver's speedo was maladjusted and he hadn't known. If he'd got the first one, he might have had it fixed. Result: he gets a bunch of fines for essentially the same offence. Nobody's arguing that he repeatedly committed the offence, but it still seems unfair.
Here are the last 24 hours of photos for the cam.
I agree. Besides, Episode I caused some great dialogue to be created, for example this revised version of the penultimate scene in ESB:
(author unknown)
INT: CLOUD CITY - BESPIN GANTRY
A furious lightsaber duel is underway. DARTH VADER is backing LUKE SKYWALKER towards the end of the gantry. A quick Errol Flynn move by Vader, and Luke's hand goes spinning off into the ventilation shaft! Luke cries out, holding his stub arm. He backs away, looks around, but realizes there's nowhere to go but straight down.
DARTH VADER: Obi Wan never told you what happened to your father, did he?
LUKE: He told me enough! He told me you killed him!
VADER: No... I am your father!
LUKE: No!!! It's not true! It's impossible.
VADER: Search your feelings... you know it to be true...
LUKE: (in tears) NOOOOOO!
VADER: Yes, it is true.. and you know what else? You know that brass droid of yours?
LUKE: Threepio?
VADER: Yeah, Threepio. I built him when I was 7 years old.
LUKE: No wonder he's such a pain in the neck!
VADER: Seven years old! And what have you done? Look at yourself, no hand, no job, and couldn't even levitate your own ship out of the swamp...
LUKE: I destroyed your precious Death Star!
VADER: When you were, what, 20! When I was 10, I single-handedly destroyed a shielded Trade Federation Droid Control Ship... with a lucky shot!
LUKE: Well, I used to bulls-eye womp rats in my T-16 racing through Beggar's Canyon...
VADER: Oh, for the love of the Emperor! Ten years old, winner of the Boonta Eve Open, only human to ever fly a Pod Racer... Right here, baby!
LUKE: (looking dejected) But, but, it's not my fault...
VADER: Oh! Here we go... "Poor me! My father never gave me what I wanted for my birthday... Boo-Hoo... My daddy's the Dark Lord of the Sith... Waahhh! Waahhh!"
LUKE: (stammering) Shut up! Shut UP!!!
VADER: You're a slacker! You think I had a Dad there for me? Ha! I was conceived by the mitochondrians and raised by my mother in slavery! But by the time I was your age, I had exterminated the Jedi Knights!
Luke looks down the shaft. Takes a step towards it.
VADER: I was wrong... You know what - you're not my kid! You're not good enough to be my kid!
Luke, in tears, takes a step off the platform, hesitates, then plunges down the shaft. Darth Vader looks after him...
VADER: And get a haircut! [Pfffft!]
(It had to be mentioned...)
Brilliant! Where are the mods when you need 'em...
The region 4 version of Metropolis is a lot longer (something like 20min, IIRC) than the R1/R2 releases. It's possible that the footage you mention is still available on that version.
Now there's an analogy I like...
Perhaps you're referring to
STAR TREKKIN'
Star Trekking, across the universe,
On the Starship Enterprise, under Captain Kirk.
Star Trekking, across the universe,
Boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Lt. Uhura, report!
Uhura: There's Klingons on the starboard bow,
starboard bow, starboard bow.
There's Klingons on the starboard bow,
starboard bow, Jim.
Analysis, Mr. Spock!
Spock: It's life, Jim, but not as we know it,
not as we know it, not as we know it.
It's life, Jim, but not as we know it,
not as we know it, Captain.
Medical update, Doctor McCoy!
McCoy: It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim.
Dead, Jim. Dead, Jim.
It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim.
Dead, Jim, Dead.
Star Trekking, across the universe,
On the Starship Enterprise, under Captain Kirk.
Star Trekking, across the universe,
Boldly going forward, still can't find reverse.
Starship Captain, James T. Kirk!
Kirk: Ha-ha! We come in peace, shoot to kill,
shoot to kill, shoot to kill.
We come in peace, shoot to kill,
Scotty, beam me up!
Engineer, Mister Scott!
Scotty: Ye canna change the laws of physics,
laws of physics, laws of physics!
Ye canna change the laws of physics,
laws of physics, yet
Star Trekking, across the universe,
On the Starship Enterprise, under Captain Kirk!
Star Trekking, across the universe,
Boldly going forward, and things are getting worse!
Many versions seem to be floating around, some much longer...
Quite true. There were moments when I was sure Archer was about to come up with the Prime Directive... (shudder)
Now can we please stop commenting about it?
I would think this test would also be biased against animals that don't use sight as their primary sense. Obviously, it won't work on bats. But there may be other animals who rely much more on smell, who will not consider the question of whether the reflection is 'self' or 'other', because it patently isn't there.
In your example, the 'other' herd's women and children, although not belonging to your own group, could be considered part of your larger group (species) and therefore part of your own herd - unless they were harming you (not enough resources to go around). Then the herds would either join together for strength, or fight until one is gone.
Showing the consideration exists for other groups that can't be considered part of one's own herd would certainly be a point in your argument's favour.
It's interesting that your argument involved a woman being attacked. In an evolutionary sense, a woman (especially a young one) is a more valuable resource, as she will have the larger burden in reproduction. If the woman was the observer, and a man was being attacked, the instincts would be different - the self-preservation will be being reinforced by the herd-protection, since more surviving women is the best strategy for herd-protection. So if the woman judges it to be relatively safe to help, she will do so, but otherwise will probably not - and no-one will judge her to be wrong. (OK, very few people will judge her to be wrong. Provided she calls the cops, or something.)
The shame and disgust in mention are part of the herd-protection instinct. The herd as a whole will always decide in favour of herd-protection, so the member who decides for self-preservation runs the risk of being outcast by the herd. (Not going against the herd is another instinct, for this reason.)
I would argue that herd-protection will quite frequently be above self-preservation. Most people, if they had the choice between preservation of the self, and preservation of the species, would choose the species, although they would certainly hesitate and try to find another way first. This is reinforced because we are social creatures, that can't survive long without the herd. If we make the wrong choice here, the individual won't survive either, and a more fit species (one with a stronger herd-protection instinct) will take our place.
If the choice is between self-preservation and damage to the species, that's when the different strengths of instinct come in. The man doing the rescuing will assess the chances of success, and the risk to himself, and make a decision that will be affected by the relative strengths of instinct. I don't know, and I don't think we can know, what part a conscience or supernatural moral force will play. There's a place for it, but I think the situation can be explained without it. I personally would prefer it to be there, but that isn't evidence.
Thank you for an interesting and reasoned discussion - they can be rare around /.
It's because the name's at the top. When I read the name, I haven't yet been able to determine whether the comment's worth reading. After I've read the comment, then I read the sig. That's when I make the snap judgement about the poster.
All subconscious, of course. But I'm sure that's why I remember the sigs and not the names.
Finally! Something to combat the unhappiness caused by Military Units out of the cities!
It looks like this:
REGEDIT4
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contr ol\Keyboard Layout]
"Scancode Map"=hex:00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,01,00,00,00,2a,00 ,3a,00,00,00,00,00
2. If the scammer sent the money, the seller could send the laptop. Happy to, in fact, I would think.
I doubt there's any way the seller could get in trouble unless the package was insured for $2000. Although I don't believe it's a crime to over-insure something, it would be either a crime or a breach of contract to make a claim for an over-insured item.
Even if the trait of intelligence doesn't have to come with the desire to control the surroundings, I think it would be sufficient that the two were both present in humans, so that they would wipe out the other species that threatened their position of power over all other species.
It is possible that humans are the only intelligent species because we were specially created, but it's also possible to explain it in other ways. In fact, in my experience 'proof' that God exists must always be subjective and non-repeatable, by the very nature of faith. Objective and repeatable evidence generally just encourages people to dig deeper into the reasons, rather than increasing their faith. That must really annoy God, sometimes.
Those societies that behave as though there is a moral law, outperform (an an evolutionary sense) those who do not; i.e. a society that promotes the wwell-being of its fellow-members must increase in numbers more than one that doesn't.