This is such BS. In the next few decades, this kind of technology will be critical to maintaining the old infrastructure as the known to be over-stated Middle-Eastern oil reserves begin to dry up. These guys are messing with the long term survival of their countries and we should absolutely drive our feet up their ass.
Yeah. When you hire someone, you want to know that they are at least dependable in a general sense. If they have a history of selling out their employers; that shows they are willing to turn on you if you piss them off. Odds are that these people were offended by their bosses in some way just before they reported on them; which is why they no longer work there... they were fired or quit.
My thoughts instantly turned to an iPhone app, something that can recognize the numbers on a ticket from it's onboard camera and do the cracking more efficiently. We don't have this game in our city, that I know of so far. But I'd definitely be game to try it. $600 is worth about two weeks of rent for me.
Here's a new rule. If the police tell you to do it, whatever you were told to do is now legal. That will rapidly put a stop to this kind of underhanded stuff. Also, weren't there all these laws in European countries regarding lying about your identity when you're sleeping around; or does that also just not apply when the police do it?
There's something seriously wrong with a plan designed to prevent people from seeing what they're buying. This means that they're not just screwing over the overseas investors... but they might be covering up something wrong with Facebook. Does this mean we can expect Facebook to go down? I use it all the time, not good...
If the rule was intended to prevent US investors being screwed; then why doesn't the SEC complain about this sale as well? Make Goldman reveal the details or sit on their investment.
I agree that everyone wants to live in the same place is a problem; however I think the main place they want to live is suburbia. People want lots of room, and then they need the roads to get to their jobs, stores and other things that are really far away from where they live. This might be different where you live, but that's the situation here. Research even shows that people's happiness is influenced more by the length of their commutes than how much space they have at home past a given area of space. There's no clear solution here because the easiest solution is to force people to live in skyscrapers near the city center, you could fit entire neighborhoods in one of those if they were converted to living space. The problem is that people would fight it to the end of time.
Personally I would love to see either more underground cities, like the one in Western Australia; where people are forced to live no further than walking distance from where they work and eat or arcologies, where people can still have space, but are constrained on a 3d axis.
None of these are good solutions because they depend on forcing people to behave a certain way. I'd rather put up with the roads and pollution than be forced to move, even though I personally prefer living in the city.
I've always wondered if the people selected for powerful positions are really that out of touch with reality. Personally I suspect that people like Ahmedinajad and Kim-jong il appear crazy, but only when it comes to specific issues. They wouldn't get as powerful as they are now without being at least somewhat on the ball. If the surrounding nations pointed out, politely, that Ahmedinajad should desist what he's up to due to various reasons; he likely would. Essentially, if these people were self destructive enough to take the obviously lethal path; how would they be able to make it through the world of politics to get to their current position?
If people were honest they would have no friends and marriage would never happen.
If a man were married to a woman for say 5 years, one day she says, "do I look fat in this dress?" No wise man is going to say yes. Is a 10lbs gain over the winter really worth a huge fight and maybe half your bank account? No. Instead, you find a tactful way of avoiding the question (there is none, a pleading of the fifth is admitting the fact in this case), or answering with a lie. Instead, you look at all the surrounding facts, and choose to avoid the argument or set the building aflame. Even in a hell of a marriage, you're probably looking to minimize casualties.
So, if most people cannot tell their spouse the truth, what makes you think nations can?
On that subject I think it's more to do with how you phrase your honesty. For example "It does a bit, you're still gorgeous though." would communicate what you want without a messy argument. The worst thing about being dishonest is that it becomes much harder to take you seriously when you want to tell the truth and it's more easy for your wife to trust you when she knows you're an upfront person. Also, she might decide to lose weight.
Also, if you're married to a person who takes a honest answer, even a rude and thoughtless one with "OMG DIVORCE", you've married the human version of NK.
That would be a good idea if it weren't a life or death thing. If you get a message saying "Death is coming, run for your life", going indoors to check the weather channel might not be the ideal course. Do you know the joke where during a firefight, the commander screams "heads up" and the dude in the back stands up and says "Why?"?
That's a good point, they probably would be bolder and have less stress. I wonder if they might also end up dead faster from bad judgements; like attempting things they're unskilled at that have large negative outcomes (driving on an icy road, attacking a mugger without training or a weapon)? What I would love to see is a drug that lets you suppress a dose-Dependant chunk of your fear for a period of time. Would that still allow you to instinctively protect yourself while letting you take fairly consequence free risks?
That's a very good point. Pretty much every piece of software out these days has a EULA declaiming responsibility for anything that happens with the software, up to and including serious financial harm. If your toaster catches fire and destroys something, you would obviously expect the people who made it to be held liable; not so with software. If Communism proved anything it's that if you uncouple effort from reward, people won't go the extra mile (and spend money to get there).
What I said is that this is what happens. When the moral options are spending the rest of your life emotionally unfulfilled or possibly losing the ability to financially support yourself, setting some morals aside starts to look pretty damned good.
Of course, when things get tough, people are tempted to ditch their morality.
The real problem is that marriage does not properly encapsulate human emotion. It is not at all clear that humans are monogamous, nor is it even clear that humans can only feel emotions for one person at a time. Marriage is rigid, but the emotions that it is supposedly based on are not at all. The emotions that two people have are not necessarily synchronized -- one person may feel devotion to the marriage long after the other person does not. Some people develop their own solutions, like open relationships (the rules of which are widely varied), but that is not always something that people are willing to agree to.
If the party doesn't agree, then does that validate your deception? If humans are not monogamous, does that validate cheating?
Of course not. In this hypothesis, where divorce proceedings are occurring and the couple is no-longer seeing each-other, I certainly wouldn't consider it cheating for one party to see the person they love.
Maybe you missed the "perhaps after they have moved out" part. It is a lot less damaging for your offspring if you wait until they are no longer dependent on you for food and shelter to get divorced.
Even if you systematically lie to them the entire time?
Yes, you pretty much are. The financial aspect of marriage is not the rosy picture that the media paints for all of us, but it is an important factor, especially when someone is in a situation where their marriage might end. Perhaps it is not the moral high ground -- certainly not with the deceit involved -- but it is a relevant issue for a lot of people, and it is an issue that may be orthogonal to emotions. Someone presented with three choices, staying faithful to their marriage despite faded emotions, getting a divorce and possibly losing their entire financial base, or staying married and finding emotional fulfillment in an extramarital affair may simply set the moral standards aside, have an affair, and try not to get caught. The affair may even be a temporary thing, a phase which eventually comes to an end at which point the person returns to their devotion to their marriage (this does happen) -- would it be better for those people to get divorced to?
You're still saying you should lie and deceive for personal convenience. I'm not debating that it would be easier to set aside moral standards and lie like a weasel. As I understand it, you're posing a situation where someone hides their infidelity, knowing they would be divorced, and does it so that they won't be divorced; for their mutual good? If they know that their partner would divorce them, then it's not for the good of the family that they're hiding it.
Plenty of people manage to hide that sort of thing from their children, that is really nothing new. It might come out eventually, when the children are older (perhaps after they have moved out), but there is no reason for a 10 year old to know that his parents' relationship is falling apart.
So it's better if the kid realizes at 16 that one of his parents systematically deceived him and his other parent for years?
It is somehow more ethical to end a marriage, after taking a vow to stay with your spouse until death? Yes, incidentally, money is an important factor for someone who is considering anything related to marriage. This may come as a shock to you, but marriage is primarily a legal proceeding, with a lot of financial ramifications.
If you stick with the marriage for financial reasons, but reasonably suspect that your partner would divorce you if they knew that you were cheating, aren't you just doing it for your own sake?
Slashdot Mirror
This is such BS. In the next few decades, this kind of technology will be critical to maintaining the old infrastructure as the known to be over-stated Middle-Eastern oil reserves begin to dry up. These guys are messing with the long term survival of their countries and we should absolutely drive our feet up their ass.
Yeah. When you hire someone, you want to know that they are at least dependable in a general sense. If they have a history of selling out their employers; that shows they are willing to turn on you if you piss them off. Odds are that these people were offended by their bosses in some way just before they reported on them; which is why they no longer work there... they were fired or quit.
Go to jail for what? I'm curious what's so illegal here. Is there an actual law that says you can't understand the lottery and win?
My thoughts instantly turned to an iPhone app, something that can recognize the numbers on a ticket from it's onboard camera and do the cracking more efficiently.
We don't have this game in our city, that I know of so far. But I'd definitely be game to try it. $600 is worth about two weeks of rent for me.
Here's a new rule. If the police tell you to do it, whatever you were told to do is now legal. That will rapidly put a stop to this kind of underhanded stuff. Also, weren't there all these laws in European countries regarding lying about your identity when you're sleeping around; or does that also just not apply when the police do it?
There's something seriously wrong with a plan designed to prevent people from seeing what they're buying. This means that they're not just screwing over the overseas investors... but they might be covering up something wrong with Facebook. Does this mean we can expect Facebook to go down? I use it all the time, not good...
If the rule was intended to prevent US investors being screwed; then why doesn't the SEC complain about this sale as well? Make Goldman reveal the details or sit on their investment.
It all makes sense now... I'd always suspected.
Yeah, I thought the same thing when I read that. It helps to back up the dropbox folder into another one regularly.
That sounds really interesting, can you link to the article?
I agree that everyone wants to live in the same place is a problem; however I think the main place they want to live is suburbia. People want lots of room, and then they need the roads to get to their jobs, stores and other things that are really far away from where they live. This might be different where you live, but that's the situation here. Research even shows that people's happiness is influenced more by the length of their commutes than how much space they have at home past a given area of space. There's no clear solution here because the easiest solution is to force people to live in skyscrapers near the city center, you could fit entire neighborhoods in one of those if they were converted to living space. The problem is that people would fight it to the end of time.
Personally I would love to see either more underground cities, like the one in Western Australia; where people are forced to live no further than walking distance from where they work and eat or arcologies, where people can still have space, but are constrained on a 3d axis.
None of these are good solutions because they depend on forcing people to behave a certain way. I'd rather put up with the roads and pollution than be forced to move, even though I personally prefer living in the city.
I've always wondered if the people selected for powerful positions are really that out of touch with reality. Personally I suspect that people like Ahmedinajad and Kim-jong il appear crazy, but only when it comes to specific issues. They wouldn't get as powerful as they are now without being at least somewhat on the ball. If the surrounding nations pointed out, politely, that Ahmedinajad should desist what he's up to due to various reasons; he likely would. Essentially, if these people were self destructive enough to take the obviously lethal path; how would they be able to make it through the world of politics to get to their current position?
High school might be a microcosm of human society? We could learn from that.
If people were honest they would have no friends and marriage would never happen. If a man were married to a woman for say 5 years, one day she says, "do I look fat in this dress?" No wise man is going to say yes. Is a 10lbs gain over the winter really worth a huge fight and maybe half your bank account? No. Instead, you find a tactful way of avoiding the question (there is none, a pleading of the fifth is admitting the fact in this case), or answering with a lie. Instead, you look at all the surrounding facts, and choose to avoid the argument or set the building aflame. Even in a hell of a marriage, you're probably looking to minimize casualties. So, if most people cannot tell their spouse the truth, what makes you think nations can?
On that subject I think it's more to do with how you phrase your honesty. For example "It does a bit, you're still gorgeous though." would communicate what you want without a messy argument. The worst thing about being dishonest is that it becomes much harder to take you seriously when you want to tell the truth and it's more easy for your wife to trust you when she knows you're an upfront person. Also, she might decide to lose weight.
Also, if you're married to a person who takes a honest answer, even a rude and thoughtless one with "OMG DIVORCE", you've married the human version of NK.
You're right, it's a matter of convenience. If it takes any longer than a few seconds, I vote for running.
That would be a good idea if it weren't a life or death thing. If you get a message saying "Death is coming, run for your life", going indoors to check the weather channel might not be the ideal course. Do you know the joke where during a firefight, the commander screams "heads up" and the dude in the back stands up and says "Why?"?
That's a good point, they probably would be bolder and have less stress. I wonder if they might also end up dead faster from bad judgements; like attempting things they're unskilled at that have large negative outcomes (driving on an icy road, attacking a mugger without training or a weapon)? What I would love to see is a drug that lets you suppress a dose-Dependant chunk of your fear for a period of time. Would that still allow you to instinctively protect yourself while letting you take fairly consequence free risks?
They must be shaped like garden gnomes, and there should be loads of them.
Bonus: Have their eyes glow red when they move towards a target en-masse.
Yes, you understand perfectly.
That's a very good point. Pretty much every piece of software out these days has a EULA declaiming responsibility for anything that happens with the software, up to and including serious financial harm. If your toaster catches fire and destroys something, you would obviously expect the people who made it to be held liable; not so with software. If Communism proved anything it's that if you uncouple effort from reward, people won't go the extra mile (and spend money to get there).
Is that because people who find it a problem end up using something else?
What I said is that this is what happens. When the moral options are spending the rest of your life emotionally unfulfilled or possibly losing the ability to financially support yourself, setting some morals aside starts to look pretty damned good.
Of course, when things get tough, people are tempted to ditch their morality.
The real problem is that marriage does not properly encapsulate human emotion. It is not at all clear that humans are monogamous, nor is it even clear that humans can only feel emotions for one person at a time. Marriage is rigid, but the emotions that it is supposedly based on are not at all. The emotions that two people have are not necessarily synchronized -- one person may feel devotion to the marriage long after the other person does not. Some people develop their own solutions, like open relationships (the rules of which are widely varied), but that is not always something that people are willing to agree to.
If the party doesn't agree, then does that validate your deception? If humans are not monogamous, does that validate cheating?
Of course not. In this hypothesis, where divorce proceedings are occurring and the couple is no-longer seeing each-other, I certainly wouldn't consider it cheating for one party to see the person they love.
That's fair enough. So then people should avoid cheating then?
Maybe you missed the "perhaps after they have moved out" part. It is a lot less damaging for your offspring if you wait until they are no longer dependent on you for food and shelter to get divorced.
Even if you systematically lie to them the entire time?
Yes, you pretty much are. The financial aspect of marriage is not the rosy picture that the media paints for all of us, but it is an important factor, especially when someone is in a situation where their marriage might end. Perhaps it is not the moral high ground -- certainly not with the deceit involved -- but it is a relevant issue for a lot of people, and it is an issue that may be orthogonal to emotions. Someone presented with three choices, staying faithful to their marriage despite faded emotions, getting a divorce and possibly losing their entire financial base, or staying married and finding emotional fulfillment in an extramarital affair may simply set the moral standards aside, have an affair, and try not to get caught. The affair may even be a temporary thing, a phase which eventually comes to an end at which point the person returns to their devotion to their marriage (this does happen) -- would it be better for those people to get divorced to?
You're still saying you should lie and deceive for personal convenience. I'm not debating that it would be easier to set aside moral standards and lie like a weasel. As I understand it, you're posing a situation where someone hides their infidelity, knowing they would be divorced, and does it so that they won't be divorced; for their mutual good? If they know that their partner would divorce them, then it's not for the good of the family that they're hiding it.
Plenty of people manage to hide that sort of thing from their children, that is really nothing new. It might come out eventually, when the children are older (perhaps after they have moved out), but there is no reason for a 10 year old to know that his parents' relationship is falling apart.
So it's better if the kid realizes at 16 that one of his parents systematically deceived him and his other parent for years?
It is somehow more ethical to end a marriage, after taking a vow to stay with your spouse until death? Yes, incidentally, money is an important factor for someone who is considering anything related to marriage. This may come as a shock to you, but marriage is primarily a legal proceeding, with a lot of financial ramifications.
If you stick with the marriage for financial reasons, but reasonably suspect that your partner would divorce you if they knew that you were cheating, aren't you just doing it for your own sake?