That doesn't bring up the *nonviolent* uses of a gun, but this is about legality. It's perfectly legal and moral to shoot someone between the eyes under certain situations.
A sense of accomplishment is *usually* tied in with accomplishment (especially among us engineers)... but it's possible that if an OS gives you "busy work" so to speak, that you will "feel more productive" using it than another that actually boasts higher productivity.
I would *think* this would be more likely to affect the unices, but the abysmal bonus tasks I have to perform in Windows makes me personally feel most productive in Linux, followed by Solaris, followed by Windows.
Only one of these OSes has made me dink around for hours because something deep inside broke utterly. I think we all know which one that is.
The closest Linux has come is this mysterious thing where it wouldn't fsck the disk while complaining about it, but that was actually my bad.
Solaris misbehaves at work routinely, but it's not their happy-joy-love install, so it's probably not representative of the "real" Solaris.
Ok, I haven't even read the other sibling posts, but I don't think I'll find one that I agree with more, or that is more personally relevant.
In high school I read lots of science and technical books and whatnot- it was obviously what I was good at.
I did ok in AP courses, and used them to place out of as many "fluff" courses in college as possible.
I ended up with a masters in EE, the whole time minimizng the amount of time spent toward courses that didn't count toward my major. There were exceptions, and I enjoyed the occasional easy course / course that taught about topics utterly unrelated to any job I might be likely to end up with. But overall, I was very focussed on getting out with degrees that mattered.
Getting out of college, I got a job as a software engineer about two years ago. Now, I spent my leisure time reading about things that are not so narrow. Now that I have a car and a house (or rather, am borrowing said items from a bank that I am paying money to each month), I feel comfortable reading philosophy, mythology, and less focussed science texts.
I don't have a problem with being required to take a few noncore classes. I *do* have a problem with the inherent assumption that if the university didn't tell me to read a varied menu, I wouldn't- ever. I don't have the time and money to be the leisured intellectual, but I'm a lot closer now than when I was looking at prices for houses and realizing that without a *good* job fast, I'd be living in a hole- or worse, with my parents.
It would be nice if it were possible to major in art, or history, or *any* of those "soft" majors and not have to be immediately faced with "you may either know about your major, or you may live a normal life". It would be nice, basically, if we didn't have to work so hard, especially with our youth. There were two types of people who were enjoying their youth: the types who couldn't compete and knew it, and the types who didn't need to compete, and knew it (above average family finances would provide enough of a cushion for them). This is a lot of the people, mind you.
Most of my friends are still living with their parents, or they and their SOs have purchesed a place together (the necessity of a two income family is kinda scary).
Do we really have to work that hard? Is there really not enough to go around?
When I built my machine, I grabbed the biggest bestest at the time. Part of it was to have the "biggest bestest", but more than that was to not have to upgrade for another year. Less upgrades = less mass transportation of data = less lost data = less pain in the butt.
But yea, usually the best price point to but at is 6-18 months old.
My post addresses a real issue that was handwaved over by the parent, pointing out that it shouldn't be pooh-poohed. I didn't use it as a platform to attack or troll.
I would argue that political speech is the most important, because that's the kind that lets you change the law and complain about a broken situation. If there really *was* some kind of "international Jew" conspiracy, then you would want to pay attention to your local Nazi, in theory. Just because we know that they are all wet is not incentive to silence them. The patent stuff is a rounding error compared to not being able to speak out against the dominant philosphy (and I'm a big digital rights proponent).
But you missed my other point, which is: the digital speech bannings are hotly contested by a lot of smart groups here. Eventually, they will be overturned, either by nonpartisan courts or the hard way (actually educating the populace and politicians so that no one stands for it). What we have are a bunch of temporary measures that boil down to a set number of dollars per month that a big bunch of companies believe they are gaining by having these laws. I doubt they expect their unconstitutional garbage to hold up: the point is, it cost them X dollars to get them passed, and at Y dollars a month gained times N months, they have a profit of YN-X, which they believe is both positive and large.
Meanwhile, I don't hear about any big pro-freedom European groups standing up for ludicrously unpopular speech. I bet that there are some I've never heard of, just that they aren't the equivalent of the EFF.
For an example, just watch Slashdot: news about crap patents in America gets angry Americans and sympathetic Europeans posting. News about banning Nazis from speaking in Europe gets Europeans defending the actions while the Americans bumble about, having assumed that since they agreed with their transAtlantic fellows on the previous twenty issues ranging from financial to social to foreign policy, that they wouldn't see a disagreement over something as "fundamental as free speech".
Jefferson, generally recognized as the most deistic, wrote the word "Creator"- this follows his belief of a neutral and distant "clockwork" God. "Nature's God" also goes along with this line of thought. There were Christians among the founding fathers, but Jefferson wasn't one.
The Declaration is not a legal document, of course- the Constitution is, and so it doesn't mention deities at all.
In general. Yes, there are types of banned speech in the US. However, there are big name groups opposed to DMCA and other type things. Some of the companies have declined to take certain folks to court for fear of losing their unconstitutional law, as well.
The real thing is to look at who bothers with international hosting.
US folks have to have Euro servers for speech that some company patented ("to promote innovation!"). European political folks (like Nazis, but I'm sure there are others) often reside on stateside servers. If there are big pushes to let the Nazis speak in Europe, I've not heard of them.
It's not "oops, I forgot" or anything like that- it's willful disobedience to *any* kind of traffic logic. I've been to the northeast only a couple times, but I *always* see a diplomatic plate parked in some ridiculous fashion that screws over someone (a couple times that's been me).
Now, I don't know how it's relevant to the UN running this dealybob, granted...
This is very vital, and yet it is all too rare. I constantly tell people "You aren't blocking anything, your computer, which you own, is simple making a better decision about what to show you."
I usually follow with an example about how everytime you visit a webpage your computer *could* play a loud clip from an annoying song, but that would annoy you, and so it doesn't. Or that a website could ask your computer to send all of your personal data to them... but that you wouldn't want your property to do that, either.
The concept that a popup needs to be "blocked" absolutely takes the wrong view. A better term might be "Popup Selector", versus the damaged default concept of "selecting" everything.
Burglary is one example: my argument doesn't rely on it. I don't even have an alarm system at my house.
Specialization is for insects. Whose will feed me when I hunger? Who will clothe me? Who will bathe me? Certainly all of these things are assumed to be *my* job. Self defense is a human right. A man killing you cannot be insured against (not in a way that brings you back to life, in any event). Police may be tasked with that job, but it has been found in court that that they are not required to do so. Only you are responsible for yourself, because you are a person, not a cog in a machine.
Being able to do "My job" includes making sure that I am whole of body and mind, and that includes the ability to defend myself, just as it requires that I be able to feed and take care of myself.
If someone where motivated enough to make preparations and fly to another city, they don't need a gun to kill. You can make explosives cheaply and in your bathtub. Assassinations are *extremely rare* in the United States... and most other places, for that matter.
You have to understand, the average person does not want to hurt you. Your post makes it sound like you don't know that. The result of this fear should not be to attempt to disempower others, however.
A man motivated enough to kill a person while the other person has no knowledge does not need a gun. He barely even needs imagination or money.
A burglar who is pondering breaking into a house needs to consider of the owner has a gun. If everyone did, he would need to consider another line of work. Assume our burglar lives in a world where gun control worked, and so neither he nor his victims has weapons. Now assume the opposite, where everyone does. Which burglar would you rather be?
The defensive use of guns is not at all rare, ineffective, or results in people being shot with their own guns, despite the FUD to the contrary.
"Put differently... given the choice of somebody having a gun, a knife, a bat, or only their fists - which would you rather have them wielding in a situation where they intend to kill you ?"
I would rather we both have guns. Most of the people who would be looking to kill me are hella stronger than me. In your world, I am extinct. So are you, probably, unless you spend hours a week on martial arts. Your malefactor undoubtably will, or just generally be a stronger human than you.
The fact that guns are so final an answer means that society is a lot better at enforcing its collective will. If I want to shoot a man in a world where guns are common, there is a *much higher* chance of me being shot in return, preemptively, or concurrently. This changes my odds dramatically- now I have to be willing to throw my life away. Statistically, such people either suppress their murderous desire or are dealt with by society.
"Handguns should be illegal. M-rated game sales to minors should be illegal. End of story."
God damn, this is funny. The arrogance astounds. I'm a libertarian (usually considered a left leaning one by friends), and I try to have tolerance for whatever "I'm-happy-when-US-troops-die" / "We-should-invade-all-nations-I-don't-like" / "The government needs to control all industry" / "The government needs to heal mens souls" crap the wide variety of left and right extremist friends of mine believe.
But man, they never give me lines saying "this is how things should be, I am right, end of story".
That's just great, oh Oracle!
"This is not a question of "my rights online", it's a question of living in a free and safe society that does not endorse the sale of devices whose sole purpose is to kill other human beings or the sale of adult content to children who do not yet have the mental maturity to properly process it."
Two parts to this. Does not endorse the sale of devices whose sole purpose is to kill others? Ok, can I add a can-opener? That seems trivial, but it is not, and here's why: A human being is a multipurpose device that can also be used to kill another. With bare hands. Thankfully, reality has allowed us to distinguish which people are best at this: they are male, and look stronger. Often they spend much of their time practicing this skill. Since they are best at this, we should put them in charge, or they will use this ability on the rest of us.
That was every society's collective thinking on this issue until technology levelled the playing field. The fist, the rope, the knife- these devices would probably not be banned with your logic, but they could become just as deadly- but generally only when wielded by someone skilled or naturally talented in their use.
Fuck the age of heroes and villians. I like the age of physical democracy.
But the part about "adult content to children who do not yet have the mental maturity to properly process it." is the part that really gets me. Arrogance riddles your post, but few places like here. Because I could make the same post to prevent minors from accessing information that is: -Political in nature -Religious in nature -Philosophical in nature
Those three spheres have resulted in intense violence over the years, and kids are obviously not as equipped to deal with them. So hell, let's ban them. Instead, lets give kids just a certain number of opinions, and punish them if they don't toe the line......how about reading a violent story?...ok, how about *writing* a violent story?...now how about *writing* a violent videogame?
The idea that free speech doesn't apply to kids is very offensive to me, from movies to books to video games. It's almost like someone thinks they know *everything* and are trying to prevent you from thinking certain thoughts...
"I realize Slashdot has more than a bit of a libertarian slant, but there is a difference between being a libertarian and being an anarchist."
Yes. The difference is, Libertarians like the 1st and 2nd amendments, which is what we are discussing here today.
I've never heard one person complain about - except here, where there are smart people.
When I explain, in non-inflammatory terms, DRM to my technoilliterate father, he gets it. He understands that someone else controlling his machine is bad. Much of technology is confusing to *most* people, but that in no way makes it right to beat them up with their ignorance.
I don't know *anyone* who understands DRM and is ok with it, much less desires it on their machine.
Excellent. I personally loved the fantasy president delivering an internet rant agaist the Dr. Laura standin (about the Bible, and "abominations", and whatnot).
"Newspapers publish without government oversight?" Students: 51% Teachers/Principals: 80%
Then it begins to switch: "Musicians sing songs with offensive lyrics?" Students: 70% Teachers: 58% Principals: 43%
And then it gets personal:
"Students should be able to report controversial issues without approval of school authorities?" Students: 58% Teachers: 39% Principals: 25%
So, 7 percent of students picked NO to "allowed to report if our government jails an entire race of people", but YES to "we should be allowed to bitch when the principal makes detention longer".
That 7% is a large part of the problem, but maybe they will get it eventually.
The principals and teachers who swapped views like the *idea* of freedom, but don't like the little crunchy bits where it poops on *their* feet.
It's also worth pointing out that 80% of the teachers / principals is VERY signifigant- it means that 20% either believe (or don't care) that government should censor EVERYTHING. That's adults, folks, and that bothers me a bit more than "half of highschoolers don't get it".
Slashdot Mirror
Is not murder, and guns are best at it.
That doesn't bring up the *nonviolent* uses of a gun, but this is about legality. It's perfectly legal and moral to shoot someone between the eyes under certain situations.
A sense of accomplishment is *usually* tied in with accomplishment (especially among us engineers)... but it's possible that if an OS gives you "busy work" so to speak, that you will "feel more productive" using it than another that actually boasts higher productivity. I would *think* this would be more likely to affect the unices, but the abysmal bonus tasks I have to perform in Windows makes me personally feel most productive in Linux, followed by Solaris, followed by Windows. Only one of these OSes has made me dink around for hours because something deep inside broke utterly. I think we all know which one that is. The closest Linux has come is this mysterious thing where it wouldn't fsck the disk while complaining about it, but that was actually my bad. Solaris misbehaves at work routinely, but it's not their happy-joy-love install, so it's probably not representative of the "real" Solaris.
"And crucially, the effect only works when the wavelength of the light being scattered is roughly the same size as the object."
Visible light is around 400nm (violet) to 800nm (red). So, this is only effective for sufficiently tiny battleships.
Yea, now it's a concealment of 50%, no AC modifier.
;)
Whatever. Engineers will be casting See Invisibility soon enough
Ok, I haven't even read the other sibling posts, but I don't think I'll find one that I agree with more, or that is more personally relevant.
In high school I read lots of science and technical books and whatnot- it was obviously what I was good at.
I did ok in AP courses, and used them to place out of as many "fluff" courses in college as possible.
I ended up with a masters in EE, the whole time minimizng the amount of time spent toward courses that didn't count toward my major. There were exceptions, and I enjoyed the occasional easy course / course that taught about topics utterly unrelated to any job I might be likely to end up with. But overall, I was very focussed on getting out with degrees that mattered.
Getting out of college, I got a job as a software engineer about two years ago. Now, I spent my leisure time reading about things that are not so narrow. Now that I have a car and a house (or rather, am borrowing said items from a bank that I am paying money to each month), I feel comfortable reading philosophy, mythology, and less focussed science texts.
I don't have a problem with being required to take a few noncore classes. I *do* have a problem with the inherent assumption that if the university didn't tell me to read a varied menu, I wouldn't- ever. I don't have the time and money to be the leisured intellectual, but I'm a lot closer now than when I was looking at prices for houses and realizing that without a *good* job fast, I'd be living in a hole- or worse, with my parents.
It would be nice if it were possible to major in art, or history, or *any* of those "soft" majors and not have to be immediately faced with "you may either know about your major, or you may live a normal life". It would be nice, basically, if we didn't have to work so hard, especially with our youth. There were two types of people who were enjoying their youth: the types who couldn't compete and knew it, and the types who didn't need to compete, and knew it (above average family finances would provide enough of a cushion for them). This is a lot of the people, mind you.
Most of my friends are still living with their parents, or they and their SOs have purchesed a place together (the necessity of a two income family is kinda scary).
Do we really have to work that hard? Is there really not enough to go around?
Well, mostly.
When I built my machine, I grabbed the biggest bestest at the time. Part of it was to have the "biggest bestest", but more than that was to not have to upgrade for another year. Less upgrades = less mass transportation of data = less lost data = less pain in the butt.
But yea, usually the best price point to but at is 6-18 months old.
May the metamods be upon you!
My post addresses a real issue that was handwaved over by the parent, pointing out that it shouldn't be pooh-poohed. I didn't use it as a platform to attack or troll.
I would argue that political speech is the most important, because that's the kind that lets you change the law and complain about a broken situation. If there really *was* some kind of "international Jew" conspiracy, then you would want to pay attention to your local Nazi, in theory. Just because we know that they are all wet is not incentive to silence them. The patent stuff is a rounding error compared to not being able to speak out against the dominant philosphy (and I'm a big digital rights proponent).
But you missed my other point, which is: the digital speech bannings are hotly contested by a lot of smart groups here. Eventually, they will be overturned, either by nonpartisan courts or the hard way (actually educating the populace and politicians so that no one stands for it). What we have are a bunch of temporary measures that boil down to a set number of dollars per month that a big bunch of companies believe they are gaining by having these laws. I doubt they expect their unconstitutional garbage to hold up: the point is, it cost them X dollars to get them passed, and at Y dollars a month gained times N months, they have a profit of YN-X, which they believe is both positive and large.
Meanwhile, I don't hear about any big pro-freedom European groups standing up for ludicrously unpopular speech. I bet that there are some I've never heard of, just that they aren't the equivalent of the EFF.
For an example, just watch Slashdot: news about crap patents in America gets angry Americans and sympathetic Europeans posting. News about banning Nazis from speaking in Europe gets Europeans defending the actions while the Americans bumble about, having assumed that since they agreed with their transAtlantic fellows on the previous twenty issues ranging from financial to social to foreign policy, that they wouldn't see a disagreement over something as "fundamental as free speech".
Jefferson, generally recognized as the most deistic, wrote the word "Creator"- this follows his belief of a neutral and distant "clockwork" God. "Nature's God" also goes along with this line of thought. There were Christians among the founding fathers, but Jefferson wasn't one.
The Declaration is not a legal document, of course- the Constitution is, and so it doesn't mention deities at all.
AD is a Latin abbreviation meaning "In the Year of Our Lord", IIRC. That's why it's there, certainly not any other reason.
Like your counterargument, by the way. I'm posting this on the day of Tyr, one armed god of justice.
In general. Yes, there are types of banned speech in the US. However, there are big name groups opposed to DMCA and other type things. Some of the companies have declined to take certain folks to court for fear of losing their unconstitutional law, as well.
The real thing is to look at who bothers with international hosting.
US folks have to have Euro servers for speech that some company patented ("to promote innovation!"). European political folks (like Nazis, but I'm sure there are others) often reside on stateside servers. If there are big pushes to let the Nazis speak in Europe, I've not heard of them.
It's not "oops, I forgot" or anything like that- it's willful disobedience to *any* kind of traffic logic. I've been to the northeast only a couple times, but I *always* see a diplomatic plate parked in some ridiculous fashion that screws over someone (a couple times that's been me).
Now, I don't know how it's relevant to the UN running this dealybob, granted...
THANK YOU
This is very vital, and yet it is all too rare.
I constantly tell people "You aren't blocking anything, your computer, which you own, is simple making a better decision about what to show you."
I usually follow with an example about how everytime you visit a webpage your computer *could* play a loud clip from an annoying song, but that would annoy you, and so it doesn't. Or that a website could ask your computer to send all of your personal data to them... but that you wouldn't want your property to do that, either.
The concept that a popup needs to be "blocked" absolutely takes the wrong view. A better term might be "Popup Selector", versus the damaged default concept of "selecting" everything.
I dunno. Good post anyway.
Please mod parent up, as it actually answers the grandparent.
I'm still laughing, thanks ;)
"Hrm, I don't think we're doing enough good... What can we do that will make nerds stop merely loving us and actually offer incense in our name?"
Seriously, this is quite slick and cool.
Burglary is one example: my argument doesn't rely on it. I don't even have an alarm system at my house.
Specialization is for insects. Whose will feed me when I hunger? Who will clothe me? Who will bathe me? Certainly all of these things are assumed to be *my* job. Self defense is a human right. A man killing you cannot be insured against (not in a way that brings you back to life, in any event). Police may be tasked with that job, but it has been found in court that that they are not required to do so. Only you are responsible for yourself, because you are a person, not a cog in a machine.
Being able to do "My job" includes making sure that I am whole of body and mind, and that includes the ability to defend myself, just as it requires that I be able to feed and take care of myself.
If someone where motivated enough to make preparations and fly to another city, they don't need a gun to kill. You can make explosives cheaply and in your bathtub. Assassinations are *extremely rare* in the United States... and most other places, for that matter.
You have to understand, the average person does not want to hurt you. Your post makes it sound like you don't know that. The result of this fear should not be to attempt to disempower others, however.
A man motivated enough to kill a person while the other person has no knowledge does not need a gun. He barely even needs imagination or money.
A burglar who is pondering breaking into a house needs to consider of the owner has a gun. If everyone did, he would need to consider another line of work. Assume our burglar lives in a world where gun control worked, and so neither he nor his victims has weapons. Now assume the opposite, where everyone does. Which burglar would you rather be?
The defensive use of guns is not at all rare, ineffective, or results in people being shot with their own guns, despite the FUD to the contrary.
"Put differently... given the choice of somebody having a gun, a knife, a bat, or only their fists - which would you rather have them wielding in a situation where they intend to kill you ?"
I would rather we both have guns. Most of the people who would be looking to kill me are hella stronger than me. In your world, I am extinct. So are you, probably, unless you spend hours a week on martial arts. Your malefactor undoubtably will, or just generally be a stronger human than you.
The fact that guns are so final an answer means that society is a lot better at enforcing its collective will. If I want to shoot a man in a world where guns are common, there is a *much higher* chance of me being shot in return, preemptively, or concurrently. This changes my odds dramatically- now I have to be willing to throw my life away. Statistically, such people either suppress their murderous desire or are dealt with by society.
"Handguns should be illegal. M-rated game sales to minors should be illegal. End of story."
...how about reading a violent story? ...ok, how about *writing* a violent story? ...now how about *writing* a violent videogame?
God damn, this is funny. The arrogance astounds. I'm a libertarian (usually considered a left leaning one by friends), and I try to have tolerance for whatever "I'm-happy-when-US-troops-die" / "We-should-invade-all-nations-I-don't-like" / "The government needs to control all industry" / "The government needs to heal mens souls" crap the wide variety of left and right extremist friends of mine believe.
But man, they never give me lines saying "this is how things should be, I am right, end of story".
That's just great, oh Oracle!
"This is not a question of "my rights online", it's a question of living in a free and safe society that does not endorse the sale of devices whose sole purpose is to kill other human beings or the sale of adult content to children who do not yet have the mental maturity to properly process it."
Two parts to this. Does not endorse the sale of devices whose sole purpose is to kill others? Ok, can I add a can-opener? That seems trivial, but it is not, and here's why: A human being is a multipurpose device that can also be used to kill another. With bare hands. Thankfully, reality has allowed us to distinguish which people are best at this: they are male, and look stronger. Often they spend much of their time practicing this skill. Since they are best at this, we should put them in charge, or they will use this ability on the rest of us.
That was every society's collective thinking on this issue until technology levelled the playing field. The fist, the rope, the knife- these devices would probably not be banned with your logic, but they could become just as deadly- but generally only when wielded by someone skilled or naturally talented in their use.
Fuck the age of heroes and villians. I like the age of physical democracy.
But the part about "adult content to children who do not yet have the mental maturity to properly process it." is the part that really gets me. Arrogance riddles your post, but few places like here. Because I could make the same post to prevent minors from accessing information that is:
-Political in nature
-Religious in nature
-Philosophical in nature
Those three spheres have resulted in intense violence over the years, and kids are obviously not as equipped to deal with them. So hell, let's ban them. Instead, lets give kids just a certain number of opinions, and punish them if they don't toe the line...
The idea that free speech doesn't apply to kids is very offensive to me, from movies to books to video games. It's almost like someone thinks they know *everything* and are trying to prevent you from thinking certain thoughts...
"I realize Slashdot has more than a bit of a libertarian slant, but there is a difference between being a libertarian and being an anarchist."
Yes. The difference is, Libertarians like the 1st and 2nd amendments, which is what we are discussing here today.
I've never heard one person complain about - except here, where there are smart people.
When I explain, in non-inflammatory terms, DRM to my technoilliterate father, he gets it. He understands that someone else controlling his machine is bad. Much of technology is confusing to *most* people, but that in no way makes it right to beat them up with their ignorance.
I don't know *anyone* who understands DRM and is ok with it, much less desires it on their machine.
"For example, think of search engines, just a little drop of AI and you will have the best search engine around."
What makes you think we aren't looking at that right now?
Insightful. Funny. Something!
Excellent. I personally loved the fantasy president delivering an internet rant agaist the Dr. Laura standin (about the Bible, and "abominations", and whatnot).
;)
I refer to the show as "Liberal Whitehouse"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050 131/480/nyet25301311822
"Newspapers publish without government oversight?"
Students: 51%
Teachers/Principals: 80%
Then it begins to switch:
"Musicians sing songs with offensive lyrics?"
Students: 70%
Teachers: 58%
Principals: 43%
And then it gets personal:
"Students should be able to report controversial issues without approval of school authorities?"
Students: 58%
Teachers: 39%
Principals: 25%
So, 7 percent of students picked NO to "allowed to report if our government jails an entire race of people", but YES to "we should be allowed to bitch when the principal makes detention longer".
That 7% is a large part of the problem, but maybe they will get it eventually.
The principals and teachers who swapped views like the *idea* of freedom, but don't like the little crunchy bits where it poops on *their* feet.
It's also worth pointing out that 80% of the teachers / principals is VERY signifigant- it means that 20% either believe (or don't care) that government should censor EVERYTHING. That's adults, folks, and that bothers me a bit more than "half of highschoolers don't get it".
System Requirements:
;)
Windows 98/Me/NT/2000/XP
What a shame!
When will we get proper application support from our totalitarian overlords?
Maybe with Wine...