I'm familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment. If you read it as a lesson about a system rather than a lesson about humans, you're coming to a useless conclusion. Your position is that, if only there were some perfectly designed system, humans would behave in a manner beneficial to all, without cruelty and oppression.
That is not what the Stanford Prison Experiment taught us. It is not what history has taught us either, because so far humans have managed to take every iteration of every single system designed by other humans however well-intended, and turn it into something that fosters corruption, abuse, injustice, violence, self-interest, and brutality.
Every. God. Damn. Time. We're humans, this is part of who we are. Think it through: if most anyone can turn into a brutal prison guard in under 24 hours if you just tell them a certain story, that would indicate a problem in most anyone, not in said certain story. How can you conclude otherwise?
I'm asking you sincerely: if you can describe a better system --one that will actually work better-- please, please do share. This one is far from perfect, and yes it's responsible for a whole lot of death and destruction, but at this point in out limited evolution this system seems like the best option. Compared to past ones, it remains the best one so far. Honestly, if you have a better solution please do tell me. I have no drive to stick to a system for its own sake or because I am comfortably familiar with it and frightened to change: I've looked around, and every other one I've seen has considerably worse failures --measured in blood and bodies-- than this one.
If I had mod points I'd waste them on your already level-5 rating.
The failure here is humanity's, not the system. Elections are actually a pretty good way to keep things from getting bloody every generation or two.
Here's an illustrative example. In 2000, I was pretty broke and living with four roommates. We had a circle of about 15-20 friends who'd regularly hang out -- come over, watch SouthPark or something. I was really concerned about the upcoming Gore -v- Bush presidential election. Without being a nagging pain about it, I tried to keep the upcoming election on their radar. I reminded them of the voter registration deadlines. I located our polling station --a five minute, seven-block walk from our house. Night before election day I reminded people to vote. Election day came, about 10 people were sitting around watching Southpark, and I reminded them again -- still plenty of time to get to the polls, it was close and there was no wait. Of course they didn't end up bothering to go vote. Had the country had a mere thousandth of a percent less apatheteic --had one of those friends in 10 across the country bothered to take a few minutes to vote-- we would not have had 8 years of W. We certainly wouldn't have a war in Iraq, and... well wishful thinking about what could have been is useless. Just happened again with the failed recall of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker.
Point is, don't blame the system; blame the lazy fucking public. Most people do not vote. It's a minor thing that could literally change the world, but hey no can do -- Game of Thrones is on and/or I have to head out to da club/mall/I'm too busy on reddit. They'll be sure to bitch about how bad the system is though, ignorance and apathy notwithstanding.
Well IANAL either, but I did complete law school and am studying for a state bar exam. I can't speak for others, but I will tell you (as briefly as I can) *why* I chose to study law.
Through college I became increasingly very suspicious of the abuse of political power in the US --and also pretty ignorant about the realities of how states and the federal government operated. The nadir for me was when Bush v. Gore demonstrated that even the US presidential election can be stolen. My suspicions led me first to a career that involved government documents research. This overlaps quite a bit with legal research. What I found following my gut suspicions, much to my surprise, was the unsexy part of government. These are the issues that never make it to press, but comprise 99.9% of the actual work of these governments. It's the kind of stuff that puts the lie to your following statement, which unfortunately sounds true --and which most people will readily believe:
the better (read: more expensive) lawyer will likely win regardless of merits in a large percentage of cases. The general public wants justice , not a game inherently biased in favour of those who learned to game the system or can afford to pay somebody to do that for them.
There are huge, glaring, outrageous exceptions -- Bush v. Gore is a ready example. However, I encourage you to go to your nearest law library, and stroll through the shelves upon shelves of case reports. Each volume contains hundreds of case reports. Even these are a small selection --usually only the cases on appeal get reported, so for each published case there were probably at least 100 trial-level cases that didn't get printed.
Pull out a volume at random, pick a case at random --don't look for one you've heard of before-- and read it. It will include a summary of the issues to be considered, the arguments presented by both sides, followed by the reasoning and the outcome. (Note that you might have to see if the appeal was appealed to the highest court to reach the actual outcome.) Tell me how unfair, how unjust, the end result was in that case. If you have the time, repeat this several thousand times.
Now no single person can ever read through all this material, there's too much. But I've read a lot more of this stuff than the general public, and because of my career history more than a fair share of recent law grads like myself. What I have consistently found, over years of this type of work, is that in an overwhelming majority of these scenarios, the end result was just. (And usually pretty goddamn boring, tbh.)
Unless I have been completely snowed (admittedly, it's a possibility), there's no overwhelmingly large interest in perpetuating an unjust system. The worst I've seen is greed, and yes that can be ugly. But I see more a *lot* more of that in most for-profit businesses than I do in law. The reason that law is complex --all those volumes of state and federal codes, not to mention regulations-- is not to obfuscate from non-lawyers. The reason law is complex is because the world is complex. The reason that it's often expensive is that it can take a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of time to try to unfuck some situation that one or more people decided to fuck up in the first place. Trying to achieve similar results when no two situations are exactly the same is, it turns out, difficult and often very time consuming. Much of what the public calls for in the guise of "justice" is actually closer to vengeance than anything else. There are injustices that continue to bother the hell out of me --I'd start squarely with a criminal justice system that is based primarily on a moralistic idea of punishment. I'm certainly not interested in "controlling access to justice." I'd rather see a more just world, and I'd rather that justice isn't a commodity afforded only to the wealthy. I am better able to address my concerns now than I could previously. If I pass the bar, I'll have the capacity to accomplish even more.
...and it has the same results. Law schools grade this way. It simply adds a very real incentive to undermine those in your group. It forces competing against one another for individual gain, often to the detriment of group progress.
It sort of makes sense for law students whose focus will be litigation, since they are training for an adversarial environment. It also ensures that the lowest performers are consistently swept out.
However it rests on the assumption that the lowest performers are necessarily and always detrimental to a group overall. This of course isn't true, since every single group will have a highest and a lowest performer. The other downside is of course that it promotes individual interests over group interests.
If all you can come up with to say to someone who's in a bad situation is, "Well, if you'd done this, that, and the other thing differently, you wouldn't be in this situation right now" then you should probably just keep your mouth shut.
Well to be fair, while the guy who asked can't undo those things, it might be helpful info for people who have yet to make those sorts of decisions.
Insensitive perhaps, but it can be a very useful skill to be able to learn from other people's mistakes, or even from their less-than-perfect choices. It seems like a perfectly good waste of our our own various imperfections, screwups, and failures to predict the future if we don't allow other people to benefit from the lessons they teach us.
Occasionally some gunk gets in there but it washes away sooner or later; and nothing spends any appreciable amount of time stuck in an individual graphene hole.
She was a real hot-shooter, that bubble. I should have known she'd be trouble from the get go; she was naturally "charged" as they say when they're trying to be polite.
With her bouncing around all over the place even at room temperature, I guess I should have seen it coming. But, as will happen to palookas and wishful thinkers, my hopes and processes got the best of me. I was convinced that any trouble would wash away as soon as it cropped She didn't even say goodbye, just left a note saying she'd thought she had found a solution with me, but couldn't stand the suspension and was afraid of becoming just another precipitate.
That was three years ago. I took the tube directly to this here graphene hole; it was the closest one I could find. I've been stuck here ever since.
At one of my old gigs, we received a donation of archival material from one person that we simply could not refuse. IIRC, it spanned about 90 shelf feet (small, in comparison to Sagan's archives), and it still took a full-time subject-expert archivist with two part-time assistants almost 3 years to process the material.
Making an archive accessible is not simply a matter of moving boxes of papers around. Someone has to go through every last damn page, categorize it, catalog it, and (hopefully) digitize it. It gets more complicated and time-consuming if you're dealing with images instead of primarily text, and I'm guessing that Sagan's archives include quite a bit of image material.
MEYERS: In high school I enjoyed math and chemistry. So in college, I thought chemical engineering might be an appropriate blend of those disciplines. As a sophomore in college, I took organic chemistry and loved it. I liked synthesis. I enjoyed thinking about how to construct molecules, and I really enjoyed the connection of organic chemistry to medicinal chemistry.
When I was a junior in college, my father was diagnosed with lung cancer. He was taking a lot of very toxic drugs, and although they were considered state-of-the-art medicinesâ"cisplatin and adriamycinâ"they made him very sick.
That intensified my interest in medicinal chemistry. A major goal of anti-cancer drug design is to improve the cytotoxic effects of drugs on cancer cells without making patients sick. My personal experience with cancer drove me to specialize in that area of science.
I'm looking for a house in a specific neighbourhood and it's absolutely impossible to do via Craigslist directly!!! If Craig offered a map, I would at least understand why they might issue a C&D, but seriously...
In the past year used CL to find a new apartment within a 1/2 square mile area of a specific neighborhood of a major metropolitan area.
When apartment ads are filled out properly, there's a direct link to both a google map and a yahoo map for the specific ad. It's trivial to create your own customized neighborhood map using these links. Those that disregard the provided map links are usually agency redirect spam posts. HOWEVER, sometimes they're from people who just filled it out improperly, or not at all. Padmapper would miss these listings.
I don't see how you can claim that padmapper saves you so much time: you need to review each link. It's not difficult to create your own custom map, and it's not particularly time consuming. You'd have to review the ads individually *anyway*, and it's a trivial matter to discard those outside of your area.
I wasn't in a rush so I had weeks to search, but even spending perhaps 15 minutes a day browsing ads I was able to map several dozen apartments in and immediately around my desired area. My point is that finding the ads isn't the part of apartment hunting that consumes the most time: it's the follow up. Calling, viewing, visiting, etc. I suppose padmapper *might* have saved me an hour or two, but it also would have missed about a sizeable portion of the CL-listed apartments in my desired area.
About the last thing any government will do is to publicly release accurate details --or even accurate general-but-vague statements-- about an attack on a sensitive/classified program, or their response to such an attack. Going into detail about an attack risks providing useful information to one's opponent about how successful the attack was, and how they might need to modify it to improve the next one. Accurately describing your response to an attack --even if just to say that the attack was unable to defeat the "necessary security measures" you took-- will similarly divulge information about your defensive capabilities.
These kinds of releases are simply designed to shape public opinion. Any correlation to the reality of a given situation will simply be incidental. You'd be better off basing your purchases solely upon the information you glean from advertisements.
I was trying to be polite, but I suppose I'll have to be blunt. Your description leaves a much more plausible explanation than your claim that a group of editors tracks every new post for some proper "tone" that you occasionally are just too rebellious to match.
It seems much, *much* more likely to me that instead, you occasionally come off like a self-righteous, unbearably narcissistic ass who grossly overestimates his own cleverness and the value of his opinion, and whose comments, once modded to -1, simply aren't worth wasting any time nor effort moderating further. In other words, people --occasionally-- simply aren't that interested in bothering with what you have to say on those occasions when you feel justified in acting out.
Convenience, I think. And sleep modes reduce power draw considerably, hibernate modes even further. For the past several years, my own laptop/netbook usage is also primary in the home (at least for anything requiring input), but even that almost never entails powering down, but instead sleep and hibernate.
How do you reconcile your low opinion of "chatting about pointless things" with your own actions, namely regularly commenting on/.? IOW, what necessity do you believe that you're serving by contributing to these discussions? It seems to me like these are discussions that interest you personally, and that you're interested in informing people about your own opinions. I don't see some sort of task-based or goal-oriented necessity there, just an interest in open-ended discussions of various topics. Here the discussion is (usually) based around a subset of specific topics.
Being able to socialize, successfully, with people whose topics of discussion range outside of your immediate circle of interests --topics you seem to think of as pointless-- can lead to useful insights and relationships. Here's a generalized example of such an insight: by simply socializing, many successful entrepreneurs have been able to identify needs (or more often, wants) for which a product or service has yet to appear. This kind of interaction --socializing-- can thus be a key factor in a successful business model.
How would you know that it's useless to you? If you think that socializing = "chatting about pointless things", it doesn't sound like it's a skill you've ever bothered to pick up.
At some point most people will need to work on teams -- that is, you need to be able to function with other people. Since team work often involves people on the same peer level interacting with one another, being able to socialize can mean the difference between an efficient, successful team, and an inefficient failing team.
Let me put it in a way you might understand... okay, here's one. Think of socializing --and the benefits skill in it brings-- as a combination of the Speechcraft/Mercantile/Speech skills found in Oblivion and Skyrim.
A lot of Windows users have been burned enough to have learned the lesson that updates will not only interrupt your work flow, but risk dumping your unsaved files and/or the tabs that they were in the middle of reading when the update dialog popped up. These users are taught that the responsible thing to do is to keep their systems up to date, but what seems worse: an action that risks dumping all of your unsaved progress, or a "security update" that fixes something that hasn't been a visible problem on their end?
The workaround to the focus-stealing forced-reboot update is, of course, is simply *not to apply the updates in a timely fashion.* As long as their applications are up and running, and they'd prefer to leave them up and running, why would they?
With this move FC is just setting itself up for the deprioritization of updates, and this could ultimately lead to worse security and stability.
Well I can think of a few simpler explanations for your experience than your claim, but I believe that you'd just find them insulting and it would shut down this exchange. So in the hope of being constructive, I will suggest an slight tweak to your approach. Try this for a week or so, and if you still run into the immediate -1 mods. If you do? Well there goes my theory, maybe you're onto something. But if you find that the downvotes disappear (as I suspect they will), well I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.
(W)hen somebody says something that is both wrong/uneducated, and I can tell it's emotional, bigoted, and antithetical and intolerant of things I believe in, then I get motivated to set the record straight in a way that "does not suffer fools"
It's this shit right here that sounds to me like prime downvote bait. Here's the suggestion: next time you see something both wrong/uneducated, something that is emotional, bigoted, antithetical, and intolerant of the things you believe in, try a minor variation on your approach to setting the record straight. No need to "suffer fools" as you put it, but just stick to disputing the something they posted. Do not --no matter how strongly a negative reaction it provokes in you-- belittle, embarrass, or try insult the *person*, even by implication (such as "only idiots would think that.") Whatever you own conclusions about the person might be, don't post them. Just disagree --as vehemently as you prefer-- and explain why you disagree.
Attack the argument, not the person -- even if they're attacking others and/or you. It can be a subtle distinction, but this is the difference between civilized-but-lively debate and ego-wanking.
I know, because my tone they hate and it consistently gets one downvote. Not a lot, just the two needed to make it negative . . . . more often than not, there is a "first psas" (ha ha First!) that zooms through right away and keeps the 'jerk tone pristine.
I'm curious: how would you characterize your "tone"? Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it sounds like you're describing your own tone as that of a jerk.
If that's the case, it just sounds like effective & efficient modding.
Don't just think of this as advice to screw around, either. Socializing is an important skill, and as a skill it is something that will improve with practice. Being able to socialize successfully and with ease will serve you well in your future career; it might be the very thing that land you a job. It's a skill that is often lacking in CS students. So go out, have fun with people, and don't think of it as being irresponsible or lazy; think of it as spending your summer "working" on an important skill.
Criminal stupidity is responsible for the vast majority of arrests. So it's not surprising that Rex Mundi went for the absolutely boneheaded move of trying to extort the scumbag AmeriCash. That move is about as lucrative and, only slightly less risky then robbing a bank. They could have made a lot more money --and had a much better chance of avoiding law enforcement-- if instead they had just quietly sold this data to AmeriCash's scumbag competitors.
Instead, their actions have rewarded them with the rapt attention of the same type of law enforcement team that was able to track down members of Anonymous.
What country? I'm loathe to recommend ING since they were purchased by Capital One, but you asked... in the US, unless they've changed their cards out in the past year, their debit card doesn't do this.
Yep, I just love it. Last November people said: I'm voting for Obama because he's anti-war and wants to see peace!
This is the same "howdja like that hopey/changey stuff?" disinformation campaign that Sarah Palin has been spewing since she lost, and you have to be willfully ignorant to buy into it. Anyone who listened to then candidate-Obama's position at the time voted for the man because he was explicit and precise on his hawkish policy: pull out of Iraq, refocus on Afghanistan. And he has stuck to that. Iraq was a wasteful use of US military resources whose only objective was to gin up KBR and Blackwater profiteering.
Obama's 2008 platform --one people like you always, always overlook and/or mischaracterize-- was a plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan, primarily to inflict further casualties on Al Qaeda. Do feel free to disagree as to whether that was effective or wise, but Obama has kept his word on that count. If you thought that would be a good idea, it was a major reason to support Obama in 2008. Obama had a plausible military plan to start to un-fuck the fucked-up middle-east position Cheney got us into. McCain's plan was basically to continue spreading our already-stretched-out resources still further: remember bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran? McCain didn't bother to present a credible approach to addressing the multiple, resource-draining clusterfucks we were in at the time.
Sounds like all of your info on candidate-Obama has been secondhand and echo-chamber material straight from his opponents. Why didn't you bother listening to what your political opponent *actually said*? Here's a suggestion: howsabout you give listening to the candidates yourself this time around, rather than just taking anything Michelle Malkin et al spoon-feeds you as absolute truth.
When people throw their garbage down the trash chutes, it piles up for several hours, until a trapdoor opens, sucking the waste into a big underground pipe. Then a complex system of air valves propels the garbage through the pipe at speeds of up to sixty miles per hour. When the trash resurfaces at the Avac center, a squat building at the northern tip of the island, it is dumped into two silo-shaped cyclones, where it is spun like cotton candy and then whooshed down chutes into huge containers.
Okay: trash chutes, I get. Trapdoors, big underground pipe, series of air valves? No problemo, obviously we'll need all of those things. Dumped into two silo-shaped cyclones? Naturally. Wooshing it down (more) chutes into huge containers: of course.
But spinning the trash like cotton candy before the last step is where I draw the line! That's simply gratuitous. What were the protoype, pre-final chute/huge container designs: slushee constant mix machine? Season the garbage with bay leaves and slow cook it for 8-12 hours in a giant crockpot? Push it off a ledge like a coin-pusher arcade machine? Roll it into a ball and run it through a life-size model of the animated pinball machine from the Pointer Sisters/Electric Company 1-2-3-4-5, 6-7-8-9-10, 11-12 song?
Dammit Swedes, how did you manage to make trash collection so fun?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment. If you read it as a lesson about a system rather than a lesson about humans, you're coming to a useless conclusion. Your position is that, if only there were some perfectly designed system, humans would behave in a manner beneficial to all, without cruelty and oppression.
That is not what the Stanford Prison Experiment taught us. It is not what history has taught us either, because so far humans have managed to take every iteration of every single system designed by other humans however well-intended, and turn it into something that fosters corruption, abuse, injustice, violence, self-interest, and brutality.
Every. God. Damn. Time. We're humans, this is part of who we are. Think it through: if most anyone can turn into a brutal prison guard in under 24 hours if you just tell them a certain story, that would indicate a problem in most anyone, not in said certain story. How can you conclude otherwise?
I'm asking you sincerely: if you can describe a better system --one that will actually work better-- please, please do share. This one is far from perfect, and yes it's responsible for a whole lot of death and destruction, but at this point in out limited evolution this system seems like the best option. Compared to past ones, it remains the best one so far. Honestly, if you have a better solution please do tell me. I have no drive to stick to a system for its own sake or because I am comfortably familiar with it and frightened to change: I've looked around, and every other one I've seen has considerably worse failures --measured in blood and bodies-- than this one.
If I had mod points I'd waste them on your already level-5 rating.
The failure here is humanity's, not the system. Elections are actually a pretty good way to keep things from getting bloody every generation or two.
Here's an illustrative example. In 2000, I was pretty broke and living with four roommates. We had a circle of about 15-20 friends who'd regularly hang out -- come over, watch SouthPark or something. I was really concerned about the upcoming Gore -v- Bush presidential election. Without being a nagging pain about it, I tried to keep the upcoming election on their radar. I reminded them of the voter registration deadlines. I located our polling station --a five minute, seven-block walk from our house. Night before election day I reminded people to vote. Election day came, about 10 people were sitting around watching Southpark, and I reminded them again -- still plenty of time to get to the polls, it was close and there was no wait. Of course they didn't end up bothering to go vote. Had the country had a mere thousandth of a percent less apatheteic --had one of those friends in 10 across the country bothered to take a few minutes to vote-- we would not have had 8 years of W. We certainly wouldn't have a war in Iraq, and... well wishful thinking about what could have been is useless. Just happened again with the failed recall of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker.
Point is, don't blame the system; blame the lazy fucking public. Most people do not vote. It's a minor thing that could literally change the world, but hey no can do -- Game of Thrones is on and/or I have to head out to da club/mall/I'm too busy on reddit. They'll be sure to bitch about how bad the system is though, ignorance and apathy notwithstanding.
Through college I became increasingly very suspicious of the abuse of political power in the US --and also pretty ignorant about the realities of how states and the federal government operated. The nadir for me was when Bush v. Gore demonstrated that even the US presidential election can be stolen. My suspicions led me first to a career that involved government documents research. This overlaps quite a bit with legal research. What I found following my gut suspicions, much to my surprise, was the unsexy part of government. These are the issues that never make it to press, but comprise 99.9% of the actual work of these governments. It's the kind of stuff that puts the lie to your following statement, which unfortunately sounds true --and which most people will readily believe:
the better (read: more expensive) lawyer will likely win regardless of merits in a large percentage of cases. The general public wants justice , not a game inherently biased in favour of those who learned to game the system or can afford to pay somebody to do that for them.
There are huge, glaring, outrageous exceptions -- Bush v. Gore is a ready example. However, I encourage you to go to your nearest law library, and stroll through the shelves upon shelves of case reports. Each volume contains hundreds of case reports. Even these are a small selection --usually only the cases on appeal get reported, so for each published case there were probably at least 100 trial-level cases that didn't get printed.
Pull out a volume at random, pick a case at random --don't look for one you've heard of before-- and read it. It will include a summary of the issues to be considered, the arguments presented by both sides, followed by the reasoning and the outcome. (Note that you might have to see if the appeal was appealed to the highest court to reach the actual outcome.) Tell me how unfair, how unjust, the end result was in that case. If you have the time, repeat this several thousand times.
Now no single person can ever read through all this material, there's too much. But I've read a lot more of this stuff than the general public, and because of my career history more than a fair share of recent law grads like myself. What I have consistently found, over years of this type of work, is that in an overwhelming majority of these scenarios, the end result was just. (And usually pretty goddamn boring, tbh.)
Unless I have been completely snowed (admittedly, it's a possibility), there's no overwhelmingly large interest in perpetuating an unjust system. The worst I've seen is greed, and yes that can be ugly. But I see more a *lot* more of that in most for-profit businesses than I do in law. The reason that law is complex --all those volumes of state and federal codes, not to mention regulations-- is not to obfuscate from non-lawyers. The reason law is complex is because the world is complex. The reason that it's often expensive is that it can take a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of time to try to unfuck some situation that one or more people decided to fuck up in the first place. Trying to achieve similar results when no two situations are exactly the same is, it turns out, difficult and often very time consuming. Much of what the public calls for in the guise of "justice" is actually closer to vengeance than anything else. There are injustices that continue to bother the hell out of me --I'd start squarely with a criminal justice system that is based primarily on a moralistic idea of punishment. I'm certainly not interested in "controlling access to justice." I'd rather see a more just world, and I'd rather that justice isn't a commodity afforded only to the wealthy. I am better able to address my concerns now than I could previously. If I pass the bar, I'll have the capacity to accomplish even more.
...and it has the same results. Law schools grade this way. It simply adds a very real incentive to undermine those in your group. It forces competing against one another for individual gain, often to the detriment of group progress.
It sort of makes sense for law students whose focus will be litigation, since they are training for an adversarial environment. It also ensures that the lowest performers are consistently swept out.
However it rests on the assumption that the lowest performers are necessarily and always detrimental to a group overall. This of course isn't true, since every single group will have a highest and a lowest performer. The other downside is of course that it promotes individual interests over group interests.
If all you can come up with to say to someone who's in a bad situation is, "Well, if you'd done this, that, and the other thing differently, you wouldn't be in this situation right now" then you should probably just keep your mouth shut.
Well to be fair, while the guy who asked can't undo those things, it might be helpful info for people who have yet to make those sorts of decisions.
Insensitive perhaps, but it can be a very useful skill to be able to learn from other people's mistakes, or even from their less-than-perfect choices. It seems like a perfectly good waste of our our own various imperfections, screwups, and failures to predict the future if we don't allow other people to benefit from the lessons they teach us.
Occasionally some gunk gets in there but it washes away sooner or later; and nothing spends any appreciable amount of time stuck in an individual graphene hole.
She was a real hot-shooter, that bubble. I should have known she'd be trouble from the get go; she was naturally "charged" as they say when they're trying to be polite.
With her bouncing around all over the place even at room temperature, I guess I should have seen it coming. But, as will happen to palookas and wishful thinkers, my hopes and processes got the best of me. I was convinced that any trouble would wash away as soon as it cropped She didn't even say goodbye, just left a note saying she'd thought she had found a solution with me, but couldn't stand the suspension and was afraid of becoming just another precipitate.
That was three years ago. I took the tube directly to this here graphene hole; it was the closest one I could find. I've been stuck here ever since.
They've been "Down for Emergency Maintenance" for quite some time now.
/r/leapsecond subreddit that covers this.
One would think they'd have seen this coming, because I'm pretty sure there's a
At one of my old gigs, we received a donation of archival material from one person that we simply could not refuse. IIRC, it spanned about 90 shelf feet (small, in comparison to Sagan's archives), and it still took a full-time subject-expert archivist with two part-time assistants almost 3 years to process the material.
Making an archive accessible is not simply a matter of moving boxes of papers around. Someone has to go through every last damn page, categorize it, catalog it, and (hopefully) digitize it. It gets more complicated and time-consuming if you're dealing with images instead of primarily text, and I'm guessing that Sagan's archives include quite a bit of image material.
Ask female scientists why they got into science and create something that triggers those buttons in girls.
I imagine it's the same kinds of things that attract men to science, combined with a disregard for any prejudice they encounter along the way. I recently came across this rather impressive scientist at a conference, and here's here description of what got her into her field: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institute_basic_biomedical_sciences/about_us/scientists/caren_meyers.html
When did your interest in chemistry begin?
MEYERS: In high school I enjoyed math and chemistry. So in college, I thought chemical engineering might be an appropriate blend of those disciplines. As a sophomore in college, I took organic chemistry and loved it. I liked synthesis. I enjoyed thinking about how to construct molecules, and I really enjoyed the connection of organic chemistry to medicinal chemistry.
When I was a junior in college, my father was diagnosed with lung cancer. He was taking a lot of very toxic drugs, and although they were considered state-of-the-art medicinesâ"cisplatin and adriamycinâ"they made him very sick.
That intensified my interest in medicinal chemistry. A major goal of anti-cancer drug design is to improve the cytotoxic effects of drugs on cancer cells without making patients sick. My personal experience with cancer drove me to specialize in that area of science.
I'm looking for a house in a specific neighbourhood and it's absolutely impossible to do via Craigslist directly!!! If Craig offered a map, I would at least understand why they might issue a C&D, but seriously...
In the past year used CL to find a new apartment within a 1/2 square mile area of a specific neighborhood of a major metropolitan area.
When apartment ads are filled out properly, there's a direct link to both a google map and a yahoo map for the specific ad. It's trivial to create your own customized neighborhood map using these links. Those that disregard the provided map links are usually agency redirect spam posts. HOWEVER, sometimes they're from people who just filled it out improperly, or not at all. Padmapper would miss these listings.
I don't see how you can claim that padmapper saves you so much time: you need to review each link. It's not difficult to create your own custom map, and it's not particularly time consuming. You'd have to review the ads individually *anyway*, and it's a trivial matter to discard those outside of your area.
I wasn't in a rush so I had weeks to search, but even spending perhaps 15 minutes a day browsing ads I was able to map several dozen apartments in and immediately around my desired area. My point is that finding the ads isn't the part of apartment hunting that consumes the most time: it's the follow up. Calling, viewing, visiting, etc. I suppose padmapper *might* have saved me an hour or two, but it also would have missed about a sizeable portion of the CL-listed apartments in my desired area.
There's little point at taking the claims in press release like this at face value, even those of the better-quality reuters article http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/21/uk-iran-cyber-nuclear-idUKBRE85K1EG20120621
About the last thing any government will do is to publicly release accurate details --or even accurate general-but-vague statements-- about an attack on a sensitive/classified program, or their response to such an attack. Going into detail about an attack risks providing useful information to one's opponent about how successful the attack was, and how they might need to modify it to improve the next one. Accurately describing your response to an attack --even if just to say that the attack was unable to defeat the "necessary security measures" you took-- will similarly divulge information about your defensive capabilities.
These kinds of releases are simply designed to shape public opinion. Any correlation to the reality of a given situation will simply be incidental. You'd be better off basing your purchases solely upon the information you glean from advertisements.
So you believe that you're superior to most of the people you've encountered. I suppose you also believe that's an interesting insight to share.
I was trying to be polite, but I suppose I'll have to be blunt. Your description leaves a much more plausible explanation than your claim that a group of editors tracks every new post for some proper "tone" that you occasionally are just too rebellious to match.
It seems much, *much* more likely to me that instead, you occasionally come off like a self-righteous, unbearably narcissistic ass who grossly overestimates his own cleverness and the value of his opinion, and whose comments, once modded to -1, simply aren't worth wasting any time nor effort moderating further. In other words, people --occasionally-- simply aren't that interested in bothering with what you have to say on those occasions when you feel justified in acting out.
Convenience, I think. And sleep modes reduce power draw considerably, hibernate modes even further. For the past several years, my own laptop/netbook usage is also primary in the home (at least for anything requiring input), but even that almost never entails powering down, but instead sleep and hibernate.
How do you reconcile your low opinion of "chatting about pointless things" with your own actions, namely regularly commenting on /.? IOW, what necessity do you believe that you're serving by contributing to these discussions? It seems to me like these are discussions that interest you personally, and that you're interested in informing people about your own opinions. I don't see some sort of task-based or goal-oriented necessity there, just an interest in open-ended discussions of various topics. Here the discussion is (usually) based around a subset of specific topics.
Being able to socialize, successfully, with people whose topics of discussion range outside of your immediate circle of interests --topics you seem to think of as pointless-- can lead to useful insights and relationships. Here's a generalized example of such an insight: by simply socializing, many successful entrepreneurs have been able to identify needs (or more often, wants) for which a product or service has yet to appear. This kind of interaction --socializing-- can thus be a key factor in a successful business model.
How would you know that it's useless to you? If you think that socializing = "chatting about pointless things", it doesn't sound like it's a skill you've ever bothered to pick up.
At some point most people will need to work on teams -- that is, you need to be able to function with other people. Since team work often involves people on the same peer level interacting with one another, being able to socialize can mean the difference between an efficient, successful team, and an inefficient failing team.
Let me put it in a way you might understand... okay, here's one. Think of socializing --and the benefits skill in it brings-- as a combination of the Speechcraft/Mercantile/Speech skills found in Oblivion and Skyrim.
A lot of Windows users have been burned enough to have learned the lesson that updates will not only interrupt your work flow, but risk dumping your unsaved files and/or the tabs that they were in the middle of reading when the update dialog popped up. These users are taught that the responsible thing to do is to keep their systems up to date, but what seems worse: an action that risks dumping all of your unsaved progress, or a "security update" that fixes something that hasn't been a visible problem on their end?
The workaround to the focus-stealing forced-reboot update is, of course, is simply *not to apply the updates in a timely fashion.* As long as their applications are up and running, and they'd prefer to leave them up and running, why would they?
With this move FC is just setting itself up for the deprioritization of updates, and this could ultimately lead to worse security and stability.
(W)hen somebody says something that is both wrong/uneducated, and I can tell it's emotional, bigoted, and antithetical and intolerant of things I believe in, then I get motivated to set the record straight in a way that "does not suffer fools"
It's this shit right here that sounds to me like prime downvote bait. Here's the suggestion: next time you see something both wrong/uneducated, something that is emotional, bigoted, antithetical, and intolerant of the things you believe in, try a minor variation on your approach to setting the record straight. No need to "suffer fools" as you put it, but just stick to disputing the something they posted. Do not --no matter how strongly a negative reaction it provokes in you-- belittle, embarrass, or try insult the *person*, even by implication (such as "only idiots would think that.") Whatever you own conclusions about the person might be, don't post them. Just disagree --as vehemently as you prefer-- and explain why you disagree.
Attack the argument, not the person -- even if they're attacking others and/or you. It can be a subtle distinction, but this is the difference between civilized-but-lively debate and ego-wanking.
I know, because my tone they hate and it consistently gets one downvote. Not a lot, just the two needed to make it negative . . . . more often than not, there is a "first psas" (ha ha First!) that zooms through right away and keeps the 'jerk tone pristine.
I'm curious: how would you characterize your "tone"? Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it sounds like you're describing your own tone as that of a jerk.
If that's the case, it just sounds like effective & efficient modding.
Yep..go out, have fun with friends...get laid.
Don't just think of this as advice to screw around, either. Socializing is an important skill, and as a skill it is something that will improve with practice. Being able to socialize successfully and with ease will serve you well in your future career; it might be the very thing that land you a job. It's a skill that is often lacking in CS students. So go out, have fun with people, and don't think of it as being irresponsible or lazy; think of it as spending your summer "working" on an important skill.
And enjoy it.
Criminal stupidity is responsible for the vast majority of arrests. So it's not surprising that Rex Mundi went for the absolutely boneheaded move of trying to extort the scumbag AmeriCash. That move is about as lucrative and, only slightly less risky then robbing a bank. They could have made a lot more money --and had a much better chance of avoiding law enforcement-- if instead they had just quietly sold this data to AmeriCash's scumbag competitors.
Instead, their actions have rewarded them with the rapt attention of the same type of law enforcement team that was able to track down members of Anonymous.
What country? I'm loathe to recommend ING since they were purchased by Capital One, but you asked... in the US, unless they've changed their cards out in the past year, their debit card doesn't do this.
Once again an article from The Onion accurately predicts the future, because this is clearly going to be the next development after Time/Warner successfully eliminates fast-forward: http://www.theonion.com/articles/advertising-firm-unveils-new-muteresistant-commerc,6667/
Yep, I just love it. Last November people said: I'm voting for Obama because he's anti-war and wants to see peace!
This is the same "howdja like that hopey/changey stuff?" disinformation campaign that Sarah Palin has been spewing since she lost, and you have to be willfully ignorant to buy into it. Anyone who listened to then candidate-Obama's position at the time voted for the man because he was explicit and precise on his hawkish policy: pull out of Iraq, refocus on Afghanistan. And he has stuck to that. Iraq was a wasteful use of US military resources whose only objective was to gin up KBR and Blackwater profiteering.
Obama's 2008 platform --one people like you always, always overlook and/or mischaracterize-- was a plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan, primarily to inflict further casualties on Al Qaeda. Do feel free to disagree as to whether that was effective or wise, but Obama has kept his word on that count. If you thought that would be a good idea, it was a major reason to support Obama in 2008. Obama had a plausible military plan to start to un-fuck the fucked-up middle-east position Cheney got us into. McCain's plan was basically to continue spreading our already-stretched-out resources still further: remember bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran? McCain didn't bother to present a credible approach to addressing the multiple, resource-draining clusterfucks we were in at the time.
Sounds like all of your info on candidate-Obama has been secondhand and echo-chamber material straight from his opponents. Why didn't you bother listening to what your political opponent *actually said*? Here's a suggestion: howsabout you give listening to the candidates yourself this time around, rather than just taking anything Michelle Malkin et al spoon-feeds you as absolute truth.
When people throw their garbage down the trash chutes, it piles up for several hours, until a trapdoor opens, sucking the waste into a big underground pipe. Then a complex system of air valves propels the garbage through the pipe at speeds of up to sixty miles per hour. When the trash resurfaces at the Avac center, a squat building at the northern tip of the island, it is dumped into two silo-shaped cyclones, where it is spun like cotton candy and then whooshed down chutes into huge containers.
Okay: trash chutes, I get. Trapdoors, big underground pipe, series of air valves? No problemo, obviously we'll need all of those things. Dumped into two silo-shaped cyclones? Naturally. Wooshing it down (more) chutes into huge containers: of course.
But spinning the trash like cotton candy before the last step is where I draw the line! That's simply gratuitous. What were the protoype, pre-final chute/huge container designs: slushee constant mix machine? Season the garbage with bay leaves and slow cook it for 8-12 hours in a giant crockpot? Push it off a ledge like a coin-pusher arcade machine? Roll it into a ball and run it through a life-size model of the animated pinball machine from the Pointer Sisters/Electric Company 1-2-3-4-5, 6-7-8-9-10, 11-12 song?
Dammit Swedes, how did you manage to make trash collection so fun?