But again, I would suggest that even "passing on genetic traits to offspring" suggests an ACTIVE role in the process, rather than "the genetic traits that didn't meet the current environment died off with the individuals who had them". My very point is that the wording is poor - I think I understand it just fine, and can differentiate between active and passive verbs.
Darwin called it "natural selection". "Evolution", like the OP "developed an aversion", suggests something active happened - these bugs changed - rather than something passive - these bugs are the only ones left (because the other ones ate the poison).
You guys seem to think you're the most interesting person in the world and everybody else is just dying to get a scoop on your private life.
No. We think it's a problem because it doesn't take any effort. Paparrazi invest time and money waiting to take photos of celebrities' private lives because someone pays them for it. Business doesn't have to work as hard; it just has to skim through the constant stream of information passing through the financial and legal and communication channels as it passes by. And it's not interested in *me*; it's a totally random fishing expedition in which I might get caught up by accident in an *incorrect* connection to something. So the concern should be more along the lines of: We think that there shouldn't be random traps set everywhere for average people minding their own business.
Second assumption: Your unwanted 'adverts' won't threaten your life for being (positions)
Well, that escalated quickly.
That's exactly the point. It *could* escalate quickly - particularly since it's being done by stupid computers with keywords, not thoughtful people reading a discussion. Imagine the "flash crash" of the stock market, or the publicity flare about a celebrity's comment, applying to YOUR employment. "We understand you're a (worst possible undesirable of whatever type), so you're fired."
After years at a place that kept its programmers and engineers as caffeinated as possible, with real milk in the fridge, things started running out. The layoffs weren't far behind. The place I'm at now is the first place I have ever seen in 35 years that didn't feed its engineers all the coffee they could stand - even the machine in the lunchroom needs better brown crayons. What kind of attitude does that project?
I was a kid when TOS was on the air. What we call cheap and cheezy now was the standard level at the time. Watch some of the original Mission:Impossible to compare.
She was a telephone operator and LINGUIST, even in TOS. She could talk to aliens when nobody else on the ship could. Yes, totally agreed, not much by today's standards, but a female black educated officer was a step forward at the time.
You can patent "remember what your regular customers buy and suggest accompaniments and accessories" - which people have been doing since camel caravans on the Silk Road and before - by adding "on a computer" or "with a single click". The concept has gone overboard.
Careful. Back when I was in college, NO computer programs could be patented under exactly that logic. The whole argument about doing the same as some old business process "on a computer" would have made it NOT patentable, rather than "new" as is currently done. So when the group I worked with came up with a major new wrinkle in a manufacturing process that involved mostly software, the lawyers decided it was unpatentable and we didn't get any filing bonus - unlike the mechanical folks who got a patent and bonuses for bending a piece of metal a few extra degrees.
I've been conflicted on the issue of software patents my whole career because of my experiences. On the one hand, they are MUCH overused and abused, and stifle the spread of good practices across the industry. On the other, people should get recognition for original creative work.
Yes, blood doping is banned in sports, but why not permit it for normal use? Most other doping, too. Lance was only cheating because he was competing; if I could get healthier and stronger, rather than getting older and finding out why grandma used to complain about her arthritis, I'd take the same stuff. No, make it a double.
Exactly. "Public view" has had a particular meaning for years. An upper-floor window would typically have been considered private. The new existence of the HD-camera-broadcasting quadricopter should not suddenly change those meanings. If the operator had climbed up the outside of the house to get his/her eyeballs in the same place, it would be considered an offense; even watching from afar with a telescope could be considered an offense if discovered. The fact that it is technologically easier does not make it less objectionable.
Polite society dictates that even though I can hear things not intended for my ears that I don't put them on the internet.
Those who have crucified Bradley Manning and who would like to do the same to Julian Assange are glad to hear you say that. They are winning the war for our minds, and you are complicit in their victory.
Disagree strongly. There are tremendous differences of scale, and dependencies on the subject matter. If I overhear the couple at the next restaurant table discussing their love life, or their medical history, it is not appropriate to spread it around. They may be foolish to be talking about it where others might hear; I do not have to join in or compound the foolishness by spreading it further.
This is totally different from whistle-blowing or "sunshine laws" ensuring public knowledge of things that *should* be public because they affect the public.
If you choose to spill everything about yourself online, go ahead, it's your choice. I will not spill things about you, identified or not, and tradition is that nobody else should either. Without this kind of tradition it becomes very difficult to live in any kind of society.
At this point, with all the publicity, any idiot would understand the idea of multiple coordinated bombs, even if they didn't play strategy games or read Tom Clancy-ish novels and have a passing familiarity with tactics - like many of the engineers and programmers who read Slashdot.
We didn't all go batshit crazy. I'm as annoyed with the security theater as anyone else. OTOH, since we live in an NYC suburb, my wife and I personally knew two people who were killed and one who was injured by falling debris, and two couples who had to move out of their homes until the poisonous cloud settled down. Our son had multiple schoolmates who lost a parent.
By the way, I think even the most idiotic gun nuts think we should have some legislation covering guns like, you know, background checks to weed out felons.
Luckily, we passed those laws a couple decades ago.
No, we didn't, and part of the problem is that people think we did.
I think, as I said, that he has a brain between the ears. I think much less of the reformed drunk who preceded him (even less in comparison to his father, who was much more capable) who demonstrated repeatedly that he was short on clues.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, I *am* old, thanks for noticing.
But again, I would suggest that even "passing on genetic traits to offspring" suggests an ACTIVE role in the process, rather than "the genetic traits that didn't meet the current environment died off with the individuals who had them". My very point is that the wording is poor - I think I understand it just fine, and can differentiate between active and passive verbs.
Darwin called it "natural selection". "Evolution", like the OP "developed an aversion", suggests something active happened - these bugs changed - rather than something passive - these bugs are the only ones left (because the other ones ate the poison).
You guys seem to think you're the most interesting person in the world and everybody else is just dying to get a scoop on your private life.
No. We think it's a problem because it doesn't take any effort. Paparrazi invest time and money waiting to take photos of celebrities' private lives because someone pays them for it. Business doesn't have to work as hard; it just has to skim through the constant stream of information passing through the financial and legal and communication channels as it passes by. And it's not interested in *me*; it's a totally random fishing expedition in which I might get caught up by accident in an *incorrect* connection to something. So the concern should be more along the lines of: We think that there shouldn't be random traps set everywhere for average people minding their own business.
Second assumption: Your unwanted 'adverts' won't threaten your life for being (positions)
Well, that escalated quickly.
That's exactly the point. It *could* escalate quickly - particularly since it's being done by stupid computers with keywords, not thoughtful people reading a discussion. Imagine the "flash crash" of the stock market, or the publicity flare about a celebrity's comment, applying to YOUR employment. "We understand you're a (worst possible undesirable of whatever type), so you're fired."
Business affects me daily. It pays my salary. And it has no rules or transparency.
Teenagers, on the other hand, have trouble thinking about the future of 5 minutes, let alone when they want to apply for jobs and clearances.
Or perhaps you remember the Dumarest stories, each of which had a Cyber with "the trained voice which contained no irritant factors" . . .
Seriously, there must be enough audio of Majel Barrett to synthesize a decent copy. Sounds like an open source Kickstarter to me.
My first computer ran CP/M.
Newbie. IBM 1130.
After years at a place that kept its programmers and engineers as caffeinated as possible, with real milk in the fridge, things started running out. The layoffs weren't far behind. The place I'm at now is the first place I have ever seen in 35 years that didn't feed its engineers all the coffee they could stand - even the machine in the lunchroom needs better brown crayons. What kind of attitude does that project?
I was a kid when TOS was on the air. What we call cheap and cheezy now was the standard level at the time. Watch some of the original Mission:Impossible to compare.
Western? Did you notice the fight scene taken directly from a western's fight scene on a moving train? :-)
I read the line as: Abrams' ST is a ripoff, a cheap retread, not a reboot in the sense of rethinking the ideas.
She was a telephone operator and LINGUIST, even in TOS. She could talk to aliens when nobody else on the ship could. Yes, totally agreed, not much by today's standards, but a female black educated officer was a step forward at the time.
You can patent "remember what your regular customers buy and suggest accompaniments and accessories" - which people have been doing since camel caravans on the Silk Road and before - by adding "on a computer" or "with a single click". The concept has gone overboard.
Careful. Back when I was in college, NO computer programs could be patented under exactly that logic. The whole argument about doing the same as some old business process "on a computer" would have made it NOT patentable, rather than "new" as is currently done. So when the group I worked with came up with a major new wrinkle in a manufacturing process that involved mostly software, the lawyers decided it was unpatentable and we didn't get any filing bonus - unlike the mechanical folks who got a patent and bonuses for bending a piece of metal a few extra degrees.
I've been conflicted on the issue of software patents my whole career because of my experiences. On the one hand, they are MUCH overused and abused, and stifle the spread of good practices across the industry. On the other, people should get recognition for original creative work.
Do virgins taste better than those who are not?
Yes, blood doping is banned in sports, but why not permit it for normal use? Most other doping, too. Lance was only cheating because he was competing; if I could get healthier and stronger, rather than getting older and finding out why grandma used to complain about her arthritis, I'd take the same stuff. No, make it a double.
Not exactly new. New application, maybe.
Just sayin'. Bet lots of you wise-guys couldn't even figure out the manual.
Exactly. "Public view" has had a particular meaning for years. An upper-floor window would typically have been considered private. The new existence of the HD-camera-broadcasting quadricopter should not suddenly change those meanings. If the operator had climbed up the outside of the house to get his/her eyeballs in the same place, it would be considered an offense; even watching from afar with a telescope could be considered an offense if discovered. The fact that it is technologically easier does not make it less objectionable.
Polite society dictates that even though I can hear things not intended for my ears that I don't put them on the internet.
Those who have crucified Bradley Manning and who would like to do the same to Julian Assange are glad to hear you say that. They are winning the war for our minds, and you are complicit in their victory.
Disagree strongly. There are tremendous differences of scale, and dependencies on the subject matter. If I overhear the couple at the next restaurant table discussing their love life, or their medical history, it is not appropriate to spread it around. They may be foolish to be talking about it where others might hear; I do not have to join in or compound the foolishness by spreading it further.
This is totally different from whistle-blowing or "sunshine laws" ensuring public knowledge of things that *should* be public because they affect the public.
If you choose to spill everything about yourself online, go ahead, it's your choice. I will not spill things about you, identified or not, and tradition is that nobody else should either. Without this kind of tradition it becomes very difficult to live in any kind of society.
At this point, with all the publicity, any idiot would understand the idea of multiple coordinated bombs, even if they didn't play strategy games or read Tom Clancy-ish novels and have a passing familiarity with tactics - like many of the engineers and programmers who read Slashdot.
We didn't all go batshit crazy. I'm as annoyed with the security theater as anyone else. OTOH, since we live in an NYC suburb, my wife and I personally knew two people who were killed and one who was injured by falling debris, and two couples who had to move out of their homes until the poisonous cloud settled down. Our son had multiple schoolmates who lost a parent.
Luckily, we passed those laws a couple decades ago.
No, we didn't, and part of the problem is that people think we did.
I think, as I said, that he has a brain between the ears. I think much less of the reformed drunk who preceded him (even less in comparison to his father, who was much more capable) who demonstrated repeatedly that he was short on clues.