Um, the article says "Palomaeki said a prosecutor would decide if the evidence was solid enough for charges to be pressed." It seems that it has yet to be decided whether there is sufficient evidence.
It amazes me how quick people are to pass judgement based on a >20 line story. Generally I am a lot more trusting of police to tell the whole story than I am of journalists.
Sure, as a general reader of the article I'm not required to assume the man is innocent but it is in my nature to do so. I generally find that people who are quick to judge others guilty based on inconclusive evidence are distrustful, paranoid or unhappy in life as a result.
If we all thought 'Why shouldn't I believe you?' instead of 'Why should I believe you?' the world would be a better place.
Sorry to disappoint you but I didn't really have any specific plans for it, I was just making a point about reminiscing. Next time the old 486 moves it will probably be because my father wants the space back under the stairs.
Red is used for the positive wire in electronics. This always confused the hell out of me, until I realised that the electrons flowed around the circuit â" which is the opposite of conventional current â" then I remembered it by thinking "the colour is the opposite of the convention."
Now, if we start associating red with positive by convention, I'll be screwed up again. But then, so will everyone doing economics, so it's not all bad.
I'd like to start a petition to have the Great Firewall of Britain renamed Hadrian's Firewall. I think it's more authentically British that way. Who's with me?
Why not? Well, why not would be because it's distracting to students doing the test!
It's hard enough to concentrate on a question in a test situation without having an ad trying to grab your attention as well.
Plus, students have to concentrate hard on questions in a test. Therefore if the ads are in and around the questions their mental defences to the advertising are lower. I can't choose not to pay attention to the test or else my marks will suffer. It's an abuse of trust on the part of the teacher to force advertising on students in this way.
I disagree. Because the movie is silent in parts and because there are long pauses it is true to its medium: space.
By slowing the film down, we have time to reflect on how vast space is, which is one of the film's charms.
As science fiction readers we always seem to approach a movie release of our favourite stories with dread.
Why do film makers always do such a bad job with sci-fi classics? Is it just blatant commercialism? Is it that modernisation of a classic story is inappropriate? Or is it something more fundamental - do film makers simply not understand science fiction?
I have a feeling that when Hollywood hears the words 'science fiction' they immediately think special effects and action and how they can maximise those things for the viewing experience. Yet sci-fi books are about ideas. I, Robot is a classic example of the whole point of the book being sacrificed for extra action. Similarly I am Legend for those who have read the book is most thought provoking in its ending but Hollywood sacrificed that for a... well, Hollywood ending.
There have been some excellent sci-fi movies: 2001, The Andromeda Strain for instance, so it is possible. Why do film makers so often get it wrong?
That's probably true. However many people will be offended by that notion. White men are amongst the groups most likely to give to charities that don't directly affect them. For instance, in Australia we regularly see male celebrities wearing pink in support of the breast cancer foundation. A large portion of the population (including men) have been encouraged to give as a result of this campaign.
The dominant idea surrounding charity is that you give to ease someone else's burden or pain. Here there is a Child Flight charity that runs with the slogan "It might not be your child they save, but it will be somebody's." Charity is about empathy for the sick/disadvantaged. By trying to choose a charity that is more likely to affect the student body, it looks more like self interest. It looks like they are just trying to put money into curing something that they might get, there is no empathy in that and so it looks uncharitable.
For some reason this post makes me think of celebrities. You know the ones I mean. The ones who get a disease and then become champions of raising awareness about that disease. This doesn't strike me as charity so much as self interest.
I do wonder though, if there are a whole slew of charities desperately hoping that a prominent enough celebrity gets the disease they are campaigning for a cure for.
Yes well, if all you did was code open source then all the only table you could afford would be metaphorical.
I'm not a programmer (I'm a scientist), but I do worry that the propensity of open source means we, as a society, undervalue the work that programmers do.
Just because someone enjoys furthering a project does that mean we should not remunerate them for their work? A good piece of software is just as valuable as any other product on the market. But since it is easy to copy and available for all to build on, the people who write the code get paid very little - if at all.
Don't get me wrong. I like open source. I use open source software sometimes and they are usually really great programs. I just don't think programmers are being adequately rewarded for their labour. If all software goes open source then why would anyone do a university course in software development?
So what's the solution? Should there be a guild of programmers that is given grants by governments and industry to work on certain projects? So that they apply for funding the same way scientists do? Is this an idea that is fundamentally flawed?
Ok, modded as a troll it is. However, not so long ago we were calling microsoft evil for the way in which they proliferated their O/S and browser by having it bundled with new PCs. Now that Google is doing this it is suddenly ok? For me their priority should have been perfecting their browser (and it isn't as good as its competition yet) before engaging in the "evil" aggressive marketing tactics of its competitor. That is what I call 'getting it right'.
And I also agree with someone else who pointed out 2009 is only 6 weeks away. That's not so long for the successor to a browser that is still very competitive. Microsoft 'have it right' in this instance: make sure the successor is air tight before replacing a solid product.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh really? You can write what you need to on a label that small?
For any government?
Just so you know Australia has a negative population growth without immigration. That's despite things like the baby bonus etc.
Um, the article says "Palomaeki said a prosecutor would decide if the evidence was solid enough for charges to be pressed." It seems that it has yet to be decided whether there is sufficient evidence.
It amazes me how quick people are to pass judgement based on a >20 line story. Generally I am a lot more trusting of police to tell the whole story than I am of journalists.
Sure, as a general reader of the article I'm not required to assume the man is innocent but it is in my nature to do so. I generally find that people who are quick to judge others guilty based on inconclusive evidence are distrustful, paranoid or unhappy in life as a result.
If we all thought 'Why shouldn't I believe you?' instead of 'Why should I believe you?' the world would be a better place.
Someone please mod this up.
Sorry to disappoint you but I didn't really have any specific plans for it, I was just making a point about reminiscing. Next time the old 486 moves it will probably be because my father wants the space back under the stairs.
First uttered by the Librarian of Alexandra 1000 years ago, "I'll back it up tomorrow."
John Wayne's not dead, he's frozen...
Nanotubes, is there anything they can't do?
Red is used for the positive wire in electronics. This always confused the hell out of me, until I realised that the electrons flowed around the circuit â" which is the opposite of conventional current â" then I remembered it by thinking "the colour is the opposite of the convention." Now, if we start associating red with positive by convention, I'll be screwed up again. But then, so will everyone doing economics, so it's not all bad.
'Colour blind'. Can someone please thing of the non-American children?
carry a light blue pencil.
I'd like to start a petition to have the Great Firewall of Britain renamed Hadrian's Firewall. I think it's more authentically British that way. Who's with me?
Would it kill you to use a capital letter at the start of each sentence?
Why not? Well, why not would be because it's distracting to students doing the test!
It's hard enough to concentrate on a question in a test situation without having an ad trying to grab your attention as well.
Plus, students have to concentrate hard on questions in a test. Therefore if the ads are in and around the questions their mental defences to the advertising are lower. I can't choose not to pay attention to the test or else my marks will suffer. It's an abuse of trust on the part of the teacher to force advertising on students in this way.
What I got out of this article: the type of patience required to be a statistician; or should that be patients?
I disagree. Because the movie is silent in parts and because there are long pauses it is true to its medium: space. By slowing the film down, we have time to reflect on how vast space is, which is one of the film's charms.
As science fiction readers we always seem to approach a movie release of our favourite stories with dread.
Why do film makers always do such a bad job with sci-fi classics? Is it just blatant commercialism? Is it that modernisation of a classic story is inappropriate? Or is it something more fundamental - do film makers simply not understand science fiction?
I have a feeling that when Hollywood hears the words 'science fiction' they immediately think special effects and action and how they can maximise those things for the viewing experience. Yet sci-fi books are about ideas. I, Robot is a classic example of the whole point of the book being sacrificed for extra action. Similarly I am Legend for those who have read the book is most thought provoking in its ending but Hollywood sacrificed that for a... well, Hollywood ending.
There have been some excellent sci-fi movies: 2001, The Andromeda Strain for instance, so it is possible. Why do film makers so often get it wrong?
That's probably true. However many people will be offended by that notion. White men are amongst the groups most likely to give to charities that don't directly affect them. For instance, in Australia we regularly see male celebrities wearing pink in support of the breast cancer foundation. A large portion of the population (including men) have been encouraged to give as a result of this campaign.
The dominant idea surrounding charity is that you give to ease someone else's burden or pain. Here there is a Child Flight charity that runs with the slogan "It might not be your child they save, but it will be somebody's." Charity is about empathy for the sick/disadvantaged. By trying to choose a charity that is more likely to affect the student body, it looks more like self interest. It looks like they are just trying to put money into curing something that they might get, there is no empathy in that and so it looks uncharitable.
For some reason this post makes me think of celebrities. You know the ones I mean. The ones who get a disease and then become champions of raising awareness about that disease. This doesn't strike me as charity so much as self interest.
I do wonder though, if there are a whole slew of charities desperately hoping that a prominent enough celebrity gets the disease they are campaigning for a cure for.
Well the ones on my cat never do! He seems to be powered (the engine is purring) but no light? What do I do?
Yes well, if all you did was code open source then all the only table you could afford would be metaphorical.
I'm not a programmer (I'm a scientist), but I do worry that the propensity of open source means we, as a society, undervalue the work that programmers do.
Just because someone enjoys furthering a project does that mean we should not remunerate them for their work? A good piece of software is just as valuable as any other product on the market. But since it is easy to copy and available for all to build on, the people who write the code get paid very little - if at all.
Don't get me wrong. I like open source. I use open source software sometimes and they are usually really great programs. I just don't think programmers are being adequately rewarded for their labour. If all software goes open source then why would anyone do a university course in software development?
So what's the solution? Should there be a guild of programmers that is given grants by governments and industry to work on certain projects? So that they apply for funding the same way scientists do? Is this an idea that is fundamentally flawed?
Ok, modded as a troll it is. However, not so long ago we were calling microsoft evil for the way in which they proliferated their O/S and browser by having it bundled with new PCs. Now that Google is doing this it is suddenly ok? For me their priority should have been perfecting their browser (and it isn't as good as its competition yet) before engaging in the "evil" aggressive marketing tactics of its competitor. That is what I call 'getting it right'.
And I also agree with someone else who pointed out 2009 is only 6 weeks away. That's not so long for the successor to a browser that is still very competitive. Microsoft 'have it right' in this instance: make sure the successor is air tight before replacing a solid product.
Yeah, how long will it take before Google gets it right?
If I had mod points you'd be +1 Informative.
You're right. I was thinking of the movie.