Everyone who doesn't have a personal stake in the game is naturally inclined to act recklessly. See the decade-ly cycles of recession and depression economies slip into when markets (housing, finance, oil, whatever) forget that someone else's money is still of value and not to be treated with total abandon.
The decisionmakers at ISPs don't have a piece of skin in this fight because they have special classes of access just as a benefit of being where they are within their companies, and they stand to make more personally from making profit-minded decisions. For these reasons, there's very little personal incentive to uphold the moral high ground because the decisions don't have an immediate negative impact on them. They might feel it once they retire and/or if they go to a different industry, but that's after they've made their profit, and it's long after their short-term decisionmaking window.
It's just human nature. We haven't had this trait bred out, and it's doubtful we as a species ever will. The only way to counter short-sighted thinking is by shortening the mental leap between short-sighted decisions and long-term consequences, which is what everyone fighting for net neutrality is trying to demonstrate right now by citing live examples of where a lack of enforcement has already gone wrong (T-Mobile Unlimited Music, Netflix v. Comcast/VZ, etc.)
The Surface Pro 3, released earlier this year, is selling far better than its predecessors, and for the first time Microsoft has recorded a positive gross profit for the Surface business.
It would do you well to source timely things, sir.
How would you know if B never sends data back? B is sending junk data just as you are. To an outside observer, the amount of throughput by B would never change even if B sends an actual response.
Disagreed. While not voting is still an active decision, it's not a no-vote. It's a make-everyone-else's-vote-more-powerful vote. Not voting magnifies the group which decides to vote.
The right decision would be to vote for a write-in or a throw-away. You still vote, and if enough people do that in elections where a majority is required, a run-off election might be the end result. This is the preferred outcome as it forces all leading candidates to restate their case and take actual voting metrics into account, potentially changing which groups are catered.
Trade secret? Hell no. A working implementation needs to be patented. Trade secrets are exactly the wrong solution for protecting a mechanical invention. They're fine for code/algorithms and formulas, but not for anything mechanical.
The right solution is to get as much of the ambiguous detail of one working power plant complete (under the guise of a coal plant or something) and then build in the technology worth protecting immediately upon gaining Patent Pending status. Then, once the plant goes online and produces power successfully, submit evidence alongside the submission of its functionality.
bam, invention protected and secretly implemented all at once.
Said right-wing groups choke money spent on education standards, teach everyone "abstinence only!" when it's not realistic, etc., which results in people having babies because they had unprotected sex and didn't have the education for how to use contraception. Now that babies are born to people who are poor and didn't have the education to know how to reduce the risk of babies from the one act that could take the stress out of their life, they also can't get welfare, medicaid, etc. because "they aren't carrying their fair share," which forces their kids through poverty, shitty education, a lack of contraception knowledge, more babies, and more kids forced through poverty.
Honestly, if hard-right-wingers just said "Hey, we believe abortion is wrong, but use contraception to greatly reduce the risk of having a baby!", they might've actually had some support! But their current stance is "you can't use contraception, and you must take care of anybody you bring into this world on your own. We know you can't help but have sex because it's wired into your brain but screw you anyway."
Independent voter here. I usually vote for moderate Republicans, Independents, or moderate Democrats.
Re:Is minecraft really 'creative'?
on
The Minecraft Parent
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's not whether there's a substantial benefit towards building a certain mindset. It's that the game itself is inherently non-linear, allowing people to explore their own minds when playing.
For us adults who are set in our ways, minecraft might not be as fun as a sandbox as it might be as a player in an environment someone else built, but for a kid who really gives no shits about anything other than fucking around and doing what the mind and heart desire, minecraft is a pretty good playpit.
I'm not even going to waste mod points on this. I'd rather this just sit here at +0 and contribute my points to other, more worthy discussions on other posts.
New Research Suggests Cancer May Be an Intrinsic Property of Cells
No shit, really? Because all the knowledge of cancer-blocking genes (like p53) which trigger apoptosis (programmed cell death) wasn't a giveaway that runaway growth might actually be an intrinsic property of life? The whole point of these genes is to keep cells in a multicelled organism from defeating the ability for a given multicelled organism to live.
but I didn't read the study, so maybe this is saying something that isn't already obvious.
Erm, no one has a right to drive let alone to have a certain amount of alcohol while driving.
Driving is a privilege earned by proving you have significant competence in controlling a two ton missile. It is a privilege revoked once proof exists to justify that you don't have that competence anymore. Adding an additional condition indicative of a lack of competence behind a roadgoing vehicle (regardless of how arbitrary one might think it seems) is within the bounds of the law because driving itself is a privilege.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone who doesn't have a personal stake in the game is naturally inclined to act recklessly. See the decade-ly cycles of recession and depression economies slip into when markets (housing, finance, oil, whatever) forget that someone else's money is still of value and not to be treated with total abandon.
The decisionmakers at ISPs don't have a piece of skin in this fight because they have special classes of access just as a benefit of being where they are within their companies, and they stand to make more personally from making profit-minded decisions. For these reasons, there's very little personal incentive to uphold the moral high ground because the decisions don't have an immediate negative impact on them. They might feel it once they retire and/or if they go to a different industry, but that's after they've made their profit, and it's long after their short-term decisionmaking window.
It's just human nature. We haven't had this trait bred out, and it's doubtful we as a species ever will. The only way to counter short-sighted thinking is by shortening the mental leap between short-sighted decisions and long-term consequences, which is what everyone fighting for net neutrality is trying to demonstrate right now by citing live examples of where a lack of enforcement has already gone wrong (T-Mobile Unlimited Music, Netflix v. Comcast/VZ, etc.)
October 31, 2014, via the Motley Fool:
It would do you well to source timely things, sir.
Traveling Wave Reactor
How would you know if B never sends data back? B is sending junk data just as you are. To an outside observer, the amount of throughput by B would never change even if B sends an actual response.
is to maximize bandwidth utilization with junk traffic between all connected nodes, substituting junk data for legitimate data as needed.
Well, the canadians apparently want him after his time's up here.
:)
Glad to see someone can appreciate all he's done for us.
Disagreed. While not voting is still an active decision, it's not a no-vote. It's a make-everyone-else's-vote-more-powerful vote. Not voting magnifies the group which decides to vote.
The right decision would be to vote for a write-in or a throw-away. You still vote, and if enough people do that in elections where a majority is required, a run-off election might be the end result. This is the preferred outcome as it forces all leading candidates to restate their case and take actual voting metrics into account, potentially changing which groups are catered.
Why would you assume that? If unsure of the meaning of a word, why not just google it?
There's also pipedot.
...yeah, I didn't post the AC comment, but thanks? I'd suppose any admins who care can easily distinguish the two comments as separate, but whatever.
Sure. Soylent News.
I only come to slashdot for the mod points I keep getting, but if that stream stops, I'll quit altogether.
Trade secret? Hell no. A working implementation needs to be patented. Trade secrets are exactly the wrong solution for protecting a mechanical invention. They're fine for code/algorithms and formulas, but not for anything mechanical.
The right solution is to get as much of the ambiguous detail of one working power plant complete (under the guise of a coal plant or something) and then build in the technology worth protecting immediately upon gaining Patent Pending status. Then, once the plant goes online and produces power successfully, submit evidence alongside the submission of its functionality.
bam, invention protected and secretly implemented all at once.
If you as a wireless ISP offer unmetered usage of select services over the Internet, you lose the "our networks are different" argument.
Anyone offering select unmetered services such as music pass access, etc. should be prepared to lose this battle.
He's delivered more than you. :)
Oh, that's easy.
Said right-wing groups choke money spent on education standards, teach everyone "abstinence only!" when it's not realistic, etc., which results in people having babies because they had unprotected sex and didn't have the education for how to use contraception. Now that babies are born to people who are poor and didn't have the education to know how to reduce the risk of babies from the one act that could take the stress out of their life, they also can't get welfare, medicaid, etc. because "they aren't carrying their fair share," which forces their kids through poverty, shitty education, a lack of contraception knowledge, more babies, and more kids forced through poverty.
Honestly, if hard-right-wingers just said "Hey, we believe abortion is wrong, but use contraception to greatly reduce the risk of having a baby!", they might've actually had some support! But their current stance is "you can't use contraception, and you must take care of anybody you bring into this world on your own. We know you can't help but have sex because it's wired into your brain but screw you anyway."
Independent voter here. I usually vote for moderate Republicans, Independents, or moderate Democrats.
Or sue...
We also have similar forms of notation in the English language as well. Case in point:
i18n
They're called numeronyms, and they include Y2K as an example.
You'll lose most of that on Mars anyway. Reduced gravity :)
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...
so please let us hire more overseas. Please?
Pretty Please?
It's not whether there's a substantial benefit towards building a certain mindset. It's that the game itself is inherently non-linear, allowing people to explore their own minds when playing.
For us adults who are set in our ways, minecraft might not be as fun as a sandbox as it might be as a player in an environment someone else built, but for a kid who really gives no shits about anything other than fucking around and doing what the mind and heart desire, minecraft is a pretty good playpit.
I'm not even going to waste mod points on this. I'd rather this just sit here at +0 and contribute my points to other, more worthy discussions on other posts.
I mean, that or just make it such that the case is dismissed if the device fails and no other hard evidence exists.
No shit, really? Because all the knowledge of cancer-blocking genes (like p53) which trigger apoptosis (programmed cell death) wasn't a giveaway that runaway growth might actually be an intrinsic property of life? The whole point of these genes is to keep cells in a multicelled organism from defeating the ability for a given multicelled organism to live.
but I didn't read the study, so maybe this is saying something that isn't already obvious.
Erm, no one has a right to drive let alone to have a certain amount of alcohol while driving.
Driving is a privilege earned by proving you have significant competence in controlling a two ton missile. It is a privilege revoked once proof exists to justify that you don't have that competence anymore. Adding an additional condition indicative of a lack of competence behind a roadgoing vehicle (regardless of how arbitrary one might think it seems) is within the bounds of the law because driving itself is a privilege.
Sorry to burst your utopian bubble there.