I used to think depression was an intrinsic part of my personality, like introversion. Then I started taking Vitamin D supplements and the depression went away. I'm still a misanthropic curmudgeon, but I'm a *happy* misanthropic curmudgeon.
My point is, you don't have to give up the things you like about yourself in order to get over depression. And in some cases it can be as simple as turning on a flourescent light or taking a cheap over-the-counter vitamin.
I'm aware that 'family reasons' is usually management speak for "I think the boss is an asshole"
I always thought it was management speak for "the board realized I'm incompetent and demanded my resignation." Maybe it has a different interpretation in the UK?
And wasting Google shareholders' money asking them to answer requests that they are presumably not paying for.
Re:The reason a "cyber Pearl Harbor" isn't imminen
on
The One Sided Cyber War
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Or maybe because the professianls who do this for a living know something you don't.
Secret evidence is indistinguishable from fabricated evidence. Maybe the professionals who do this for a living are a bunch of frauds collecting fat paychecks for nothing. I have as much proof of my assertion as you have of yours.
Thanks, but replying to Anonymous Cowards who are trolling just encourages them.:-) For the record, there were both a First and Second Edition of AD&D, which I played, and also simultaneously "plain old" D&D in the boxed sets: beginner, expert, etc.
I'm just an observer (not an attorney or prosecutor), but I suggest the hypothesis that the two-tiered system is attributable to prosecutors being lazy and cowardly. The rich and powerful can take full advantage of legal tactics to draw out a trial and delay an inevitable verdict, even when they're guilty as hell. Thus, it is much costlier and more uncertain to prosecute a banker than a hacker. Prosecutors advance their careers and reputations by getting a lot of convictions. Their incentive is to go after the easy prey.
So, the way to fix this mess is to change the incentives for prosecutors so they are motivated to pursue the most harmful crimes, not the ones that are easiest to convict. Easier said than done.
There are a *lot* of books and products for D&D, and I would be surprised if they could scan everything before they uploaded anything. Other game systems that have have taken considerable time to get their entire catalogs online.
This presents an interesting challenge for the D&D design team. They're working on a new edition of D&D (it's in open playtest as they develop it).
Now, the new edition will have to compete for sales against D&D's own back catalog. If their upcoming product doesn't appeal to fans of First Edition AD&D, or Second Edition, Third,or Fourth, then people will just buy and play the old stuff. The next edition will have to compare to the classics or it will fail in the marketplace.
This is a victory for the consumer, who gains real choice.
Guess what, today we can understand those things and so religion is quite literally at odds with modern life.
Some religions are, some aren't. Most of the incompatibility comes from dogma, which varies over time and among sects. It may surprise you to know that several major religious sects support teaching evolution and actively oppose teaching creation.
Sure we dress it up and ignore the ugly parts 'we' don't like but then somebody else decides, hey smiting neighbors is a good thing and justifies it with the Bible or whatever your religious source is.
As if there were never another pretext for war besides the Bible, and all atheists were pacifists. People who want to smite their neighbors will make up a reason to do it, religion or no.
If it ain't based on cold hard facts it has no business governing anyone other than the individual who believes it.
I wholeheartedly agree that other people's religion should not govern me, and by the Golden Rule that also means my religion should not govern anyone else. However, I would point out that the separation of church and state, which you elegantly and passionately summarize here, is itself not based on "cold hard facts." It's ideology. Not all ideology is bad.
In the US Civil Rights movement (which happened before I was born), I believe the sit-in protests were actively breaking the law in that the black protesters were legally barred from entering the place. They knowingly entering and remained in a place they were prohibited. Often this was private property and they stayed there after the property owner demanded they leave.
I would point out that sit-in protests would *still* be illegal: trespassing and disorderly conduct at least (I'm not a lawyer). None they less, they seem to have worked. The laws they were trying to overturn were racial segregation laws.
I'm just trying to explain civil disobedience, not passing judgment on whether DDOS attacks are the equivalent of a sit-in. I haven't decided on that one. But I will say, the sit-in protesters never expected *not* to be arrested.
Wow, I thought the US was the only stand-out / weird-country with anti-evolution nuts in power.
The US is just the squeakiest wheel, because we have an open press and debate our problems for the whole world to see. I can easily believe other countries have plenty of dirty laundry and just keep it to themselves.
From the point of view of a digital stream of data, something you have is indistinguishable from something you are. (Fingerprint scanners are vulnerable to replay attacks.)
Asimov was a smart guy, but also an arrogant ass. There is a huge difference between using science to inform policy (which I admit we ought to do), and putting scientists in charge of policy (which sounds like elitism to me). TFA conflates the two. Knowledge of physics qualifies Krauss (the author) to tell us the best and safest ways to test nuclear weapons, but not to tell us whether a test ban treaty is good foreign policy.
This reminds me of a cartoon. Caption: "What if global warming is a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"
The reason that occurred to me is, here's a case where it makes sense to reduce a pollutant (soot) for public health reasons, even setting the global warming issue aside.
One benefit to the recent legalizations in the US is that it should be much easier to find test subjects and actually study the effects of marijuana. It would be nice to actually have some scientific evidence about the risks instead of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
I don't think alcohol is harmless, yet I drink beer or wine a couple of times a week. With alcohol, some people handle it just fine and others fall off a cliff. From what I've seen, pot is the same way.
While we're splitting hairs, can we also stop people using the phrase "3-D printing?" Printing is a process of putting ink on paper. The more accurate (read, less stupid) term is "additive manufacturing." I guess that's too many syllables for the under-30 hipster crowd (get off my lawn!).
But the fact that you might be able to print them at home has no theoretical bearing on the issue.
It depends on how the legislation is worded. A ban on the "sale" of high-capacity magazines would not be effective, because of the giant, 3-D-printing-shaped loophole. And yet a ban on sales is exactly what the news reports are telling me is the approach Congress intends to take.
Frankly, the whole idea of gun control is on the brink of obsolescence because of 3-D printing.
If I see a light from a cell phone while the show is on, I'll go in and ask you to turn it off until the show is over.
How do you handle it when the theatre is near full and the offender is in the middle of a row?
How do you handle it when the customer declines to get up out of his chair and leave the theatre at your request?
Forgive my skepticism, but the approach you outline here sounds like it would only work on people who are courteous enough not to use their phones in a theate in the first place.
They've suggested it will be so dark and mature that only HBO would air it.
There's a difference between "dark" and "mature." The former absolutely does not apply the latter. Gratuitous sex, violence, and shock value (incest, infanticide, rape, cannibalism, etc.) do not generally make the plot better or characters more engaging.
Most "mature" games, movies, and TV series are aimed at folks who still haven't gotten over the thrill of finally being allowed into an R-rated movie.
Doesn't the fact that the Swiss have a very high rate of gun ownership and the highest life expectancies negate their (idiotic) hypothesis that guns might account for the lowered life expectancies in the US?
No, deaths by firearm are measurable and are included in the report according to TFS.
No one is claiming that gun ownership is shortening average life expectancy. That gun *use* against humans (murder, suicide, and accident) shortens average life expectancy is not a matter of opinion, it's a statistical fact.
The only speculation involved is that there's a causal relation between the level of gun ownership and the level of gun fatalities.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got a radical solution for you, too: shove your snark up your ass and let the adults have a conversation.
I used to think depression was an intrinsic part of my personality, like introversion. Then I started taking Vitamin D supplements and the depression went away. I'm still a misanthropic curmudgeon, but I'm a *happy* misanthropic curmudgeon.
My point is, you don't have to give up the things you like about yourself in order to get over depression. And in some cases it can be as simple as turning on a flourescent light or taking a cheap over-the-counter vitamin.
I always thought it was management speak for "the board realized I'm incompetent and demanded my resignation." Maybe it has a different interpretation in the UK?
And wasting Google shareholders' money asking them to answer requests that they are presumably not paying for.
Secret evidence is indistinguishable from fabricated evidence. Maybe the professionals who do this for a living are a bunch of frauds collecting fat paychecks for nothing. I have as much proof of my assertion as you have of yours.
Some things never change.
Thanks, but replying to Anonymous Cowards who are trolling just encourages them. :-) For the record, there were both a First and Second Edition of AD&D, which I played, and also simultaneously "plain old" D&D in the boxed sets: beginner, expert, etc.
I'm just an observer (not an attorney or prosecutor), but I suggest the hypothesis that the two-tiered system is attributable to prosecutors being lazy and cowardly. The rich and powerful can take full advantage of legal tactics to draw out a trial and delay an inevitable verdict, even when they're guilty as hell. Thus, it is much costlier and more uncertain to prosecute a banker than a hacker. Prosecutors advance their careers and reputations by getting a lot of convictions. Their incentive is to go after the easy prey.
So, the way to fix this mess is to change the incentives for prosecutors so they are motivated to pursue the most harmful crimes, not the ones that are easiest to convict. Easier said than done.
There are a *lot* of books and products for D&D, and I would be surprised if they could scan everything before they uploaded anything. Other game systems that have have taken considerable time to get their entire catalogs online.
This presents an interesting challenge for the D&D design team. They're working on a new edition of D&D (it's in open playtest as they develop it).
Now, the new edition will have to compete for sales against D&D's own back catalog. If their upcoming product doesn't appeal to fans of First Edition AD&D, or Second Edition, Third,or Fourth, then people will just buy and play the old stuff. The next edition will have to compare to the classics or it will fail in the marketplace.
This is a victory for the consumer, who gains real choice.
Also, running a pen-testing tool on someone else's network without written permission is just a dumb move. Even a college freshman should know better.
Some religions are, some aren't. Most of the incompatibility comes from dogma, which varies over time and among sects. It may surprise you to know that several major religious sects support teaching evolution and actively oppose teaching creation.
As if there were never another pretext for war besides the Bible, and all atheists were pacifists. People who want to smite their neighbors will make up a reason to do it, religion or no.
I wholeheartedly agree that other people's religion should not govern me, and by the Golden Rule that also means my religion should not govern anyone else. However, I would point out that the separation of church and state, which you elegantly and passionately summarize here, is itself not based on "cold hard facts." It's ideology. Not all ideology is bad.
In the US Civil Rights movement (which happened before I was born), I believe the sit-in protests were actively breaking the law in that the black protesters were legally barred from entering the place. They knowingly entering and remained in a place they were prohibited. Often this was private property and they stayed there after the property owner demanded they leave.
I would point out that sit-in protests would *still* be illegal: trespassing and disorderly conduct at least (I'm not a lawyer). None they less, they seem to have worked. The laws they were trying to overturn were racial segregation laws.
I'm just trying to explain civil disobedience, not passing judgment on whether DDOS attacks are the equivalent of a sit-in. I haven't decided on that one. But I will say, the sit-in protesters never expected *not* to be arrested.
The US is just the squeakiest wheel, because we have an open press and debate our problems for the whole world to see. I can easily believe other countries have plenty of dirty laundry and just keep it to themselves.
From the point of view of a digital stream of data, something you have is indistinguishable from something you are. (Fingerprint scanners are vulnerable to replay attacks.)
Asimov was a smart guy, but also an arrogant ass. There is a huge difference between using science to inform policy (which I admit we ought to do), and putting scientists in charge of policy (which sounds like elitism to me). TFA conflates the two. Knowledge of physics qualifies Krauss (the author) to tell us the best and safest ways to test nuclear weapons, but not to tell us whether a test ban treaty is good foreign policy.
This reminds me of a cartoon. Caption: "What if global warming is a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"
The reason that occurred to me is, here's a case where it makes sense to reduce a pollutant (soot) for public health reasons, even setting the global warming issue aside.
One benefit to the recent legalizations in the US is that it should be much easier to find test subjects and actually study the effects of marijuana. It would be nice to actually have some scientific evidence about the risks instead of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
I don't think alcohol is harmless, yet I drink beer or wine a couple of times a week. With alcohol, some people handle it just fine and others fall off a cliff. From what I've seen, pot is the same way.
While we're splitting hairs, can we also stop people using the phrase "3-D printing?" Printing is a process of putting ink on paper. The more accurate (read, less stupid) term is "additive manufacturing." I guess that's too many syllables for the under-30 hipster crowd (get off my lawn!).
It depends on how the legislation is worded. A ban on the "sale" of high-capacity magazines would not be effective, because of the giant, 3-D-printing-shaped loophole. And yet a ban on sales is exactly what the news reports are telling me is the approach Congress intends to take.
Frankly, the whole idea of gun control is on the brink of obsolescence because of 3-D printing.
How do you handle it when the theatre is near full and the offender is in the middle of a row?
How do you handle it when the customer declines to get up out of his chair and leave the theatre at your request?
Forgive my skepticism, but the approach you outline here sounds like it would only work on people who are courteous enough not to use their phones in a theate in the first place.
There's a difference between "dark" and "mature." The former absolutely does not apply the latter. Gratuitous sex, violence, and shock value (incest, infanticide, rape, cannibalism, etc.) do not generally make the plot better or characters more engaging.
Most "mature" games, movies, and TV series are aimed at folks who still haven't gotten over the thrill of finally being allowed into an R-rated movie.
No, deaths by firearm are measurable and are included in the report according to TFS.
No one is claiming that gun ownership is shortening average life expectancy. That gun *use* against humans (murder, suicide, and accident) shortens average life expectancy is not a matter of opinion, it's a statistical fact.
The only speculation involved is that there's a causal relation between the level of gun ownership and the level of gun fatalities.
Or I don't consider any of the comments on Slashdot entertaining. :-)