Instead, drink beer -- it's been helping ugly people get laid for over 200 years!
No, no, that's when you get the _other_ person to drink the beer. If _you_ drink the beer, then you only THINK you get laid: "I can't remember what I did last night, so I must've had a helluva good time!"
I don't think this is a healthy way to look at things. If you are not "surprised" by such actions, that means that you have acquiesced to such unethical and deceptive behavior and have essentially given your permission for such behavior to be applied to you when possible.
People _should_ be upset and angry when they discover they have been lied to. If most of the members of society tend to punish those individuals/companies/organizations who use such deceptive practices, then the negative feedback will provide some disincentive for that activity.
Well, gee, under a true, pure capitalistic market, I'd be able to hire a group of mercenaries to firebomb people/companies who annoy me by sending me unsolicited commercial e-mails.
Are you really sure you believe that pure capitalism would be best for a healthy society?
"Profit" should be something you earn, by providing a good or service to your customer, not something you're handed on a silver platter by getting laws passed which either give you money (subsidies) or guarantee you artificial monopolies.
Could this thing be scaled up to the point where it could either be used for an airlock (ala Star Trek "shuttle bay" forcefield), or could the mechanism be used inside of space station structural walls in case of emergency to hold the air in until a patch can be applied?
Jeez, what kind of American drinks "pints". It's bottles, cans, or Super Big Gulps. Pints are for furriners or them pantywaist yuppie-types who insist on drinking something besides Bud or Coors.
The unfortunate problem is that the people who have any say in it (ie politicians and business) want to see e-commerce thriving and putting restraints on businesses, like respecting privacy, just isn't in the plan.
Well, not completely - they (politicians & businesses) don't like it when you collect & organize information about THEM (history, legal records, voting records, financial records, advertising records, etc), although they're quite happy to be able to collect such information about you.
It's okay - they replace it with a proprietary blood substitute which actually works better than the original stuff (as long as you keep it under maintenance).
Dunno, I might pay a little to see Micky get eaten by a dinosaur.
Re:Got a whole lotta hype
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
Heh - maybe a good impairment test for using heavy equipment would be for employees to play a quick video game designed to test judgement & reaction. They'd have to meet a minimum score before being allowed to work for that day.
Dunno about these definitions - in my experience (in a not-sexual context) when a woman says YES, she means maybe, NO means maybe and MAYBE means either YES or NO (but you're expected to be able to figure out which one she meant - and if you guess wrong, you'll be in hell for an indefinite period of time).
Almost everyone I've ever talked with who's gotten laser eye surgury has been disappointed with the results.
Really? My (two) relatives who got such surgery rave about how wonderful the results were. Of course, their eyesight before the surgery was so bad that you could've probably done the surgery using sandpaper & ended up with an improvement, but they're definitely happy with the results.
Unfortunately, I'm only slightly nearsighted, so it wouldn't really be worth it for me to have such work done.
The slippery slope argument isn't based on logic - it make sense to people because the scenario it describes the common knowledge that people have about human behavior.
In other words, most people _know_, at a gut level based on observations of other humans, that it's easier to convince somebody to do something if you introduce it to them in incremental steps, especially if the introducees are not aware of the ultimate goal.
Just because the slippery slope argument doesn't satisfy pure logic rules doesn't mean it's not a valid argument.
One of my coworkers related a story like that - apparently, they regularly played audio files on the Sun workstations of their coworkers working at a remote site by logging into the workstation at the remote site & copying the file directly to the sound device.
That practice got stopped when they sent an audio clip with a particularly dirty joke on it, only to find out that a fairly important shareholder was getting a tour of the remote site right at that moment.
The US is not really free of "double jeopardy", in a loose sense - although someone can't be tried for the _exact_ same crime more than once, the US has so many nitpicking laws on the books, that in many cases a very determined prosecutor can usually find half-a-dozen or so laws that are tangentially related to the case (but are technically "different" crimes), or laws that even a law-abiding citizen has probably violated, just to keep someone they consider "bad" in jail.
Selective enforcement of too many conflicting laws is a classic way of controlling undesirables.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, that's when you get the _other_ person to drink the beer. If _you_ drink the beer, then you only THINK you get laid: "I can't remember what I did last night, so I must've had a helluva good time!"
I don't think this is a healthy way to look at things. If you are not "surprised" by such actions, that means that you have acquiesced to such unethical and deceptive behavior and have essentially given your permission for such behavior to be applied to you when possible.
People _should_ be upset and angry when they discover they have been lied to. If most of the members of society tend to punish those individuals/companies/organizations who use such deceptive practices, then the negative feedback will provide some disincentive for that activity.
Well, gee, under a true, pure capitalistic market, I'd be able to hire a group of mercenaries to firebomb people/companies who annoy me by sending me unsolicited commercial e-mails.
Are you really sure you believe that pure capitalism would be best for a healthy society?
What do you do when both choices are "crummy tyrants"?
Ummmm...I don't think that's exactly it's supposed to work.
Supposedly, stimulants like Ritalin are stimulating a part of the brain which regulates other parts of the brain (thereby providing focus).
"Profit" should be something you earn, by providing a good or service to your customer, not something you're handed on a silver platter by getting laws passed which either give you money (subsidies) or guarantee you artificial monopolies.
Could this thing be scaled up to the point where it could either be used for an airlock (ala Star Trek "shuttle bay" forcefield), or could the mechanism be used inside of space station structural walls in case of emergency to hold the air in until a patch can be applied?
Jeez, what kind of American drinks "pints". It's bottles, cans, or Super Big Gulps. Pints are for furriners or them pantywaist yuppie-types who insist on drinking something besides Bud or Coors.
Well, not completely - they (politicians & businesses) don't like it when you collect & organize information about THEM (history, legal records, voting records, financial records, advertising records, etc), although they're quite happy to be able to collect such information about you.
Would discovering that the diamond is fake be grounds for having the marriage annulled?
It's okay - they replace it with a proprietary blood substitute which actually works better than the original stuff (as long as you keep it under maintenance).
I believe this kind of prank has been made against the law, since it covers up potential real danger.
Dunno, I might pay a little to see Micky get eaten by a dinosaur.
Heh - maybe a good impairment test for using heavy equipment would be for employees to play a quick video game designed to test judgement & reaction. They'd have to meet a minimum score before being allowed to work for that day.
Dunno about these definitions - in my experience (in a not-sexual context) when a woman says YES, she means maybe, NO means maybe and MAYBE means either YES or NO (but you're expected to be able to figure out which one she meant - and if you guess wrong, you'll be in hell for an indefinite period of time).
Really? My (two) relatives who got such surgery rave about how wonderful the results were. Of course, their eyesight before the surgery was so bad that you could've probably done the surgery using sandpaper & ended up with an improvement, but they're definitely happy with the results.
Unfortunately, I'm only slightly nearsighted, so it wouldn't really be worth it for me to have such work done.
More likely, he's just killed his changes for any sort of advancement in the judicial system.
Me, cynical?
Except all the unemployed people can't afford the good stuff anymore :-(
Unfortunately, China is quite likely to want to use the Palladium hardware, although they would insist on control of the keys themselves.
The slippery slope argument isn't based on logic - it make sense to people because the scenario it describes the common knowledge that people have about human behavior.
In other words, most people _know_, at a gut level based on observations of other humans, that it's easier to convince somebody to do something if you introduce it to them in incremental steps, especially if the introducees are not aware of the ultimate goal.
Just because the slippery slope argument doesn't satisfy pure logic rules doesn't mean it's not a valid argument.
No problem, since id authentication systems will probably have as many security holes as the other systems that you want to post anonymously about :-)
But what if you are trying to describe the interactions between all of the particles?
One of my coworkers related a story like that - apparently, they regularly played audio files on the Sun workstations of their coworkers working at a remote site by logging into the workstation at the remote site & copying the file directly to the sound device.
That practice got stopped when they sent an audio clip with a particularly dirty joke on it, only to find out that a fairly important shareholder was getting a tour of the remote site right at that moment.
The US is not really free of "double jeopardy", in a loose sense - although someone can't be tried for the _exact_ same crime more than once, the US has so many nitpicking laws on the books, that in many cases a very determined prosecutor can usually find half-a-dozen or so laws that are tangentially related to the case (but are technically "different" crimes), or laws that even a law-abiding citizen has probably violated, just to keep someone they consider "bad" in jail.
Selective enforcement of too many conflicting laws is a classic way of controlling undesirables.
Actually, it might be interesting if legislators are not allowed to make laws about things they _don't_ understand.