Whereas I would prefer to test the hypothosis and then free any people jailed wrongly if it is false, and not jail them in the first place in case we are wrong.
Remember that whole "innocent until proven guilty." It shouldn't be turned on for somethings and off for others. We live in a liberal society. Liberal of course means "free".
I think of it something like this (and I qualify that I do not like paedophiles). I would presume, being on the web, you live in America. In America the age of consent is around 16 years in most states. That means at 16 people are deemed to be sexually responsible. That means most states should consider that an appropriate age for people appearing in sexually explicit material.
Now in Egypt, Turkey, or Tanzania, where the consential age is 18, you are a bunch of paedophiles, and should not be welcome in there countries. And on the same note in the Philipines and Mexico, the age of consent is 12, which I'm sure you find morally reprehensible.
My point is that all of these people have an age of consent which reflects the ethical attitude of the nation.
There should be discussion about the morality of sexually submissive relationships (when older is taking advantage of younger) and what is a responsible age. But blind moral preachings are inhibiting to proper discourse and progress.
As for when there is smoke there is fire... I presume (using Slashdot) you are a technically oriented person and have access to people's computers for servicing or system administration. I would have a very bizarre view of the world if I thought the porn I found on people's computer reflected their real lives. I'm sure "Mr Jones" has never, nor convinced his wife, had sex with a horse. I can't imagine "Mr Smith" has ever had an orgy, or will ever even have the opportunity. And I'm sure "Mr Brown", even though he like to have a look at pictures of cheerleaders, will never have to opportunity to have sex with a cheerleader.
People have inhibitors. They generally know socially acceptble and unacceptable behaviour. They are also able to seperate their imagined life from their real life. I've often thought of pushing my boss down the stairs, but it will never happen.
Unlike you, I think the majority time there is smoke, there is not fire.
I don't particularly think thing like this *are* important. Yes, I'd much rather discuss those other things, even if you missed the subtlies of my point. However/. is a forum for discussing *this* sort of thing.
I think the point of historical review is to identify at which points mistakes were made. It is not to discuss what could have been but what might have been a better choice. Or to identify how the correct decisions where made. Different historical revision approaches could include functionalist, structuralist, or Great Man interpretations of how decisions where made and whether they were correct. Each would lend there own criticism. Simply because you have nothing to contribute to the conversations doesn't invalidate it. I don't think/. exists for your entertainment, but for a more technical discussion of IT matters. If you are not interested, I would try www.disney.com - I hear there are some nice Pixar movies there.
Interesting actually. As an history major I learnt in one of my early units (on political philosophy actually) different theories of history. They are often decribed in terms of shapes. One of the more popular is 'History as a circle' or cyclical nature of history. It is popular maybe due to the fact that history attempts to explain the human condition and this theory provides a simple way of doing that. Something you may have heard in contemporary discourse is predictions of America's demise - they would liken it to the empirical overreach of Rome or Britain.
It's just crap though (in this humble historian's opinion. I lacks an understanding of the true complexity of these problems... and leads to rediculus pseudo-science. Science should be grounded in facts, not philosophy (except at a very deep level).
It an interesting review. I think the time taking photographs of the physical appearence and screenshots of the specs windows would better have been spent doing some serious comparisons. DVD creation, Photoshop filters and etcetera. I wait for those myriads of others...
I think your signature should read - There are 11 types of people in the world: those whoe know binary; those whoe do not know binary; and those who think they know binary. That's 11 types!
I absolutley agree with you. The teacher, whilst perhaps good at his field of academia, was a lousy paedagogue. The lesson he tried to teach was a good one, if overly authoritarian. However his lesson was taught in the wrong way - through a mandate rather than an explanation. This left the children with an inability to know when encyclopaedias were appropriate.
I would agree and disagree. First of all, being a graduate in Politics and History, I have done plenty of research type essays and treatsies. That's just to qualify. When I tell undergraduates how I mark reference, this is what I tell them. Firstly, anything that is read must be referenced in a bibliography. Why? Because if those texts helped form an opinion they are relevant and thought stimulating. If you don't reference them, and they contributed to the formation of an arguement, then they have plagiarised - not leagally, but ethically.
Secondly, Encyclopeadias are not appropriate sources. They are too brief. However. They provide an important starting point and background. They should not be referenced in footnotes (though first years I am lenient on). Wiki though should never be used as the review process isn't up to scholastic standards. this is especially true for historians when studying such things as the Holocaust.
Encyclopaedias have an important role, but they are background sources, not academic sources.
Which is just crap. Secondary sources are completely appropriate. What is imortant is their source. There are plenty of scholarly peer review journals. The difference between these and Wiki is that Britanica (not the best example) and Lancet (one of the best examples) have a reputation to keep and accountability. They are also intended for the academic institution and therefore are meant to create discourse and objective research. Any person may add to a Wiki and there is little peer review process and a lack of centralisation. I would suggest you ring some of your old Doctors and ask them why they hate Wiki - you've obviously been out of University to long.
I find it a little ironic seeing as at most universities concerned with academic research, the two biggest plagues are generally Wikipedia and Plagarism. Perhaps Wiki is doing academia some good after all.
Because in Australia that is the difference between a law suit and a non-lawsuit. It is one thing to say "Bill Gates is a peadophile" and another to say "I think Bill Gates is a peadophile." (Sorry Bill. To state something happened which didn't opens one up to charges and slander and worse. To say there are rumours is completely different.
There will always be dissenters and people who argue either side til their throats bleed. Facts of life are Slashdot has its user base because its methodology works. Those people who swing left and right are the people that define and effect the middle and hence their opinions are important. I say though, even though I am disgruntled when my stories don't get through, I can often see why. So keep up the good work. The review process is good and based in sound philosophy (I read it somewhere on the site).
I would disagree on a couple of counts. Thanks to the success of Firefox, Safari and Omniweb, as well as Camino, Shiira, and etcetera, I don't think anti-competition issues will arise soon. Besides, they would be providing a standalone browser which could be uninstalled.
Also there are many examples of Microsoft buying and implementing other technologies, rather than write it themselves and this is how a free capitalist market should operate - do the best job for the cheapest process. Maybe people will appreciate people meeting their needs.
As for the money invested, the API's that IE could still be available to other apps. All that has changed is the default browser. Besides, why keep investing in a dog. Just because you put money into something, doesn't provide a reason to continue.
If they did adopt Opera, they would probably implement ActiveX in a style similar to when netscape open IE compatible pages in an IE window, within netscape.
OS integration is not a problem. Basically you continue to provide IE as a set of APIs, that is all the functionality that it previously provided. You take away the wrapper called Internet Explorer. Then everything that uses IE could still, but the default browser becomes Opera.
I think what they mean is that they have found a gene which 'indicates' a difference in IQ in males - not 'affects'. There is a BIG difference between correlation and causation. My fiance wishes me to add, "GET IT RIGHT."
Mostly only apple people read apple.slashdot. We're already all patched up, days before this item came to print. There are no worm, trojans, virii, or etcetera. In short, this isn't news.
If this were microsoft it would be news. Because it is Apple, this is not news.
As it is only Apple people who read apple.slashdot this shouldn't be taken as a flame: This article on slashdot, and the time of oue lives we wasted reading this is evidence of our superiority. We are superior in our decision making process. We are superior in recognising quality. I would even hazard a guess that, due to the efficiency of our time spent on computers, we are better looking (more leisure time for sport, sunshine, and etcetera).
In short - nothing to see here - feel good.
Slashdot Mirror
Whereas I would prefer to test the hypothosis and then free any people jailed wrongly if it is false, and not jail them in the first place in case we are wrong.
Remember that whole "innocent until proven guilty." It shouldn't be turned on for somethings and off for others. We live in a liberal society. Liberal of course means "free".
I think of it something like this (and I qualify that I do not like paedophiles). I would presume, being on the web, you live in America. In America the age of consent is around 16 years in most states. That means at 16 people are deemed to be sexually responsible. That means most states should consider that an appropriate age for people appearing in sexually explicit material.
Now in Egypt, Turkey, or Tanzania, where the consential age is 18, you are a bunch of paedophiles, and should not be welcome in there countries. And on the same note in the Philipines and Mexico, the age of consent is 12, which I'm sure you find morally reprehensible.
My point is that all of these people have an age of consent which reflects the ethical attitude of the nation.
There should be discussion about the morality of sexually submissive relationships (when older is taking advantage of younger) and what is a responsible age. But blind moral preachings are inhibiting to proper discourse and progress.
As for when there is smoke there is fire... I presume (using Slashdot) you are a technically oriented person and have access to people's computers for servicing or system administration. I would have a very bizarre view of the world if I thought the porn I found on people's computer reflected their real lives. I'm sure "Mr Jones" has never, nor convinced his wife, had sex with a horse. I can't imagine "Mr Smith" has ever had an orgy, or will ever even have the opportunity. And I'm sure "Mr Brown", even though he like to have a look at pictures of cheerleaders, will never have to opportunity to have sex with a cheerleader.
People have inhibitors. They generally know socially acceptble and unacceptable behaviour. They are also able to seperate their imagined life from their real life. I've often thought of pushing my boss down the stairs, but it will never happen.
Unlike you, I think the majority time there is smoke, there is not fire.
I don't particularly think thing like this *are* important. Yes, I'd much rather discuss those other things, even if you missed the subtlies of my point. However /. is a forum for discussing *this* sort of thing.
I think the point of historical review is to identify at which points mistakes were made. It is not to discuss what could have been but what might have been a better choice. Or to identify how the correct decisions where made. Different historical revision approaches could include functionalist, structuralist, or Great Man interpretations of how decisions where made and whether they were correct. Each would lend there own criticism. Simply because you have nothing to contribute to the conversations doesn't invalidate it. I don't think /. exists for your entertainment, but for a more technical discussion of IT matters. If you are not interested, I would try www.disney.com - I hear there are some nice Pixar movies there.
Interesting actually. As an history major I learnt in one of my early units (on political philosophy actually) different theories of history. They are often decribed in terms of shapes. One of the more popular is 'History as a circle' or cyclical nature of history. It is popular maybe due to the fact that history attempts to explain the human condition and this theory provides a simple way of doing that. Something you may have heard in contemporary discourse is predictions of America's demise - they would liken it to the empirical overreach of Rome or Britain.
It's just crap though (in this humble historian's opinion. I lacks an understanding of the true complexity of these problems... and leads to rediculus pseudo-science. Science should be grounded in facts, not philosophy (except at a very deep level).
It an interesting review. I think the time taking photographs of the physical appearence and screenshots of the specs windows would better have been spent doing some serious comparisons. DVD creation, Photoshop filters and etcetera. I wait for those myriads of others...
I think your signature should read - There are 11 types of people in the world: those whoe know binary; those whoe do not know binary; and those who think they know binary. That's 11 types!
I absolutley agree with you. The teacher, whilst perhaps good at his field of academia, was a lousy paedagogue. The lesson he tried to teach was a good one, if overly authoritarian. However his lesson was taught in the wrong way - through a mandate rather than an explanation. This left the children with an inability to know when encyclopaedias were appropriate.
I would agree and disagree. First of all, being a graduate in Politics and History, I have done plenty of research type essays and treatsies. That's just to qualify. When I tell undergraduates how I mark reference, this is what I tell them. Firstly, anything that is read must be referenced in a bibliography. Why? Because if those texts helped form an opinion they are relevant and thought stimulating. If you don't reference them, and they contributed to the formation of an arguement, then they have plagiarised - not leagally, but ethically.
Secondly, Encyclopeadias are not appropriate sources. They are too brief. However. They provide an important starting point and background. They should not be referenced in footnotes (though first years I am lenient on). Wiki though should never be used as the review process isn't up to scholastic standards. this is especially true for historians when studying such things as the Holocaust.
Encyclopaedias have an important role, but they are background sources, not academic sources.
Which is just crap. Secondary sources are completely appropriate. What is imortant is their source. There are plenty of scholarly peer review journals. The difference between these and Wiki is that Britanica (not the best example) and Lancet (one of the best examples) have a reputation to keep and accountability. They are also intended for the academic institution and therefore are meant to create discourse and objective research. Any person may add to a Wiki and there is little peer review process and a lack of centralisation. I would suggest you ring some of your old Doctors and ask them why they hate Wiki - you've obviously been out of University to long.
I find it a little ironic seeing as at most universities concerned with academic research, the two biggest plagues are generally Wikipedia and Plagarism. Perhaps Wiki is doing academia some good after all.
Because in Australia that is the difference between a law suit and a non-lawsuit. It is one thing to say "Bill Gates is a peadophile" and another to say "I think Bill Gates is a peadophile." (Sorry Bill. To state something happened which didn't opens one up to charges and slander and worse. To say there are rumours is completely different.
There will always be dissenters and people who argue either side til their throats bleed. Facts of life are Slashdot has its user base because its methodology works. Those people who swing left and right are the people that define and effect the middle and hence their opinions are important. I say though, even though I am disgruntled when my stories don't get through, I can often see why. So keep up the good work. The review process is good and based in sound philosophy (I read it somewhere on the site).
93. Koalas have fingerprints exactly like humans (although obviously smaller).
Finger prints were until this point thought to be unique, however a freak koala finding has rendered much ID hardware useless.
this is the 'non-porn' actual new logos (I think)
1. IE is resurrected
2. RSS
3. Win FS
4. Ray Ozzie 2 Microsoft move
5. MS laughs at the EC
6. No major vendor app purchase
7. MS Security Sucks - Whats the suprise?
8. Office embraces XML, developers blog, and etcetera
9. Marketers are given free reighn - Whats the suprise?
10. Hailstorm (.Net) is reintroduced
So what the article is saying there is only one big suprise - Microsoft is doing something right.
Let the flame war begin...
(I kid)
I would disagree on a couple of counts. Thanks to the success of Firefox, Safari and Omniweb, as well as Camino, Shiira, and etcetera, I don't think anti-competition issues will arise soon. Besides, they would be providing a standalone browser which could be uninstalled.
Also there are many examples of Microsoft buying and implementing other technologies, rather than write it themselves and this is how a free capitalist market should operate - do the best job for the cheapest process. Maybe people will appreciate people meeting their needs.
As for the money invested, the API's that IE could still be available to other apps. All that has changed is the default browser. Besides, why keep investing in a dog. Just because you put money into something, doesn't provide a reason to continue.
If they did adopt Opera, they would probably implement ActiveX in a style similar to when netscape open IE compatible pages in an IE window, within netscape.
OS integration is not a problem. Basically you continue to provide IE as a set of APIs, that is all the functionality that it previously provided. You take away the wrapper called Internet Explorer. Then everything that uses IE could still, but the default browser becomes Opera.
SHIT! I waited half a day for someone to list the download site - and noone did!
If you want to download it, here it is.
I think what they mean is that they have found a gene which 'indicates' a difference in IQ in males - not 'affects'. There is a BIG difference between correlation and causation. My fiance wishes me to add, "GET IT RIGHT."
Dude! I was about to write just that. I thought it was a joke and just about closed the window.
Good for you. Youare a fucking racist.
blah blah blah... Profit!!!
Mostly only apple people read apple.slashdot. We're already all patched up, days before this item came to print. There are no worm, trojans, virii, or etcetera. In short, this isn't news. If this were microsoft it would be news. Because it is Apple, this is not news. As it is only Apple people who read apple.slashdot this shouldn't be taken as a flame: This article on slashdot, and the time of oue lives we wasted reading this is evidence of our superiority. We are superior in our decision making process. We are superior in recognising quality. I would even hazard a guess that, due to the efficiency of our time spent on computers, we are better looking (more leisure time for sport, sunshine, and etcetera). In short - nothing to see here - feel good.